Boycotting Beijing

NOTE: I'm posting a day early because those bastards over at Slate Magazine just put out a story on the same topic, and I want it to be known that they're ripping me off (I wrote this over the weekend). I'm not sure how they hacked in to my computer, but I'll get to the bottom of this. Enjoy!


The recent turmoil in Tibet has brought to the forefront, yet again, China’s abysmal record on human rights and its desperation to cover up said record. Following days of protest and civil unrest over Tibetan autonomy, the Chinese government hurriedly tidied up the messy affair, clearing streets of debris and downplaying reports that over 80 civilians had been killed by Chinese forces (their official report is 16). And to a large extent, their public relations efforts seem to be working (they’ve been removed from the United States’ top ten list for most egregious human rights violators).

This in itself is a sickening display of political pandering. It’s clear that America, and the international community as a whole, tip-toes around China for fear of awakening the beast. They have developed into an economic powerhouse with intimidating military might. From a sheer numbers standpoint, it seems essential that our governments remain on good terms, and for this reason we choose to ignore the repressive regime of Hu Jintao.

What’s more despicable is we are providing this government with our tacit approval by allowing them to host the 2008 summer Olympics. This international event is intended to serve as a display of global goodwill, connectedness, humanity and equality. By allowing China to host the games, and not uttering a word in protest, we have turned them into a PR farce made possible by China’s deeply disturbing habit of employing brutal tactics to silence dissent.

Jintao and his cronies can imprison every journalist, murder every protestor, and the fact remains that the Chinese government represses and/or exploits citizens in the name of progress, illegally detains vocal opponents and crushes potential uprisings with an iron fist. They fund tyrants, provide genocidal governments with advanced weaponry and implicit approval (most notably in Sudan) and are indignant of international pressure to change these practices, let alone intervene.

We have at our fingertips a unique opportunity to tighten the screws on the Chinese. Their international awareness is unprecedentedly sensitive, and it is crucial to this still developing country that the world takes them seriously. If we were to take the lead and even hint at an Olympic boycott, the global community would follow and force the Chinese to make their first ever good-hearted effort to improve their policies on human rights.

To start, they need to play hardball with Omar al-Bashir and the Sudanese government. If China pulled its economic support the Sudanese government would crumble. There would be no more supplies (military or otherwise) to be funneled to the government-supported Janjaweed militias. Al-Bashir knows this, and would fold at the suggestion. In addition, China should be required to send peacekeeping forces to drive the militias from Darfur. Next, China must free imprisoned dissidents and grant greater freedom to journalists. For a government to be legitimate, the people must have access to at least a rudimentary picture of its practices. Finally, China should allow the Dalai Lama to return from exile and should grant Tibet greater autonomy.

We have the power to make this happen with a simple phone call: “Good morning, President Jintao. Take human rights seriously, or we boycott.”

But, as usual, we’re far too short-sighted for such a proposition. For the boycott to work the threat must be real; we must be ready and willing to pull our athletes out of the games, to bar our television stations from airing any portion of them, to prevent any of our journalists from reporting results. But for economic reasons our threat to boycott would be a bluff, and if China called us on it the result would be disastrous.

So, as usual, we’re behind the game. A number of prominent figures have already either officially boycotted or hinted at boycotting the games. Steven Spielberg, originally slated to serve as art director for the opening ceremony, has backed out, saying that he could not in good conscience support the Chinese Olympics. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has urged the European Union to consider boycotting at least the opening ceremony (though in my opinion this would serve solely as a publicity stunt. We must be willing to boycott the games in their entirety). Several international groups reportedly have plans to protest at various sections of the torch lighting ceremony.

In the span of a lifetime, the opportunities to truly stand against injustice and to better the world for future generations are few and far between. This is one of them. And think, it would require no bloodshed, no armed conflict. All it would take would be a unified international voice shouting “we don’t approve of your oppressive government, and we won’t participate in the charade.” True passive resistance.

On the other hand, let’s review America’s record on human rights. We, too, fund governments that have horrifying habits of repressing citizens (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) and genocidal madmen (Saddam Hussein in the ‘80s). We, too, illegally detain citizens (think Guantanamo), spy on citizens (the Patriot Act), and attempt to silence opponents (look at the Scooter Libby scandal).

We didn’t put up too much of a fuss when Nazi Germany hosted the summer Olympics in 1936, which makes me suspect that, despite all of our high-minded rhetoric and efforts to play the global moral authority, we just don’t give a shit.

So maybe an American protest would just be a grandiose display of our own hypocrisy.

You decide for yourself, but Zizzle-Zot,etc. officially boycotts.

Thanks for reading