Would YOU Carry the Torch?

On Sunday, the Olympic torch relay will pass through London, site of the 2012 Summer Games, on its way to Beijing, site of the 2008 Games. Peter Walker, a London-based writer for the Guardian Unlimited, poses this question in his April 4 blog:

"So let's consider this (admittedly unlikely) scenario: you get a call later today asking you to be a last-minute torch bearer. Do you slam the phone down in self-righteous disgust? Agree eagerly as a proud would-be ambassador for 2012? Or take part and arrange to have a friend waiting en route ready to hand you the Tibetan flag and fire extinguisher?"

In case you haven't been following current events, China has been in the news a lot lately, and not only for their attempts to curb air pollution in Beijing, but for its human rights record and the recent military measures taken to suppress protests in Tibet. The word "boycott" is in the air again, although it seems unlikely that the U.S. or any other Western country is going to go so far as to consider boycotting the Olympics, themselves.

Instead, there seems to be an inordinate amount of attention around the torch relay, with protests planned in a number of countries, including the U.S. I happened to be listening to "Talk of the Nation" on NPR last night, and the subject was planned protests in San Francisco when the torch relay passes through that city next month.

So what would you do? The torch relay is supposed to symbolize the common bonds between nations, and whatever you think of its symbolism, isn't that a worthy goal? Or do you feel that by participating, or even by sanctioning the relay, you tacitly sanction the actions of the host country?

And if you do feel that participation in the Olympics should be conditional on every country, and especially the host country, being on its best behavior with regard to human rights, non-aggressive foreign policy, and earth stewardship, which countries would pass the test?

Despite the idealism of both ancient and modern Olympic movements, the Games have never been entirely free of politics -- how could they be? We remember the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and the reciprocal Eastern Bloc boycott of the 1984 L.A. Olympics, but there have been many other boycotts and/or bans based on politics.

In 1956, Spain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands boycotted the Melbourne Olympics to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary. Other countries boycotted due to the Suez crisis. In 1972, African nations threatened a boycott unless the IOC banned South Africa, which it did. Of course, politics and violence intruded on the 1972 Olympics in a much grimmer way with the murder of 11 Israeli athletes by the Palestinian terrorist group "Black September."

Four years later in 1976, 22 countries boycotted the Montreal Games because the IOC would NOT ban New Zealand, a country whose rugby team had toured South Africa.

Until Beijing, it seemed that boycotting and the threat of boycotting had become a thing of the past. The controversy over the torch relays shows that to be false. For better or worse, the Olympics exists in a world of politics and political theater.

Which brings us back to the original question: what would you do if you suddenly got a call to carry the Olympic flame through Boston?