Olympic Boycott

Hillary Clinton says George W. Bush should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. Steve Clemons says she's wrong. In the real world, can anyone imagine this making a difference either way, either to US-China relations or to the PRC's human rights conduct? I can't. If we actually tried to ruin the olympics by withdrawing our athletes and trying to get other countries to do the same, that might at least hurt someone's feelings, but it hardly seems worth debating the merits of doing something totally trivial.

Still, in retrospect I really do wish they hadn't given the Olympics to China. It would have been much better to award the games to some other city, for the official rationale to just be that the other city was better on the merits, but then for off-the-record there to be some suggestion in the press that China's authoritarian politics might have played a role. Not that the IOC thinks there should be political criteria! On the contrary, IOC members were so eager to avoid politicizing the games that some shied away from the idea of an inevitably-controversial Beijing Olympics.

It's clearly not viable to have a formal "no human rights abusers shall host the Olympics" rule, but it couldn't hurt for the world's democracies to signal, informally, that a more rights-respecting government would help China achieve the sort of recognition as a great power that it's looking for. But now that the schedule's already been set, it's hard to see any protests as doing anything other than showing how ineffectual the west is in its efforts to prod China to change.

Comments

You don't see why Bush's boycott would have an effect? I take it you have never done business in East Asia.

The Chinese leadership is extremely image, status, and symbol conscious, and they would both notice and take deep offense at Bush's snub. Given their enormous inferiority complex, the consequences of this would, indeed, to sour relations by casting us in a very imperialist light.

That is not to say that we should not do it - sometimes you have to set a moral example, and almost every dictatorship survives by casting itself as constantly under siege by imperialist outsiders. Don't underestimate, though, that this is a pretty important decision.

Posted by Vermando | April 8, 2008 6:23 PM

Your middle paragraph would have been a great idea. Too late now. It seems to me that Olympic boycotts engender plenty of ill will but little positive result. (Remember how the USSR's boycott of our Olympics set off a period of deep national soul searching, as we truly evaluated our country's various foreign policies and their effects on real lives? Me neither.) The Chinese are as patriotic, insular, inclined to mild carping about their government, and resistant to foreigners telling them that they're wrong as we are.

TNR points out that the President doesn't normally attend the opening ceremonies, and doesn't appear to be planning to do so this year, so his boycotting it would be particularly silly. Then the president would be forever required to attend the ceremony so it would be clear he or she wasn't boycotting it. Now they can just not attend, and be traditional, and no one gives a fig.

Posted by deborah | April 8, 2008 6:26 PM

The Chinese leadership is extremely image, status, and symbol conscious, and they would both notice and take deep offense at Bush's snub. Given their enormous inferiority complex, the consequences of this would, indeed, to sour relations by casting us in a very imperialist light.

In that case, you've got to think that having the torch procession turned into a global parade of protest is going to have a pretty profound impact on China. It's a pretty dramatic popular rejection throughout the free world.

I'm not sure that the minor snub of a deeply unpopular US president would add much.

Posted by southpaw | April 8, 2008 6:29 PM

So I was listening to a local radio station and just heard a promo for tonight's O'Reilly TV show. Billo asked an important question:

Tonight on The Factor: Hillary wants to boycott the open ceremonies for the Olympics! But will this cause a recession???

No joke. Still, I'm surprised he didn't ask whether it would embolden the terrorists.

Posted by Jon | April 8, 2008 6:30 PM

Steve Clemons is completely right here. To generalize horrifically, the Chinese people have a real hangover from colonization and react very badly to efforts to perceived affronts to their national dignity. Criticism of their actions in Tibet is already perceived as a threat to Chinese sovereignty. Trying to make the first Chinese Olympics go off the rails in order to punish China for what they are doing in Tibet will only make things worse.

On the other hand, if the goal here is to make ourselves feel awesomely full of moral courage without bearing any real risks or costs, by all means, flip the Chinese the bird.

Posted by alkali | April 8, 2008 6:31 PM

Let's say the Olympics were in the US this year.
How would we react to threats of a boycott to the ceremony or even the whole games as a protest against our war crimes?

Posted by hopeless pedant | April 8, 2008 6:34 PM

How would we react to threats of a boycott to the ceremony or even the whole games as a protest against our war crimes?

Again, you've got to think that major protests in cities around the globe are going to send a stronger message (to China or the US) than political point-scoring by unpopular heads of government, which is easily dismissed.

Posted by southpaw | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM

Hilarious - BUSH should boycott Peking as a sign of his opposition to HR abuses??

Your whole post is surreal. If Washington DC was hosting the Olympics this year, Parisiens would be spraying fire extinguishers at the flame just the same. Pekinese would be joining them if the flame went through the PRC.

Posted by Estrien | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM

In the real world, can anyone imagine this making a difference either way, either to US-China relations or to the PRC's human rights conduct? I can't.

Has Matthew ever heard the term "symbolic measure"? I'll bet he has. He probably just forgot it for this post.

Posted by Al | April 8, 2008 6:39 PM

>Remember how the USSR's boycott of our Olympics set off a period of deep national soul searching, as we truly evaluated our country's various foreign policies and their effects on real lives?

I think all the free Big Macs via the McDonalds contest jump-started our obesity epidemic. Damn those Russkies were clever.

Seriously, if an action at the Olympics is out, then I challenge someone to come up with a better occasion to stage some sort of protest. Mind you, this is one of the rare occasions in which the Chinese people will actually be watching -- with all the media controls the gov't has in place, protests in other forums simply won't be seen by the Chinese public.

Posted by Matt B | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM

I disagree. It's China's time. Millions of Chinese have been working manically for a number of years now to power up their nation's economy, improve their standard of living and reclaim China's position in the world. They've earned this.

The United States, by the way, has 1% of its entire population in prison. And unlike China, it has been busy shooting and blowing up tens of thousands of people half a world away, in a war of aggression. Sheesh.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 8, 2008 6:42 PM

Our government is vastly morally inferior to China's. Shut up, keep your head down and hope something happens to distract everyone and don't wave the hypocrisy flag any more.

Posted by turkey | April 8, 2008 6:44 PM

I proclaim the Games of Beijing, celebrating the twenty-ninth Olympiad of the modern era, to be open.

Posted by the Jintao fellow | April 8, 2008 6:55 PM

I don't think any boycott are going to fix things, but to send heads of state into opening ceremonies while China was in the middle of a vicious crack-down in Tibet would be giving the go-ahead for that kind of behaviour; and make no mistake it would be doing to protect trade and for no other reason.

So if we care about this kind of thing should make it clear that they won't make state visits to countries engaging in egregious abuses (would we have visited China after Tiananmen)? However it needs to be kept in reserve for the really bad stuff (as ridiculous as that sounds).

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 8, 2008 6:58 PM

Couldn't they have just not handed the Olympics to China on the grounds that Beijing is too smoggy to breathe? Can't wait to see the marathon runners spitting black phlegm as they enter the final stretch.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM

hopeless pedant writes:

Let's say the Olympics were in the US this year. How would we react to threats of a boycott to the ceremony or even the whole games as a protest against our war crimes?

I'm not sure which way h.p. thinks this rhetorical question cuts, but in any event it misses the point: the Chinese don't think like we do on these kind of policy issues. Not because they are inscrutable Asians, but because they have had a very different historical experience than Americans have had over the last century and a half.

Posted by alkali | April 8, 2008 7:03 PM

I am going to personally boycott the Olympic games if we get more of the typically idiotic TV coverage. Which network is providing coverage?

Posted by blah | April 8, 2008 7:05 PM

In the minds of the Chinese leadership, as well as most ordinary Chinese, these Olympic-related criticisms of China are part of a continuum stretching back to the humiliation of China by the West during 19th century (e.g. the Unequal Treaties forced on China by the colonial powers). Snubbing the Games won't convince them that they are morally in the wrong, as this would be viewed as a part of a broader program to suppress and humiliate the Chinese people. This view is, unfortunately, reinforced by various real or perceived hypocrisies of the West: compare, for instance, the historical treatment of Native Americans by the US or the current American occupation of Iraq to the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Or consider Western groups' complaints about Chinese industrial development, based on environmental concerns and labor rights, when this model of industrial was exactly what the West had itself successfully pursued.

Posted by cyd | April 8, 2008 7:12 PM

"Couldn't they have just not handed the Olympics to China on the grounds that Beijing is too smoggy to breathe?"

From what I hear, China is planning on shutting down all the nearby factories during the Olympics so the air will be cleaner. Apparently, they can have an economy or they can have the Olympics. But they can't have both.

Posted by fostert | April 8, 2008 7:12 PM

Well, considering the IOC was headed by fascist Juan Antonio Samaranch for 20 years, I can't imagine that organization would suddenly become some defender of human rights.

Posted by More Axe | April 8, 2008 7:15 PM

Actually, not attending the opening ceremony would be a fairly useful diplomatic snub. It's also exactly the sort of "soft power" exercise the left likes to advocate elsewhere. What better way to get the attention of China's leadership than to embarrass them at something they would like to see as a diplomatic triumph?

Posted by James Robertson | April 8, 2008 7:15 PM

To generalize horrifically, the Chinese people have a real hangover from colonization and react very badly to efforts to perceived affronts to their national dignity. Criticism of their actions in Tibet is already perceived as a threat to Chinese sovereignty.

In the same way that criticism of me beating my wife is perceived by me as a threat to my marital harmony.....

Posted by Stefan | April 8, 2008 7:17 PM

I second Dan Kervick. This whole protest thing really reeks.

Posted by RKU | April 8, 2008 7:18 PM

The United States, by the way, has 1% of its entire population in prison. And unlike China, it has been busy shooting and blowing up tens of thousands of people half a world away, in a war of aggression. Sheesh.

To be fair to the US, the difference isn't so great when you consider that China already shot and blew up tens of thousands of Tibetans right next door to them. It didn't have to go half a world away to wage aggressive war, but was conveniently able to attack its neighbor.

Posted by Stefan | April 8, 2008 7:22 PM

argggh... matt, you keep harping on the tired argument lately of "if x (boycott, poverty czar) doesn't solve y, then x shouldn't be done."

sometimes, things have purposes beyond their supposed immediate goals. if the us started and continued pressure on china, this would be a good thing, no matter when such pressure begins.

Posted by c'monnow | April 8, 2008 7:46 PM

China's Tibet policy stinks. That is a given. It stunk even more on the human rights level when Mao was in charge, but paradoxically, Tibetan culture was not as threatened as it is now, with a freer market in China and thus with the consequent Chinese carpetbaggers moving in.

The idea that China "attacked" its neighbor needs to be shaded though. Tibet was part of the Chinese Empire since the 18th C - before the US existed in fact. Tibet managed a de facto but never recognized independence from the Chinese Revolution of 1911 to 1950, when China, having got its house in order after 40 truly horrible years, "reclaimed" it. It did so violently and the values of the regime which did it were diametrically opposed to those of Tibetans. China has been behaving badly since. But neither the Dalai Lama nor any responsible world statesman (including Obama) is calling for Tibetan independence. Provincial political and especially cultural autonomy is the issue. This is threatened as never before, since the Han Chinese are now reaching a significant % of the population. But it should never be imagined that China is going to give up ultimate political control of Tibet. It would take more than a boycott. It would take a major war that neither the Tibetans nor their well wishers are likely to win.

Posted by Estrien | April 8, 2008 7:48 PM

"In the real world, can anyone imagine this making a difference either way, either to US-China relations or to the PRC's human rights conduct?"

Those are the only two metrics? How about the symbolism and the satisfaction a people get by seeing their leaders do the right thing? If immediate, tangible real-world consequences are your only basis for judging the actions of political leaders, then you really shouldn't be writing about politics. Turns out there's a whole world you're missing. Best to stick to the policy wonkishness.

And try this for a thought experiment. Imagine you were to take a poll of the entire party leadership in China of whether Bush should boycott. Do you think the vote would be close? If it matters to them, maybe it does matter to a whole lot of other people, even it bores you.

Most of you live in an alternate reality. America supports the dictator of Egypt and the dictator of Saudi Arabia, and the American government has invaded Iraq. Your dimwittedness about your own government is only matched by your sanctimony.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 8, 2008 8:28 PM

We've already seen how this plays out...the U.S. allowed the Dalai Lama to visit to great official Chinese consternation and then the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group got denied port in Hong Kong.

I agree with Clemons and Matt that there would be no internal change...but it is more promising as a way to gain soft power in the eyes of other nations and rebuild alliances. But Estrien is right, Bush would be a terrible as the vessel for this act given his global standing.

I discuss this in more detail here:

http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/clinton-china-and-change/

Posted by Julio Gonzalez Altamirano | April 8, 2008 8:29 PM

Most of you live in an alternate reality. America supports the dictator of Egypt and the dictator of Saudi Arabia, and the American government has invaded Iraq. Your dimwittedness about your own government is only matched by your sanctimony.

What? We invaded Iraq? Where did you hear that? Thanks for telling me--I never would've found out otherwise. Good thing there are patronizing Europeans on the Internet to set morons like me straight.

Posted by James Gary | April 8, 2008 8:54 PM

Bengt the Swede is being a bit offensive but addressing a real truth. Americans probably think, "well our hard power is both discredited and frayed at the moment, so let's fall back on the old soft power shickt as leader of the free world." What needs to be understood is that the US has NO soft power at its disposal at the moment. Its membership card in the good guys' club has been temporarily revoked. Attempts to apply soft power while the present gang of (re-elected!) war criminals is in charge will even be counter-productive because so obviously hypocritical.

Sorry. Maybe wait until next January and start rebuilding the franchise?

Posted by Estrien | April 8, 2008 9:12 PM

James Gary, glad to be of help. I've seen a lot of this meme of boycotting the games in China.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 8, 2008 9:19 PM

Look, let's set fire to some straw men here. Bengt, no one is suggesting an Olympic athlete boycott. Some people (including HRC) have suggested not going to the opening ceremonies -- HRC isn't alone in this suggestion. Let's not forget that Andrea Merkel isn't going already.

Bengt, it's worth noting that the fuss has come from London, Paris and San Francisco. All three cities have high levels of protest against the Iraq War as well. It's not like your red state citizens are the ones doing civic action here.

It's nice to know that Europeans will never miss a chance to condescend.

It is clear that the PRC has not figured out how to handle PR at the highest level, even with their high levels of public control. They have no idea how their actions are perceived around the world; perhaps they don't care.

Posted by Klug | April 8, 2008 9:49 PM

I love China. It is a country that has long history and delicious food. And I make lots of Chinese friends from a free interracial dating site blackcentury dotcom

Posted by Jessica | April 8, 2008 10:08 PM

It's nice to know that Europeans will never miss a chance to condescend.

Well, Klug, I don't feel like educating you about the world right now.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 8, 2008 10:14 PM

Can anyone provide a link that President Bush intended to go to the Opening Ceremonies? Anyone?

I don't think a US President has ever been to the opening ceremonies abroad. Maybe not even when they're held stateside.

As a place to draw the line, this one seems particularly weird: We've never done it before. We weren't planning to do it this year. And by golly, we're still not doing it! Go us!

Of course, I think the Olympic boycotts are counterproductive and a tad hypocritical, so maybe I should just let the battle wage on over something that is not happening no matter how glowing the rhetoric for and against.

Posted by Deborah | April 8, 2008 10:16 PM

It's not the case, of course, that an American population educated on pick the right answer tests would actually need to have world history or morality explained to them..... I mean, they have that nice, intelligent Mr Bush in charge, and they really do worry about torture.. sometimes...

Posted by jaswant | April 8, 2008 10:30 PM

As I wrote at my blog, this mess is is 100 percent the fault of an out of touch IOC that has chosen to award the Olympics -- again -- to a dictatorship, even when they had perfectly acceptable democratic finalists in Paris and Toronto.

The appearance of Western leaders at the games will be used as a propaganda tool by the Communist Party to the people of China showing them how respected their oppressive government is to the world's leaders. And the Western leaders are caught in a real dilemma ala Jimmy Carter in 1980.

I'm pretty much a free trader and think the embargo against Cuba is one of the dumbest policies in our nation's history, but it would be equally dumb to give Cuba the Olympics and allow them to propagandize their repression to the world, and yet that is exactly what the IOC has done with China.

The absurdity in all of this is the implication that somehow China's policies on Tibet or Sudan have changed since it was awarded the games in 2001 that would justify a reassessment. Of course, nothing has changed.

China has been violating human rights and killing Tibetans on and off since it invaded Tibet in 1950. China has been trading with Sudan and aiding and abetting the genocide in Darfur since before 2001 when the Olympics were awarded to China.

Nations who choose to participate in the Olympic Games need to respect the choice of the IOC, and objections to candidate host nations need to be shared with the IOC before a decision is made. It's inappropriate and unfair to athletes to now decide that China's decades old policies make a boycott appropriate.

Posted by Don | April 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Having the US government boycott the chinese government's little stalinoid fiesta would be of the highest irony. In any case, it ain't gonna happen (we wouldn't want to hurt our Chinese friends' postcolonial feelings)... Point is, a citizens' boycott would be a much better thing anyways. That would mean turning off the tube and not watching any second of the steroid-and-burger show over in Beijing.

Posted by manilow | April 8, 2008 10:56 PM

It's clearly not viable to have a formal "no human rights abusers shall host the Olympics" rule

o really? why not?

what are you trying to say here? let he who is without sin cast the first stone? that's a pretty shitty system for policing behavior.

glad my local constabulary doesn't operate that way - "hey, almost everybody speeds sometimes so it's not viable for us to prosecute anyone for wreckless driving, DUI, etc."

Posted by jethro | April 8, 2008 10:57 PM

Bengt, it's good to know you have a substantive reply.

Posted by Klug | April 8, 2008 11:02 PM

Symbolic boycotts work about as well as symbolic birth control.

Instead of a call for a boycott of the opening ceremony why not ask the American people to boycott Chinese products for the duration of the Olmypic games in solidarity with Chinese workers and people? I guess two weeks of paying attention to what you buy , who makes it, and what the conditions are in that country is too much to ask.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 8, 2008 11:25 PM

The Olympics are a stupid idea, a commercial money-grubbing enterprise, and should have been discontinued decades ago.

Who gives a shit? We have more serious problems than this parade of nonsense.

As for protesting or boycotting China, that's a stupid move. Completely useless, as most boycotts that don't involve most of the world's economies have demonstrated repeatedly. Hypocritical as well, since as others have said, the US is the most aggressive, imperialist state since WWII Nazi Germany. And guaranteed to piss off a country that could sink the US economy on any given day by dumping the US dollars they hold.

You want to boycott someone, boycott fucking Israel. Those assholes started this whole Middle East horseshit with their asinine Zionist program, and on top that they take billions of US taxpayer money, then use it to develop weapons and spy technology to sell to the North Koreans and other asshole states (including the US), spy on the US, then lobby the US to go kill other people for them.

A boycott on a country with a billion people and a rapidly growing massive economy is utterly fucking useless and stupid. A boycott on a tiny country with a few million people who rely entirely on trade for their existence would be more effective.

Boycott Chinese products for two weeks "in solidarity with Chinese workers"? Sure, the Chinese workers will love you for that move...NOT.

Try boycotting the US military-industrial complex for a while instead. Maybe we won't have a war with Iran - which I can guarantee you will piss off China a hell of a lot more than boycotting their crappy goods over a sports tournament. Just remember those dollars they hold which are keeping YOUR economy afloat.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 11:59 PM

SLC, that's your cue.

Posted by 55 | April 9, 2008 12:09 AM

Matt: this is a rare thing, but I found in this post your opinions are reckless and dare I say, pretentious as well. You're not even beginning to take into account what this is doing for the needed morale of Tibetans, Burmese, and Darfurians. For those who think in purely quantitative political terms, it's easy to forget that there are human beings out there that are fighting lonely battles and how much it means that people throughout the world are doing something.

And beyond the unquantifiable effects of morale boosting, it is really injuring China around their image which is an Achilles heel for them. China did not once send a diplomat to Sudan until after Mia Farrow used the phrase Genocide Olympics in a NYT op-ed. Plus most activist groups that are protesting the Olympics are having their web sites shut down by the Chinese government or certain citizens. And the officials are beginning to show that the activists are getting under their skin. this is China's welcome to the Western world.

And whether or not (and it might) get China to do more now, it will play some role in the future. What you dangerously are advocating for here in your blog is for all activists to stop. And I find this not only unfair but I find it hurtful to the activists and the people involved.

the Chinese government greatly values its reputation in the world. In Chinese cultural tradition it is crucial not to lose face. This is indeed a weak point of the Chinese government as Darfur activists have proved with their excellent "Genocide Olympics" campaign.

”I would also add the highly visible protests around the Olympic torch have given great heart to those from Darfur, Burma, Tibet as well as Chinese advocates for democracy and human rights.

”I would further that the protests have been an excellent organizing tool. For instance, the Bay Area Burma activists have organized one of their best protests ever for tomorrow's Olympic torch ceremonies in San Francisco. Organizing is like a muscle; the more you exercise it, the stronger it becomes. The mobilization around the Olympics has provided members, money, and publicity for all the campaigns targeting China.

”The Chinese picked exactly the wrong city in the United States. The San Francisco Bay Area is probably the largest hub of human rights activists in the country. This amuses me greatly. :-)

Best Regards,”

Posted by Bernie Watersmouth | April 9, 2008 12:18 AM

"Couldn't they have just not handed the Olympics to China on the grounds that Beijing is too smoggy to breathe? Can't wait to see the marathon runners spitting black phlegm as they enter the final stretch.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 8, 2008 6:59 PM"

Very true. For the first week I was here, every time I blowed my nose, the tissue became filled with black soot. People who were here through Spring Festival said the air was better (a lot of urbanites go home to visit their families during Spring Festival and thus leave Beijing empty), yet when I came back from the US before most people came back to Beijing and I could feel the air being still fucked up by international standards. Holding it here was a mistake. If the IOC really wanted to hold the Olympics in China, it could have chosen somewhere cleaner like Guilin or Xi'An. Instead, it chose the 72nd most liveable city of the 72 biggest cities in the world. The educated elite who have a stake in the system here talk about how the government is fully committed to getting Beijing ready for the games, yet the underclass here realizes the local government doesn't give a fuck what foreigners will think because they will already be here and will have to spend money here to eat once they get here. All the Beijing municipal government has really done is open a couple more subway lines and force public establishments to change bathroom signs from "WC" to "toilet," "bathroom," etc. because they for some reason think foreigners find WC to be dirty and offensive. Bus stops are all still in Chinese characters. Menus at all but the most expensive places are either all in Chinese or often make no sense when they are translated into English. One restaurant around here has a dish that is translated as "Stir-fried Wikipedia." These Olympics are probably going to be a disaster.

Merkel is a better vessel for a boycott than Bush. Bush hold no respect here and has had his face on diapers here. It's better to just stick with tradition and not attend.

"the Chinese government greatly values its reputation in the world. In Chinese cultural tradition it is crucial not to lose face. This is indeed a weak point of the Chinese government as Darfur activists have proved with their excellent "Genocide Olympics" campaign."

Nobody outside the government knows about the term Genocide Olympics. Most Chinese people, even the most educated ones, don't know that there is controversy over China's support of Khartoum while it commits genocide in Darfur for the janjaweed. The Chinese media market would have to be freer for this to have any real effect. The media is even more tightly controlled in minority areas than in Han-dominated areas, so in all likelihood few, if any, Tibetans, Uyghurs, etc. would find out about any boycott of the opening ceremony. Instead, my Chinese roommate was just watching English-language propaganda on state television talking about how the government heroically put down violent cultist rioters in Tibet and how a Tibetan doctor is now in critical condition for saving a young child from the evil rioters. The idea that there are human rights abuses in China, including in Tibet and Xinjiang, is completely alien to most Han Chinese. Sending a diplomat to Sudan was just a way to get the West and Africans to shut up by handing them some crumbs, not an actual attempt to solve anything.

Posted by Reality Man | April 9, 2008 1:03 AM

No, the Olympics is the best single thing to happen to Chinese modernization and political progress for at least the last decade. The ramifications of the Olympics will be felt for a very long time.

Posted by Korha | April 9, 2008 1:04 AM

"Try boycotting the US military-industrial complex for a while instead."

I'm doing my best, man. Haven't bought a missile system in six weeks!

Posted by kvenlander | April 9, 2008 1:53 AM

Instead of boycotting the Olympics, what do you think of USING the Olympics to empower Chinese and non-Chinese to engage in protest.

What I'm talking about is as follows:

Imagine a scenario where a patch or a ribbon with symbolic meaning is worn by people in Beijing and in attendance, and possibly, even in the Olympics. Foreigners and athletes would be immune to any government censorship, as the cameras would be trained on them. If the Chinese silent protestors were harassed, it would cause a commotion and a big mess, fucking up the Olympics.

We have the opportunity to protest and to allow Chinese protestors to be seen by cameras, and to have all crackdowns in direct, worldwide, public scrutiny.

China will be forced with the choice: tolerate the dissent, or fuck up the Olympics for themselves.

If you're interested, send me an email.

Posted by Hyperbole | April 9, 2008 3:27 AM

I'd support hillary. Love her smile and her confidence. She always has a positive attitude and that is what makes her outstanding. Everytime I signed in the site ***blackcentury.com*** and some men were talking about her and said she is
attractive.

Posted by hereIambaby | April 9, 2008 5:09 AM

The United States, by the way, has 1% of its entire population in prison. And unlike China, it has been busy shooting and blowing up tens of thousands of people half a world away, in a war of aggression. Sheesh.
Posted by Dan Kervick

Han Chinese do not have a crime rate equivalent to America's black thug problem. Not even close. America has a high prison population because we lock up murderers, rapists, armed robbers, domestic assault perps, muggers, home invaders, and drug dealers for long periods of time. You can argue that maybe we need a change in drug laws, but we lock up felons. China locks up dissidents. We would be happy to trade our black thugs for Chinese dissidents and political prisoners. In fact, we would love a deal where we could export violent blacks to any country that bitches about the US having too many people in jail..

And our "aggression" is against deranged Islamoids who are blowing people up and who have a Jihad on against the West and Moderate Muslims. There is no "American aggression" in countries we are in where terrorists and insurgents aren't doing mass deaths...The "poor people" we are shooting and blowing up are for the most part people that richly deserve it..Like the 2400 AQI killed, 550 maimed, and 9,000 captured in just 2007.

********************

Most of you live in an alternate reality. America supports the dictator of Egypt and the dictator of Saudi Arabia, and the American government has invaded Iraq. Your dimwittedness about your own government is only matched by your sanctimony.
Posted by Bengt Larsson

Great to know that many patronizing Swedes support no dictator since they ducked the whole great power thing (What, little Sweden stand up to Soviets or Nazis instead of trading with them?) And abjure any significant global role while happily trading and making money of those abovesaid dictators for the last century. And blame other nations for not being total Boy scouts when fighting the Nazi, Communist democides...or stepping up to stop the Rwandan genocide when they should have because "little moral beacon of scolding others" smug Swedes didn't.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 7:35 AM

Is that the best you have, Chris? How disappointing. The whole "offense because I have no defense" strategy is not supposed to be so transparent. If all you say is true, is the US any less dimwitted or hypocritical here?

BTW, The last Swede on the world stage tried to stop the stupidest war of all time, for which we illegally tapped his phone and set up a smear campaign so we could do it anyway. I know working through international institution is for wusses, but they do actually do stuff.

One of the primary reasons the Rwandan genocide was not stopped was because the USA and France blocked it. Stupid example to bring up, dude.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 9, 2008 8:45 AM

Now now. You do what the US to be able to have the Olympics don't you? We can't go around setting moral standards since we like to torture people and invade countries so we're better off just not talking about them at all. Bush will skip the opening ceremonies and someone will point out that his administration believes torture, spying, and invasions are totally legal so what's his problem.

Posted by Jay | April 9, 2008 9:09 AM

In China, protests related to the Olympics are regarded (by both the leadership and the average person) as anti-Chinese, simply another western insult to the country--and not pro-freedom or pro-human rights. People like Pelosi are generally, or close to universally, regarded as insincere hypocrites. (Remember that the dominant popular reaction to the recent crackdown in Tibet was that the government had been too restrained.) The powerful nationalistic strain in Chinese culture makes overt western pressure either useless or conterproductive in addressing the country's human rights abuses.

Posted by Matt | April 9, 2008 9:21 AM

The US 'aided and abbetted' genocides in Guatemala and other countries so I'm not sure what grounds we have to criticize what China is doing in Darfur.

Posted by Hector | April 9, 2008 9:22 AM

Oh for god's sake:

The double standard/hypocrisy charge is utter rubbish, has always been and will always be!

Unless you personally are in favour of human rights abuses or you equate people with the actions of their governments, which is immoral and stupid respectively, there is nothing hypocritical about such protests.

All that is needed is a principled stance on human rights. If you regard them as universal you will criticize abuses wherever you see them - yeah, it's really that simple, AI and HRW do it, you can do it too.

But maybe you would rather tell a Tibetan human rights protester that unfortunately there is nothing you can do to help, as the US has a patchy record in this regard and oh you just couldn't bear the charges of hypocrisy ....

Posted by novakant | April 9, 2008 9:38 AM

novakant - Unless you personally are in favour of human rights abuses..there is nothing hypocritical about such protests.

Of course there is, when you only make your pathetic protests to feel good about yourself and you plan to do nothing to risk your sweet little protesting ass on changing the situation. Just make little stupid symbolic gestures.

The worst that happened in Tibet happened in dead Lefty silence in the 50s and 60s, as they quoted approvingly from Chairman Mao.

The powerful nationalistic strain in Chinese culture makes overt western pressure either useless or conterproductive in addressing the country's human rights abuses.
Posted by Matt

True. The average Han is enthralled with China's rise to greatness and cares little about what little hand-wringers in the West whine about. If it has any effect, it is only to anger Chinese about outsiders insulting them.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 10:19 AM

novakant - Unless you personally are in favour of human rights abuses..there is nothing hypocritical about such protests.

Of course there is, when you only make your pathetic protests to feel good about yourself and you plan to do nothing to risk your sweet little protesting ass on changing the situation. Just make little stupid symbolic gestures.

The worst that happened in Tibet happened in dead Lefty silence in the 50s and 60s, as they quoted approvingly from Chairman Mao.

The powerful nationalistic strain in Chinese culture makes overt western pressure either useless or conterproductive in addressing the country's human rights abuses.
Posted by Matt

True. The average Han is enthralled with China's rise to greatness and cares little about what little hand-wringers in the West whine about. If it has any effect, it is only to anger Chinese about outsiders insulting them.

Posted by chris ford | April 9, 2008 10:20 AM

In China, protests related to the Olympics are regarded (by both the leadership and the average person) as anti-Chinese, simply another western insult to the country--and not pro-freedom or pro-human rights. People like Pelosi are generally, or close to universally, regarded as insincere hypocrites. (Remember that the dominant popular reaction to the recent crackdown in Tibet was that the government had been too restrained.) The powerful nationalistic strain in Chinese culture makes overt western pressure either useless or conterproductive in addressing the country's human rights abuses.

Exactly. If you want a sense of how the average Chinese citizen feels about Western protests, read this post from Global Voices Online.

Posted by Peter H | April 9, 2008 10:58 AM

When I first about this idea that Bush shouldn't attend the Olympic opening ceremony, I thought the rationale must be that he's an international embarrassment and for the good of the USA we should just try to keep him hidden away until Jan 2009.

And I still that makes a whole lot more sense than trying to protest China's human rights record by withholding the presence of the man who has torn up the Geneva Conventions, shredded the US Constitution, and authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture as official US government policy. The USA's credibility on human rights issues is zero at the moment.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 9, 2008 11:16 AM

The double standard/hypocrisy charge is utter rubbish, has always been and will always be!

Unless you personally are in favour of human rights abuses or you equate people with the actions of their governments, which is immoral and stupid respectively, there is nothing hypocritical about such protests.

All that is needed is a principled stance on human rights. If you regard them as universal you will criticize abuses wherever you see them - yeah, it's really that simple, AI and HRW do it, you can do it too.

I disagree. What you are talking about is only about feeling good, rather doing good in the country where you live, where you can vote, and where you can run for office. It does matter in what country you live if the government in that country does wrong, because it's there you have constitutional mechanisms to do something about it, which you appear (to me) to argue it's perfectly fine to choose not to use and to merely complain about, and demonstrate against, all bad governments equally instead.

Should Sweden have a bad policy, and America would have the exact same bad policy, I would be more responsible for the one in Sweden, unless I had used all the constitutional mechanisms to try do something about it.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 9, 2008 11:35 AM

The basic problem with the proposed boycott of the games is that it cuts two ways. On the one hand the hypocrisy of a tut-tutting US rankles, and China has made enormous progress the last thirty years with regards to the wellbeing of (most of) its citizens. More so, actually, than has the US or indeed most of the West with regards to its own citizenry.

On the other hand, the current government is still too distasteful to support in good conscience, and one can absolutely not fault the protesters from wanting to bring their case into the forefront of public consciousness given this Olympic opportunity.

Posted by BP | April 9, 2008 12:12 PM

I just can't figure out why they chose a dusty, smoggy, sandy, apparatchik-overrun hellhole like Beijing as their national candidate over somewhere like Shanghai or one of the other SEZs. Even a second tier city like Xi'an would have been better.

Posted by Paper Mac | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM

"I just can't figure out why they chose a dusty, smoggy, sandy, apparatchik-overrun hellhole like Beijing as their national candidate over somewhere like Shanghai or one of the other SEZs. Even a second tier city like Xi'an would have been better.

Posted by Paper Mac | April 9, 2008 1:14 PM"

I'm guessing the IOC is just full of fucktards. At least when they decided to hold an upcoming Winter Games in Russia (WTF is it with the IOC and dictatorships that were once communist?) they didn't choose downtown Moscow. Or they could have just not have decided to hold it in China. If they really wanted to hold it in Asia, they could have held it in an Asian democracy.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 2:34 AM