Boycotting the Beijing Olympics: a Response
May 8th, 2008
By Maggie Foucault
Boycotting the Olympics is not going to solve any of the human rights issues in China. The calls for boycotts have only angered Chinese citizens and put the Chinese government on the defensive. When the government becomes defensive, it does everything in its power to control any type of political outburst, however small. This will lead to even more abuses within Tibet and the Xingjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The Chinese government has also used the political unrest in Tibet to create a divide between the Han ethnic group of China- which is the ethnic majority -and the minority groups within China.
I am not trying to dismiss China’s serious human rights issues. Indeed, China has many problems besides Tibet that it needs to resolve. But China has only recently become a world power. If you looked at the United States in a comparable time, say the 1940’s, we were committing our own human rights abuses; segregation and internment camps to name a few. If we go back further, there’s slavery and the slaughter and oppression of Native Americans, two issue that were never adequately resolved. Even now, we can’t forget about the “War on Terror” that has cost the lives of thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis. So by this standard, shouldn’t the United States be barred from holding the Olympics? Or Germany? Or Russia? Or almost every other country in the world?
And let’s not forget about the athletes that are set to compete in the events. They have been training for a sizeable portion of their lives to be able to compete in such a prestigious event. If an entire country is to boycott the Olympics, they are also boycotting their own athletes, many of whom don’t support China’s actions. They are there only to support the true meaning of the Olympic Games.
The Olympics are about physical competition, plain and simple. True, they can be used by countries to promote a more positive image, but promoting a more positive image is not the same as convincing everyone of a better image. You do not have to be ok with the things that China is doing to be ok with the Olympics. Supporting the Olympics is not the same as supporting China.
By this standard, shouldn’t the United States be barred from holding the Olympics? Or Germany? Or Russia? Or most every other country in the world?
But in the big picture, the Olympic Games are a relatively small part of China’s PR campaign, a gargantuan effort that will not be affected by an Olympic boycott. In 2007, China imported $321.5 billion dollars worth of goods to the United States. With the value of the dollar dropping so quickly and the value of the Yuan kept artificially low, China is going to be the only country left with which the United States can afford to trade. This means that the amount of goods China imports to the United States will at least stay the same if not grow. This money from the United States is a big part of what supports China. If people were to boycott Chinese goods (i.e., everything), this could possibly send a message to China. The only problem with that idea is that the United State’s number one import from China is electrical equipment and machinery and since most private citizens don’t normally buy machinery by the ton, it would be nearly impossible to create a mass boycott.
If people want to bring politics into the Olympics, fine, but it cannot be done selectively. We cannot condemn one country while ignoring countless others. If China is going to be condemned for its actions, then the United States, in turn, should be boycotted for its involvement in and provocation of the Iraq war. France should not be allowed to host the Olympics for its treatment of Muslim immigrants.
The best way to get China to turn its record of human rights abuses around: help them, don’t antagonize them. Give them time to get their country of one billion people under control in the wake of massive economic growth. Other international governments need to give them some time but also offer to share some of their past experience. With an economy growing at such a fast rate, it is impossible for a country to be stable in all aspects.
Comments & Discussion
Let’s remember why the boycott of the 1980 Olympics occurred in the first place: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Unless the Taiwan Straits suddenly ignite, there will be no boycott of the Games.
Why, then, is there so much talk of a boycott? The Olympics is a political event as much as it is an athletic one, and as the Olympic committee professes to not make its decisions based on the nature of government in potential host countries (still, it is difficult to imagine an Olympic Games in Rangoon or Pyongyang, not that Myanmar or North Korea would ever solicit the Games in the first place), the paramount political tool is the threat and action of a national boycott. That was the move taken by the American government in 1980, and that was the move taken by the Russian government in 1984. It is a perfectly legitimate means to exert pressure on the host countries, given the immense prestige that the Olympics entails.
The only problem is that to be effect, a boycott has to be widespread. In the present political climate, there will be no boycott, nor frankly should there be one. Personally, I’m of the opinion that China should not have gotten the Olympics (nor should Russia have gotten the 2014 Winter Games), and I also don’t really buy this author’s argument that due to the Native American genocide and the Holocaust, the United States and Germany should be denied the Games - both nations are democracies with a modern general respect for human rights and the rule of law (obviously less so in the case of America).
Hmm… upon re-reading this article, is the author even aware that an Olympic boycott does not necessarily mean an economic boycott? I don’t believe that anyone is calling for a boycott of Chinese goods - A: Such an boycott would be effectively impossibe, and B: An Olympic boycott is a relatively risk-free symbolic gesture, but one which has great moral capital. An economic boycott would just be destructive, for both China and the rest of the world.
Wow, well I really don’t think the French government sanctioned abuse against Muslim immigrants; where as the Chinese government has openly oppressed and brutalized protestors. They’ve also displaced millions of Beijing’s citizens without offering them compensation, for the warped purposes of appearing modern and architecturally competent in front of the world’s gaze.
Tibet is an oppressed nation. They want change. You exact change by drawing attention to situations until they can no longer be ignored.
And to say that boycotting China’s Olympics wouldn’t affect their PR campaign is entirely off base. Now I really don’t think any countries are going to be boycotting the games, but at the same time, with all those cameras pointed their way, we’re one major incident away from an international crisis of unfathomable proportions. What I’m talking about is the Chinese government will be brutalizing and murdering protestors in the lead up to and during the games. Eventually, we’re going to have to openly and more directly denounce that action, just as we have with other instances throughout the world. Obviously there’s incredible danger there given China’s uncompromising demeanor and current status on the economic stage.
I think equating this issue to our slaughter of Native Americans is only empowering this kind of practice. Listen to what you were saying in the last paragraph.
“Give them time to get their country of one billion people under control in the wake of massive economic growth. Other international governments need to give them some time but also offer to share some of their past experience. With an economy growing at such a fast rate, it is impossible for a country to be stable in all aspects”
You can’t use their economic growth to justify unprovoked, Government involved and admitted murder and displacement without compensation.