Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, nearly explicitly invited activism surrounding the 2008 Olympics in China.

Through his defense of the committee's decision to hold the summer games in China, Rogge said “It was right to award the games to China for two reasons. One is that we cannot deny one-fifth of mankind of the advantages of Olympism and
the Olympic games. It’s just not fair to do that. And secondly, we believe that the games are a great catalyst for change for China itself. The games will open up China to the scrutiny of the world, thanks to the 25,000 media being present.”

Of course, Rogge was quick to say that "a boycott doesn't change anything." Anne Applebaum on Slate challenges this assertion as well as takes a fascinating look back at the history of politics, activism & the Olympics.

The article recalls the effectiveness of the boycott of South African athletes in protest of apartheid as well as calls the Olympic Committee out on their complete hypocrisy in "promoting international peace by encouraging healthy competition between nations" when their is such unrest within China itself.

Among the issues at question?

Besides the recent killings of proestors in Tibet, China also has the largest recorded number of imprisoned journalists
and cyber-dissidents in the world, censors the internet (with thanks to Google), and causes widespread environmental damage.

Forget about sports. Try strengthening international relations through supporting international human rights standards.