The Agony of Defeat.....

Lolo Jones, interviewed after her disappointing finish out of the medals in the 100m hurdles, said she could almost feel the gold medal around her neck. That feeling was the closest she would ever come to the Olympic glory she sought in Beijing. Jones was in the lead and pulling away when she hooked her right foot on the ninth hurdle and broke stride, falling from first place to seventh place, from gold medalist to also ran, in a split second. She fell to her knees at the finish line in obvious and understandable misery at this turn of events. She gave a very gracious and even cheerful interview to the NBC sportscaster upon leaving the track, smiling gamely and explaining the facts of life as a hurdler. "It was like racing a car at max velocity. When you hit a curve, you either maintain control or you crash and burn," Jones said. "Today, I crashed and burned. I'm shocked and sad. But I'm happy for the girls." She was the portrait of sportsmanship and dignity during her interview, smiling and hugging the winners as they passed by. Later, the NBC cameras would find her, alone under the bleachers, leaning against the wall, head thrown back, eyes closed tight in frustration and grief, tears streaming down her face. But for the world, she was gracious.

Only moments before, Sanya Richards had tasted similiar dissapointment, after blasting out of the blocks in the 400m and leading the race coming out of the turn. With only 80 meters left, Richards hamstring tightened on her and she dropped out of gear, quickly passed by two other runners and dropped from first to third, again in a mere matter of seconds. Crossing the finish line, she dropped to her knees with the realization that the gold medal was lost. "I don't want to tell you what I'm thinking right now, because it's not positive. I feel so betrayed by my body once again and it's just such a tough break for me. "I have a really strong faith and I know that everything happens for a reason. I just don't know what this one is for. I don't know what lesson I have left to learn."

During her interview after leaving the track following her race, she was asked about taking up the American flag for a victory lap despite the fact that her heart was clearly broken at winning the bronze and not the gold after coming so close. She responded "Its not about me, its about representing my country". After the race, Richards could be found in the bleachers, crying into her cell phone, most likely being consoled by her fiance Eric Ross. She would later accept the bronze medal with a heavy heart.

Both of these women experienced the most crushing of dissapointments. Richards, betrayed by her body once again and losing a gold within her grasp, Jones falling victim to a mental mistake and perhaps losing her one and only opportunity for Olympic glory in life. Both of them handled these moments of globally viewed and recorded defeat with a great deal of courage, grace and even selflessness. It is true that the measure of Olympic greatness is victory, but there is perhaps no more harrowing test of the spirit of a true Olympian than the tast of bitter defeat. Adversity does not build character, it reveals it and these women, even in these terrible moments, exhibited great courage and character while at their lowest point in front of the entire world. I know that for them it is today an immaterial and irrevelant consolation. The Olympics let us vicariously experience the emotions of the contest as they play across the hearts and minds of Olympians like Sanya Richards and Lolo Jones. Watching them hold their heads up and be gracious in one moment and then in another shed bitter, bitter tears, I felt the agony of defeat.

The Thrill of Victory.....

Dawn Harper looked up at the Olympic race results seemingly in stunned disbelief that her dream of Olympic gold had been realized. In the 100 meter hurdles, you've got to clear 10 hurdles and run out the race strong if you want to win. Despite clipping her first two hurdles she remained focused and in firm control of her lane placement and kept barreling toward the finish. When race leader and favorite Lolo Jones stumbled, the door was opened for Dawn Harper and she ran through it.

Despite her bravado and confident talk of running her race in the qualifiers, it was clear when she won that it was purely positive affirmation. The Olympics offer those who watch them the opportunity to vicariously experience total victory by watching the emotions of the contest play across the hearts and minds of Olympians like Dawn Harper. Watching her hold aloft the American flag, her arms upraised and clearly sending praises of thanksgiving to the Almighty for bringing her through, I felt the thrill of victory.

American Truimph

This is the portrait of total victory, a living breathing expression of athletic supremacy. Michael Phelps has been phenomenal thus far in the Olympics, making us proud at every turn. As a former athlete, I enjoy watching the Olympics and the many sports, in part because when athletes win the gold, I can relate to the thrill of victory. I understand the sacrifice, the hours of practice, the pain, the commitment required to become an Olympian, let alone win a medal.
So I am completely impressed with the dominance of Michael Phelps, the unparalleled prowess that is on display each and every time he slips his 6 foot four inch frame beneath the waves.

I am equally impressed if not more so by his demeanor and carriage. It is clear he commands the respect of his teammates and fellow swimmers. He is a team player, cheering on his teammates in the 4x100 relay with tremendous fervor, celebrating triumph with them when they won. His comments to reporters after winning are modest, confidently humble. He's clear that talking smack is unnecessary. He does all his talking in the water. When they won the relay and he roared in triumph, I roared with him. Phelps is an obviously determined individual with a laser focus on what he has come to the Olympics to do. He is supplying thrills and inspiration to Americans back home on his road to a history making 8 gold medal performance. Even more inspirational is watching him do it with class, humility and true Olympic spirit.

Olympic Glory

Cullen Jones, a U.S. freestyle sprint swimmer and now Olympic gold medalist made history at the Olympics when he swam a leg (split of 47.96) in the world record breaking 4x100 m Freestyle Relay along with Michael Phelps, Jason Lezak and Neil Walker. In an Olympic sport that does not appear to boast many swimmers of color, it was a pleasant and gratifying surprise to see this young brother from the Bronx on the team. Even more thrilling was watching him contribute to a world record shattering gold medal performance along with his teammates. The incredible performance of Michael Phelps at this Olympics has understandably overshadowed Cullens presence and contribution, as it has his other teammates, in particular Jason Lezak, who I would argue is the man that won that relay, hawking down from behind Bernard of France to win gold.

Cullen's quiet contribution to victory was heartwarming, thrilling and inspiring. The star power of Phelps shines so brightly that these other stories are getting far less oxygen by comparison, but I hope Black America will take every opportunity following these Olympics to acknowledge and honor Cullen's contribution, committment and outstanding representation of his country and his community.

Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet

By George Friedman (Honorary Political Season Contributor)
This is a timely post with direct relevance to various pro-Tibet protests and campaigns.

China is an island. We do not mean it is surrounded by water; we mean China is surrounded by territory that is difficult to traverse. Therefore, China is hard to invade; given its size and population, it is even harder to occupy. This also makes it hard for the Chinese to invade others; not utterly impossible, but quite difficult. Containing a fifth of the world’s population, China can wall itself off from the world, as it did prior to the United Kingdom’s forced entry in the 19th century and under Mao Zedong. All of this means China is a great power, but one that has to behave very differently than other great powers.

Analyzing Chinese Geography

Let’s begin simply by analyzing Chinese geography, looking at two maps. The first represents the physical geography of China.

The second shows the population density not only of China, but also of the surrounding countries.

China’s geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China’s population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China’s territory — the area west of this coastal plain — is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost.

China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers — barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China’s favor at these points.

(click image to enlarge)

Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region. First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China’s defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process.

The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions.

Beijing’s Three Imperatives

Beijing therefore has three geopolitical imperatives:

1. Maintain internal unity so that far powers can’t weaken the ability of the central government to defend China.
2. Maintain a strong coastal defense to prevent an incursion from the Pacific.
3. Secure China’s periphery by anchoring the country’s frontiers on impassable geographical features; in other words, hold its current borders.

In short, China’s strategy is to establish an island, defend its frontiers efficiently using its geographical isolation as a force multiplier, and, above all, maintain the power of the central government over the country, preventing regionalism and factionalism.

We see Beijing struggling to maintain control over China. Its vast security apparatus and interlocking economic system are intended to achieve that. We see Beijing building coastal defenses in the Pacific, including missiles that can reach deep into the Pacific, in the long run trying to force the U.S. Navy on the defensive. And we see Beijing working to retain control over two key regions: Xinjiang and Tibet.

Xinjiang is Muslim. This means at one point it was invaded by Islamic forces. It also means that it can be invaded and become a highway into the Chinese heartland. Defense of the Chinese heartland therefore begins in Xinjiang. So long as Xinjiang is Chinese, Beijing will enjoy a 1,500-mile, inhospitable buffer between Lanzhou — the westernmost major Chinese city and its oil center — and the border of Kazakhstan. The Chinese thus will hold Xinjiang regardless of Muslim secessionists.

The Importance of Tibet to China

Now look at Tibet on the population density and terrain maps. On the terrain map one sees the high mountain passes of the Himalayas. Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall.

Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland.

The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet.

The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity.

It should be added that the Chinese see the American hand behind this as well. Apart from public statements of support, the Americans and Indians have formed a strategic partnership since 2001. The Chinese view the United States — which is primarily focused on the Islamic world — as encouraging India and the Dalai Lama to probe the Chinese, partly to embarrass them over the Olympics and partly to increase the stress on the central government. The central government is stretched in maintaining Chinese security as the Olympics approach. The Chinese are distracted. Beijing also notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union.

It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies.

A Lack of Countermoves

China has few countermoves to this pressure over Tibet. There is always talk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That is not going to happen — not because China doesn’t want to, but because it does not have the naval capability of seizing control of the Taiwan Straits or seizing air superiority, certainly not if the United States doesn’t want it (and we note that the United States has two carrier battle groups in the Taiwan region at the moment). Beijing thus could bombard Taiwan, but not without enormous cost to itself and its own defensive capabilities. It does not have the capability to surge forces across the strait, much less to sustain operations there in anything short of a completely permissive threat environment. The Chinese could fire missiles at Taiwan, but that risks counterstrikes from American missiles. And, of course, Beijing could go nuclear, but that is not likely given the stakes. The most likely Chinese counter here would be trying to isolate Taiwan from shipping by firing missiles. But that again assumes the United States would not respond — something Beijing can’t count on.

While China thus lacks politico-military options to counter the Tibet pressure, it also lacks economic options. It is highly dependent for its economic well-being on exports to the United States and other countries; drawing money out of U.S. financial markets would require Beijing to put it somewhere else. If the Chinese invested in Europe, European interest rates would go down and U.S. rates would go up, and European money would pour into the United States. The long-held fear of the Chinese withdrawing their money from U.S. markets is therefore illusory: The Chinese are trapped economically. Far more than the United States, they can’t afford a confrontation.

That leaves the pressure on Tibet, and China struggling to contain it. Note that Beijing’s first imperative is to maintain China’s internal coherence. China’s great danger is always a weakening of the central government and the development of regionalism. Beijing is far from losing control, but recently we have observed a set of interesting breakdowns. The inability to control events in Tibet is one. Significant shortages of diesel fuel is a second. Shortages of rice and other grains is a third. These are small things, but they are things that should not be happening in a country as well-heeled in terms of cash as China is, and as accustomed as it is to managing security threats.

China must hold Tibet, and it will. The really interesting question is whether the stresses building up on China’s central administration are beginning to degrade its ability to control and manage events. It is easy to understand China’s obsession with Tibet. The next step is to watch China trying to pick up the pieces on a series of administrative miscues. That will give us a sense of the state of Chinese affairs.

China: The 2008 Olympics as a Major Activist Inroad

Today, this blog is participating in In Solidarity: Global Day for Darfur called by Modern Musings and supported by Black and Missing But Not Forgotten, BlackPerspective.net, Black Women Vote, CEO Mum, Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth, Eddie G. Griffin, Electronic Village, Musings of the Night, My African Diaspora, Regina's Family Seasons, Slant Truth, Take Political Action, The Jose Vilson, Trav’s Thoughts, UltraViolet Underground, Vanessa Unplugged, What About Our Daughters and others.

Analysis courtesy of Strategic Forecasting. Also, be sure to watch the Featured Video on Darfur.
Fidelity Investments has sold off more than 90 percent of its holdings in Chinese state-owned oil giant PetroChina, Fidelity announced in May 16, 2007. Although the company declined to explain the sale, it almost certainly is related to pressure from human rights and religious activists.

Activists argue that, as the primary oil field operator in Sudan, PetroChina is propping up the Khartoum regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur, so putting pressure on PetroChina is viewed as a way to pressure the Sudanese government indirectly. Fidelity's move marks an important strategic turning point in the battle between human rights groups and China over the Darfur region, and sets the stage for a far more powerful strategic thrust that will emerge during the summer -- one in which Darfur activists move from a financial divestment campaign to one focused on the 2008 Olympic Games.

Activists have long sought effective pressure points on China, and the Olympics look to be the answer. More specifically, activists are eyeing the list of Western corporate sponsors that are investing tens of millions of dollars in the Olympics and in companion marketing campaigns designed to run before and during the Olympics.

Olympic sponsorship in 2008 means more than in most past years. For Beijing, giants such as Kodak, Coca-Cola, McDonald's and General Electric are not simply the means to put on a good show; they are integral to its efforts to radically change international perceptions of China and establish its new place in the world. Beijing can control most of the variables that come its way -- the protesters, media investigations into corruption and other potential public relations problems that usually come with hosting the Olympics. And, with the sites chosen and no backup available, it can largely ignore the International Olympic Committee. What Beijing cannot control, however, are the decisions of the games' sponsors and the pressures placed upon these companies in the West.

Through the Olympic sponsors, activists have determined that the year leading up to the Olympics offers a unique opportunity to use market mechanisms to change Beijing's policies. The first Western movement to begin to capitalize on this vulnerability is the Save Darfur Coalition, which turned Sudan into a pariah state with which no Western company will do business only to have its efforts undermined by Chinese state-owned enterprises. Many other issues could have taken this mantle, but it appears that Darfur-focused activists have taken the lead on exploiting Olympics-related vulnerabilities -- and will manage the most effective Western campaign to change China's policies.

The coming year will determine whether activists can actually make Beijing blink. Moreover, it will determine how groups active on issues other than Darfur deal with the likelihood that the more focused Darfur coalition will overshadow their use of this golden opportunity.

Olympic Sponsorship

The decision to become an Olympic sponsor is a strategic one for companies. The price of sponsorship is steep -- estimated at roughly $55 million -- but that pales in comparison to the broader investment these companies make. The largest and most familiar sponsors have attached their most valuable asset, their brands, to the games, and have built long-term marketing plans in which the Olympics play an integral part.

With so much invested, Olympic sponsorship has always brought tension. The 2004 Athens games, which were twice threatened with a move to an alternate city due to poor organization, created stress among investors. Sponsors now have established offices in future Olympic cities, where they work as closely as possible with municipal authorities to ensure that the logistics and setup are on track.

In the years since 2001, when the 2008 games were awarded to Beijing, the games have carried an added political dimension for sponsors. Beijing recruited sponsors not just as sources of money, but as partners, and for large multinational corporations trying to learn how to operate in China the opportunity to work with Beijing was tempting. Those who signed on as sponsors see the success of these games not only as an opportunity to build their market share in the West, but also as a way to increase their presence in China. Beijing also subtly offered improved market access and other preferential treatment to companies that threw in behind the 2008 games.

Beijing, in order to assert itself on the international stage, has spent billions of dollars preparing for the games. It brought in the best stadium architects to build venues and hired Stephen Spielberg to choreograph the opening and closing ceremonies. In addition, the Chinese have razed entire neighborhoods to ease transportation and shuttered industries to clean Beijing's air. If it can be bought, Beijing is buying.

The support and presence of high-profile Western companies provided one thing that Beijing could not buy: legitimacy. The thinking is that the participation of major corporate icons will give a degree of continuity with previous Olympics, and that by extension China will be seen as a modern country rather than a developing one or, more negatively, as the killer of Tiananmen Square, the violator of human rights and the repressor of basic freedoms.

Activists who succeed in portraying corporate sponsors of Beijing's Olympics as supporters of China's behavior would undermine not only the companies' marketing efforts, but also Beijing's plan to use the games as a coming-out party

Darfur

The human rights controversy surrounding the civil war in Darfur has been growing since 1998. Khartoum's operations in Darfur mostly target Christians, and the issue surfaced from the concerns of evangelical Christian organizations active in Africa. By 1999, Darfur had emerged as a mainstream human rights concern, and organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joined religious groups in calling for the United States and other Western governments to impose sanctions on the regime in Sudan.

Sudan essentially was a pariah state by the late 1990s, so it was obvious even at the beginning of the movement that diplomatic pressure on Sudan would be of limited value. Instead, recognizing the country's dependence on its southern oil production -- and on the companies that turn the resource into revenues for the regime -- activists focused on the corporations. With the flight of most Western companies in the first half of this decade, Khartoum, rather than lose its oil revenue, turned to China. Thus, through PetroChina the Asian giant has managed Sudan's oil operations and kept the money flowing into Khartoum.

Beyond the funding aspect, however, PetroChina's entry into Sudan has stood as a major symbol for Western human rights activists, who have come to view state-owned oil and resources companies as the most significant barrier to their ability to use market campaign pressure to change policies in developing countries.

In response to the globalization of corporations' operations and the rise of the World Trade Organization, human rights groups have come to rely increasingly on codes of conduct and other marketplace initiatives, such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, to hold corporations accountable for their activities in developing countries. Western companies in particular are sensitive to allegations that they are complicit in human rights violations. State-owned enterprises abroad, on the other hand, are insulated from these pressures, and have begun to thrive in those places that Western companies dare not operate.

In human rights discussions, this is termed the "parastatal problem." It is the chief unsolvable barrier to successful efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to use corporations as instruments of change in developing countries.

'Genocide Olympics'

Bumping up against the parastatal problem, the Save Darfur Coalition has begun to build toward using Olympic sponsors as leverage against Beijing. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article published in late March, actor and activist Mia Farrow and her husband called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. The threat will fall on deaf ears, as the vogue of boycotting Olympics -- started by U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and re-tried in 1984 by the Soviets -- had no diplomatic effect and only made the boycotters' citizens angry.

The Farrow op-ed, however, contained a more serious threat: As long as China's state-owned enterprises remain in Sudan, the coalition aims to attack Olympic sponsors directly and rebrand the 2008 games as the "Genocide Olympics" (a term first used by Amnesty International to describe China's internal human rights record and the human rights implications of its foreign policy). More sensationally, the coalition threatened to name Stephen Spielberg the "Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing games," a reference to the German filmmaker whose documentary of the 1936 Berlin games glorified the Nazi regime in the broader context of the Olympics. Spielberg now publicly calls for China to change its policy toward Sudan.

The threat to boycott is idle talk, but the threat to change the perception of the games is not. The Save Darfur Coalition includes many of the most talented corporate campaign groups in the world, and the realistic opportunity to change the situation in Darfur is attractive to Western activists of almost all stripes. In addition, the public has a high level of awareness of Darfur as a controversial issue, and most U.S. consumers recognize that China has a controversial human rights record. Sponsors are likely to be sensitive to allegations that they are supporting a "Genocide Olympics" and will take their complaints to Beijing. Given these factors, then, the campaign has an excellent chance of attaining at least some degree of success.

That said, defining "success" is a difficult task. China cannot simply stop the genocide in Darfur with a wave, and it must make a move that simultaneously satisfies its critics, has a chance of changing what is happening on the ground in Darfur and results in China's continued presence in Sudan. (Sudan supplies more than 5 percent of China's oil.) One problem is that China remains one of the last countries with any leverage against Sudan, so it is valuable to activists and governments alike as a point of communication with Khartoum. If pushed too hard, Khartoum could simply open to another state-owned company immune to Western public condemnation, kicking China out. Ultimately, China has few options. It could agree to try to convince Sudan to allow more U.N. and Africa Union peacekeepers into Darfur, but that would end the campaign only if the Save Darfur Coalition agreed that such a deal was sufficient.

In focusing the "Genocide Olympics" campaign squarely on Darfur, however, human rights groups are using a one-time opportunity to achieve a relatively modest goal -- and are passing up a unique moment to effect major change in China.

Falun Gong is another group that appears to recognize the unique opportunity the Olympics offer. This summer, Falun Gong is planning a wave of protests and actions that will bring world attention directly to China's human rights record. Other organizations -- labor, environmental, religious -- also could try to swoop in and use the Olympic moment.

China might be able to manage activist campaigns effectively and relatively peacefully. However, should pressure on internal fronts -- from Falun Gong or other human rights, democracy or free-expression activists -- get too high for Beijing to handle temperately, it could consider using Darfur as a public relations safety valve. Giving in and basically agreeing to work with NGOs on Darfur would satisfy critics by addressing what is for Beijing a third-tier issue.

Here are some things you can do, courtesy of Modern Musings and Dream for Darfur.

All actions sponsored by Dream for Darfur

1. Write to the ambassadors of the US, the UK, Russia and France to the UN. Urge them to help China insist that Khartoum stop its obstruction.

2. Email or call the Olympic Corporate Sponsors.
Send a letter to companies sponsoring the 2008 Olympics, hosted by China. (Dream for Darfur’s email system will let you do this with the touch of a button.)

3. Pledge to turn off the commercials of Olympic Sponsors during the Games. Olympic corporate sponsors have been silent about China’s financing of the Darfur genocide, even as the sponsors are spending billions to enhance China’s image as Olympic host. If sponsors continue to ignore China’s complicity in the Darfur genocide, we will ignore their million-dollar ad campaigns.

4. Write to the UN Special Adviser on Sport for Development and Peace.
Mr. Adolf Ogi represents the UN Secretary-General in contacts with international sports bodies. Tell him you are concerned that the world will gather for the Olympics while the people of Darfur are being slaughtered.

5. Petition the International Olympic Committee.
Urge the IOC to work with the international community to ensure that China uses its leverage with the government of Sudan to help stop the genocide in Darfur, and avoids tarnishing the 2008 Games in Beijing.

Organizations dedicated to ending the genocide in Darfur

• 24 Hours for DarfurSave Darfur
• Darfur Genocide
• Amnesty International
• Eyes on Darfur
• Human Rights Watch
• Crisis Group
• United States Holocaust Museum
• Dream for Darfur