Now that China is about to host the next round of the Olympic Games, it has become subject to increasing international criticism. Such criticism has centered on two main topics: Sudan and Tibet. China has been accused of assisting in the ongoing genocide in Darfur by refusing to cease arms sales to the Sudanese government. Likewise, China has been accused of long-running human rights abuses in Tibet.

The “free Tibet” demonstrations have historically been very peaceful but have recently become more aggressive and violent. The Tibet protests staged across Europe and the U.S. have resulted in near-deaths on a number of occasions. Given that China has become a focus of both the Olympic Games and the international economy, how much criticism does China really deserve?

The international criticism directed at China on the subject of Sudan has been growing since China won the bid to host the Olympic games. The link between China and Sudan is that both have long-standing economic and military ties. The trade essentially boils down to China selling the Sudanese government weaponry and importing nearly two-thirds of Sudan’s oil. According to the international community, China ought to cease such transactions and use its ties to induce peace rather than fuel the conflict. Such beliefs resulted in director Steven Spielberg’s withdrawal from being an artistic adviser to the Chinese Olympics.

Is this criticism justified? At first, it would appear to be, but the timing and the self-righteous tone is ridiculous.

Let us turn the situation around: Imagine if Israel were to host the Olympic Games. Given that the U.S. provides most of the weapons used to commit the overbearing and violent actions of the Israeli government, would the same tone and the same pressures arise for the U.S. from the international community to change the nature of its relationship with Israel? I don’t think so.

So why is it alright to ask this of China? If we agree that genocidal behavior is beyond immoral, then why not turn the light on ourselves and analyze the nature of our diplomatic, military and economic ties? Until this occurs, any sort of criticism hurled at China regarding Sudan is invalid.

Along with these criticisms comes the criticism of China regarding its treatment of Tibet. Tibet was formed in the seventh century but remained under Chinese rule until 1911. Approximately three decades later, the People’s Republic of China was created and subsequently invaded Tibet, reasserting Chinese control over the region. Since then, the Tibetan government in exile, led by the Dalai Llama, has continued to fight for full autonomy. They claim that Chinese actions in Tibet since its takeover in 1950 have been catastrophic and have led to multiple human rights violations.

Even though full autonomy is an extremely important goal for any country, the Chinese takeover of Tibet has for the most part improved Tibetans standards of living. For instance, Tibetans are currently the second-highest-paid workers in China; infant mortality in Tibet has fallen 43 percent since China took over; all highways currently running in Tibet were built by the PRC; and life expectancy in Tibet has risen by approximately 32 years. The list of benefits distributed to the Tibetan people from the Chinese government is rather impressive.