Olympic Boycotts?

Remove all ads!

This is an outgrowth of the Primaries thread but since it has little to do with the primaries themselves I started a new thread. My question is: Should Western Democracies boycott the Olympics or portions thereof as a protest against China's human rights violations?

I'm of several minds. I despise the Chinese cruelty that we so often hear about, and I myself would not go there if you paid me under the current regime. The Chinese government should be made aware of our revulsion at their policies.

That said, China really doesn't give a rat's hind end about our feelings about their internal affairs. While telling them off makes us feel better, I have doubts that it will really make anything better for their victims.

Then we go to the athletes themselves. I hate jocks, always have. But nevertheless, it strikes me as unfair that politicians might have the ability to make a political statement at the expense of some of these athletes, for whom this may be their one and only (or last) chance to get a medal. It's easy to make sacrifices when it's other people who pay the price. Some of the athletes might be willing to make that sacrifice, but others may not.

The other thing is, the IOCC has reps from every country, right? The Chinese human rights violations are not anything new. If the Western countries really had that much of a problem with Chinese policies they should have made that known long before the games got awarded to Beijing. What we have now, IMHO, is blatant political pandering with some politicos using the suffering of Tibetans and others as a springboard to get themselves more airtime. I'm not just targetting Hillary, either. Plenty of politicos from all across the spectrum are doing this and no matter their political orientation it makes me ill.

Edit: I just read the "sealing the deal" thread and probably should have placed this post in there -- my apologies to the powers that be for starting a redundant thread. I'll likely wear the Idiot Plaque for this one.

 

This is a complicated issue, like most others. My opinion is that our best chance to improve the situation in China is to further entangle them with us. To further expose their population and leaders to our values. Involve them in the international community. Already things have changed a lot and they are continuing to change. The Chinese are fiercely nationalist and remember that for hundreds of years they had little to no contact with the rest of the world as they were convinced that they were the be all and end all of civilization and if start to isolate them I am afraid they would revert right back and completely isolate themselves and then the population would suffer even more.

I have met several Chinese people and even if the country is far from a democracy neither is it a reign of terror like they had during the Cultural revolution. It is an evolving society that slowly but surely is moving towards a more open and free system. I prefer that we try to lure them along instead of trying to push them.

As for Sudan which someone mentioned before, pointing out China in business like that is rather hypocritical, pretty much all major powers have or have recently had shady arms deals and businesses with unsavory regimes. They are no worse or better than France, Germany or the US.

The entire Tibet issue is reported in an extremely onesided way here in the west, Tibet is in many ways that matter a part of China and has been for long periods of time during history. When the communists took over it was a rather strict theocracy alá Iran which in many ways were a lot harshes than the communist rule and even though Dalai Lama seems to be an awfully nice man (and probably is one as well) he has barely been in Tibet and is only the leader of one of the many freedom movements in Tibet. What Russia has been doing in Chechnya is a lot worse and the US invasion of Iraq was flagrant breach of international treaties. In that light the naughty stuff China is doing here and there isnt much naugthier than what many other countries are doing and a lot less than many.

I actually think the Olympics can be an oppurtunity to further open up the country, to further involve them into the international community and further erode the "we and them" feeling.

 

What exactly have they done? I've heard about 'destroying Tibet's national identity', whatever that means. I want to know specifics and I want tangible evidence of them doing stuff. Turkey have a worse human rights record in my eyes, but they aren't an emerging super-power so no-one really gives a crap, except Greeks and Cypriots that is....

 

I have to agree with joacqin and barmy here. Its rather hypocritical to point out such faults when those that have been pointing fingers have been involved in the same (if not dirtier) violations.

People have been overly critical of China because it is an emerging power, but it is still very much a third world country with a very recent history of a civil war as well as Western and Japanese imperialism.

 

I don't think I'd go so far as to call China a third world country. In fact, being third world and emerging power seem to be mutually exclusive possibilities. They would also be the only third world country with nuclear weapons capabilities. And the only third world country that is a permanent member of the UN. While the industrialization of China is a fairly recent phenomenon, I'd say China lost its third world status shortly after WWII.

I think the difference (and the problem that many have) with China's civil rights records is that it is being perpetrated on Chinese by Chinese. This isn't some international disagreement. The reason why Tibetans have a problem is that the government considers them as part of China, but does not treat them as if they were Chinese (if that makes sense), but rather like second class citizens.

Acknowledging that, I surely don't think boycotting the Olympics (or the opening ceremonies) is going to make China want to change, or have any impact at all. In that regard, I agree with what joacqin is saying.

 

Personally, I think the whole idea of a boycott is kind of dumb. Boycotts in general, but particularly this case. If the world really had a problem with it, then China should have been denied nomination for hosting the Olympics, or a more robust campaign to protest that nomination should have happened - at least not in significant numbers. I think jaoquin is right in that boycotting them will only give the Chinese more of a "screw you guys, you're no better and we don't care what the world thinks" attitude then they already have. The fact is, most Chinese think the Tibettans are being silly and OF COURSE Tibet is part of China. Most don't know how oppressed the Tibettans really are thanks the Beijing's propaganda machine, and the ones who do know either don't really care or have no interest in speaking out against the government (which is NOT considered a form of patriotism in China, unlike the west).

The key to getting them to change is warming them to western values, which will happen over time and can't be forced. Having them host the Olympics only furthers this cause. It also gives the world an opportunity to learn things about China they may be unaware of - such as Tibet, such as their atrocious environmental policies, etc. - and do what they can to influence change from the outside. Chinese culture is a tough nut to crack, but not impossible.

 

Shortly after WWII, China had a civil war (which resulted in the Taiwan and China split). And then, there was the disastrous cultural revolution. All this within 20 years after WWII. I'd concede that China isin't a third world country anymore, but getting it out of that status shortly after WWII is quite a stretch.

And having nuclear weapons and a permanent seat in UN doesn't mean that China is a superpower (At least not yet). India and Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well and by the looks of it Iran might be joining that list. I have to admit though, it does confound me. How exactly did China become a permanent member of UN to begin with?

 

And I don't consider Pakistan, India or Iran to be third world countries either.

Simple - the same way the other countries became permanent members of the UN. They were on the winning side in WWII.

 

That could be said of the Olympics themselves, in some ways. It is so commercialized, and scandelized (after the Russian fiasco) that the whole "show" has become really quite worthless. Inflicting the Olympics on the Chinese is a pretty good way at getting back at them, IMO.

 

Well, I've never had any interest in the Olympics. It's just one big performance-drug riddled farce. The only thing in the Olympics that isn't unbelievably boring is the 100m sprint, and that lasts all of about 10 seconds. I usually yawn and miss it, though.

 

@Aldeth. China got a seat as a permanent member in the security counsel late in a deal. My memory is shaky but I believe it had to do something whit Taiwan. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Look how long it took for western nations to grow. And now we expect it from china whitin a few years? Just wait until the dinosaurs are dead.

If we want to force them, block trade.

 

I would argue that the reason you see so many charges of performance enhancing drugs at the Olympics is that the drug policy at the Olympics is much, much, higher than in any other sport, professional or otherwise. Last summer Olympics a member of the Romanian gymnastics team was disqualified because she had a cold a took a Sudafed so she could breathe easier. While Sudafed is primarily used as a decongestant (and for making crystal meth), because it is also a stimulant, it is banned.

Actually, the Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of UN. When the Communists took over, they declared themselves the People's Republic of China (PRC). The ROC was exiled to Taiwan. However, up until 1971, the ROC was still regarded as the official Chinese government as far as the UN was concerned. So while the current Chinese regime was not the government represented at the UN from the start, some group representing China has always been present at the UN.

 

Thats because when WWII ended, the Nationalist party was in power. After the civil war, the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan and the Communist party took over China as well as inheriting the UN seat (something similar happened; Russia replaced Soviet Union when it collapsed).

 

But the Communists didn't actually take the seat until 1971.

Check out the wiki link.

 

Yes, I know the Communist party didn't take the seat right away although I didn't know the exact year.

 

Bashing China is a cheap shot. The campaign against them evil Red Chinese commies will yield nothing. Today I was stopped by a blonde Buddhist, a convert, who tried pimp the Tibetan cause to me. Oh dear. He got somewhat riled up when I replied that I give a rats ass about Tibetan independence - what concerns me much more than their borders is that Tibetans enjoy the same individual human rights as Chinese do in China. Not to mention that the latter is a much more realistic cause.

I presume the US wouldn't take the threat of secession of California or Arizona too lightly, and that's not even half as long a part of the US as Tibet was a part of China. Before 1912 Tibet was last independent in 1240. That is a thing one should keep in mind.

China is still suffering the trauma of their weakness towards the West and the following civil war that destroyed Chinese unity. In Chinese tradition unity of the realm means peace, prosperity and stability. That is the reason why China clings to Tibet and to Taiwan. For them the 50something years Taiwan's going solo and the three decades of Tibetan independence are a brief phase of weakness in their four millennia of history.

What China has done was to simply breed the Tibetans out of Tibet by sending in Han settlers to pacify Tibet. They did so in a very ham fisted way - a strategy exacerbated by sending only the most hard line apparatchiks as governors to Tibet. Today, the Han are usually better qualified and hold most of the cool jobs in Tibet, and they tend to look down at the Tibetans, who are the rubes or prols. All that is a guarantee for unrest. That said, without the Chinese settlers Tibet would be a high altitude desert with yaks, farming and monks, the main export probably prayer mills and orange scarfs. With all their flaws, it still took the Chinese to modernise the country. That is no endorsement btw.

The status quo-ante that blonde Neo-Buddhist wanted to see restored would be of 1912 vintage when the Tibetans had a brief flirt with nationalism in a phase when China was in disarray. Needless to say, restoration would also imply a theocracy. What the Chinese have already restored is the status quo-ante, say 1911-minus vintage. They want to keep it that way.

 

Thank you, Juan Antonio Samaranch! About 8 years ago, when the decision was made to put the games in China in the first place, other cities, such as Toronto were passed up because Samaranch wanted his legacy to be to brig the games to China. This a mere decade after Tienanmien Square. Samaranch also abused his influence to put his lap dog in as IOC chair after he retired. This corruption lead Canadian anti-drug crusader, Dick Pound to resign in disgust.

Actually, China couldn't have picked a worse time for this to surface, as the eyes of the world will be on their nation. Maybe one billion people are fine with what they do, but the other 5 billion are able to climb on a moral high horse and condemn this to create a political firestorm in someone else's back yard...

 

Is it just me who thinks that Dick Pound should have tried to become a porn star? Wouldn't that be one of the best porn star names ever?

It is the worst possible time, although I seriously doubt that it is mere conincidence that it is happening now. (You seem to be suggesting such.) The Chinese certainly didn't pick this time, and I think it is far more reasonable to assume that the protests are happening because China has the Olympics. The protests didn't just happen to occur in 2008 and - darn the luck - the Chinese are hosting the Games this year.

 

At first it was the Russians, and now the Chinese!

To use the games as an lever for the protest is nothing but that!

A mean to somehow set China under "pressure" for whatever agenda!
But I don't think that they really care about the games (the Chinese that is, or the ones that want to sabotage the games)

The Chinese couldn't care less! They have nothing to prove to the world!
They have their way and it works! Just look at the economic boom!

The boycott of the games will only damage the Olympian spirit and not the Chinese!
Nor will something this minor sway the regime!

The West needs another bogeyman and now that the Russian lay crumbled before the west, the Chinese take their place!

 

The only ones who will suffer from a boycott are the sportsmen preparing for it, that and west's foreign relations with China. China won't change simply because we want it to change, the change needs to be internal. Boycotting the Olympics would be a waste of time.

I don't like this line of argument though. Finland was last independet before 1917 about the same time as Tibet, does that mean that our annexation to Soviet Union after a loss in say Winter War would have been acceptable on historic grounds, or was perhaps the de facto conquest of the Baltic States acceptable on those grounds? I think the people there/here disagree. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that Tibetian independence is a very unrealistic, there is the point however that Tibet is culturally very different from the rest of China and the people would quite clearly prefer to be independent. If China is ever to be somekind of a democracy Tibet needs at the very least significant autonomy, or else the development will be quite impossible.