AS THE 2008 OLYMPICS approach and China’s power on the international stage grows, the world is taking a careful look at China’s foreign policy. Specifically, many activists and scholars in the United States are critically examining China’s relationships with authoritarian regimes such as Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Sudan.

This examination has led to a “Chinaphobia” of sorts: Many activists call the Beijing Olympics the “genocide games” because of China’s links to the regime in Sudan. Right-wingers stuck in a Cold War mentality are painting China as the new Soviet Union. The latest political crackdown in Zimbabwe and the failure of the Burmese junta to permit aid to Cyclone Nargis victims is only adding more fuel to the fire for activists to assert that China is responsible for massive human-rights abuses around the world. A year ago, China’s relationship with Burma was scarcely mentioned. Indeed, Beijing had its hands full dealing with Darfur, Tibet, and environmental activists, among others. But after the monk-led Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis, China’s relationship with the Burmese junta has come under the spotlight.

China and Burma have a 20-year relationship of mutual benefit. During the 1990s China sold nearly $2 billion of arms to the junta and provided other critical economic support, which has let the Burmese military double from 1988 to over 400,000 personnel. In return, Chinese businessmen and government leaders received access to Burma’s many natural resources, including jade, teak, natural gas and oil. China was also allowed to develop military bases along the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea.

The strong Burmese-China relationship continues to date. China is still Burma’s largest arms supplier. Officially, China is Burma’s second biggest trading partner, behind Thailand, but official trade statistics regarding Burma are notoriously unreliable, discounting the huge black-market economy that dominates the China-Burma border. A Chinese state-owned oil firm is currently building a natural-gas and oil pipeline from western Burma to Yunnan, in southern China.

In the wake of both the Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis, China had an excellent opportunity to improve its international reputation by taking a stand against the Burmese junta. But instead China chose to fall back on its vaunted policy of “non-interference” in the affairs of its allies, alienating the Burmese community and infuriating Western countries. Rather than facilitate a coordinated international response, China used its seat on the U.N. Security Council to prevent any meaningful international action.

But the Chinese will have to answer to critics of their Burma policy as the Olympics approach over the next few weeks.

On Aug. 8, 1988, a huge uprising against the military dictatorship commenced inside Burma. At one point during the 8-8-88 uprising, as it is popularly known, a million residents in Rangoon (now called Yangon) took to the streets. In response, the Burmese junta gunned down over 3,000 unarmed demonstrators and jailed thousands of others. Imagine Tiananmen Square on a much larger scale.

The opening day of the Olympics happens to fall on the 20th anniversary of this massacre. The people of Burma will commemorate it, paying respect to those lost 20 years ago. Additionally, Burmese will remember those lost in last year’s Saffron Revolution and the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who have yet to receive aid after Cyclone Nargis.

Meanwhile, China will be having its big coming-out party to mark its “peaceful rise.” It is a cruel coincidence that the Chinese will celebrate while the Burmese are left to mourn the loss of those who died under the hands of the tyrants who still rule the country.

However, the reign of Burma’s dictators does not have to continue. Bejing can and should use its leverage over the junta to force Burma to liberalize. Such a move would win widespread international acclaim and mark a move in spirit with the Olympic Games. China could, for example, demand the release of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi or compel the junta to open up for a full-scale international aid operation inside Burma.

Unfortunately, China is unlikely to do so, falling back on its stated policy of non-interference in the affairs of its allies. “China will continue to develop its friendly cooperative relations with Myanmar based on the five principles of peaceful coexistence, including non-interference in each other’s internal affairs,” said Chinese Premier Wen Jibao in 2006.

But China has another, more promising option: By nudging Burma’s leaders toward more political and economic freedoms, à la Chinese-style, Beijing could gain international praise and keep economic and military interests in Burma intact. China could build bridges to future Burmese leaders who will eventually replace the military junta that has repeatedly demonstrated its brutality and incompetence.

By mindlessly protecting the junta, China inflames international opinion, creates resentment of the Chinese inside Burma, and keeps the door open for full-scale protests that could topple the Burmese junta and leave the Chinese without much future influence over the country.

As the Olympics in Beijing come closer, international activists and Western governments will continue to hound the Chinese government on its policies in Darfur, Tibet, Burma and elsewhere. But by liberalizing its policy toward Burma, Beijing could quell some criticism, burnish its international image, and provide an avenue for a more positive relationship with Western governments.

Patrick Cook-Deegan is a regional coordinator for the U.S. Campaign for Burma.