Roger L. Simon: Should we boycott the Beijing Olympics?

Apparently Sarkozy is considering it. [Maybe he has better things to do.-ed. Yuck-yuck.] It does seem appealing on the surface since what the Chinese are doing (and have done, of course) in Tibet is execrable. We have been debating on Pajamas Media whether to call for this, not that we matter at all, but still.... The standard "liberal" publications like the NYT and the WaPo will undoubtedly tut-tut, huff and puff and do nothing. Should we? Don't know. I welcome opinions here.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, for reasons of politics and environmental safety for athletes and tourists, the Beijing Olympics are to be avoided like the plague (and I mean this literally).

On the other hand, the more attention China gets, the clearer the picture will be of that country as a political and economic empire on the verge of implosion.

Frank Capra, in his "Why We Fight" series in WWII, used the Axis's own words and images against them. I think a similar case could be made here--let the Chinese bluster and strut, as the crowds choke around them, the water dries up, and the protestors' executed bodies float down the Yangtze. Talk about bad PR.

Consider the '39 Olympics, the notion of the Aryan "Superior Race", and Jesse Owen's 4 Gold Medal refutation of such. There is an eloquence in going into the hearts of repression and showing what free men can accomplish.

I think the best thing the US and the rest of the free world can do is allow their citizens to travel to enclaves of repression and represent the freedom the West stands for. The dialogues that such walking examples kindle may tend to get messy and chaotic in those places, but the point does get across.

They want prestige, they want to be in the world stage; let's not reward their repression and environmental devastation.

A boycott may also incite the kind of rebellion that must take place from within, if that country is to be one day truly free.

My son spent two weeks last summer touring China. My sister has spent the last 15 years working in China.

I want the China Olympics to receive the greatest possible attention for China that can be generated by this year's Olympics.

The filth and the poverty were amazing to my son. And they were only exposed to the "pearls" of China. Just plug-in "China dysentery" into your search engine of choice. No drinkable water. Bottled water questionable. No decent food. Pollution? The air was obviously breathable...the boy survived.

The athletes will be banned from blog posting while they are in country. The question I'm looking forward to receiving an answer on is, how many athletes will decide to decamp prior to their events? And I'm looking forward to the blog carnival of Olympic athletes post the Olympic experience.

I think Sarkoszy is talking about boycotting the opening ceremony only ... and I defy the PRC to expel the French team for that. (Talk about your fiascos.)

I'd certainly encourage Sarkoszy and any other politician (Bush, eg) to boycott the opening ceremonies. I don't think we gain a lot more by boycotting the entire games, and we hurt a lot of atheletes.

Now, if the US were to, say, adopt shaved heads and maroon and yellow robes for their opening ceremony uniform, that would be cool.

I'm sure you mean the '36 Olympics. By 1939, the Germans had of course moved on to other athletic events--you know, like securing the gold medals for Jew-bashing and invading neutral countries.

I'm opposed to a boycott. It is not really "we" who would be boycotting. Rather, we would be forcing American athletes, some of whom have dedicated their lives to this event, to boycott. If individual athletes choose to boycott, I salute them. But we should not be making that decision for them.

We should be asking why the Olympic Committee awarded the location to these brutal tyrants. It's not like the atrocities in Tibet were unknown.

Now that the damage is done, maybe the athletes could all wear shirts saying 'Free Tibet' at the opening ceremony.

China is a very different kind of opponent. First, they haven't attempted much of the kind of rampant imperialism we saw from the Soviet Union. Second, apart from Tibet they really haven't done anything outside their borders-- and for all the new-found outrage about it, Tibet happened decades ago.

I certainly support Tibet's right to independence. And the Chinese people's right to freedom.

I also support freedom from the dictatorships of southwest Asia, both for the sake of the people there, and for our own security here. As always, a "one adversary at a time" approach is best.

Consider also that many of the people who have loudly embraced Tibet as their cause du jour are the same people who wear Che t-shirts. They were apologists for communism yesterday, and they'll be apologists for communism tomorrow. The kind of long-term, strategic opposition that a challenge like China requires is totally foreign to them. Diplomacy, to them, is the game of making tangible concessions in military, political and economic spheres, while grandstanding on symbolic gestures. I'd rather do much the opposite.

Opposition to China requires firm strategic alliances in central, south and east Asia. It requires balancing behavior to play emerging threat Russia against them. It requires a military that is equipped to contain them. And an economy freed to compete with them. Eastern Europe wasn't freed with soundbites and symbolism, and China won't be, either.

Against that, a couple athletes, more or less, makes no difference whatsoever. A principled "who cares" from PJM to the Olympic boycott debaters on both sides will signal that the committment to a free Chinese people -- including the Tibetans -- requires something more than media events and symbolism, on a longer term than the 24 hour news cycle.

I support sustained, tangible action. Anything short of that is dishonest, counterproductive, and foolish.

I'm sure you mean the '36 Olympics. By 1939, the Germans had of course moved on to other athletic events--you know, like securing the gold medals for Jew-bashing and invading neutral countries.

We should be asking why the Olympic Committee awarded the location to these brutal tyrants. It's not like the atrocities in Tibet were unknown.

Boojum, the IOC is the most worthless bunch of amoral crooks this side of the UN. They didn't stop the games after the Israeli athletes were murdered by the palis in Berlin. They sell (at a very high price) this faux purity of amateur athletics that has always been a sham. The only thing I like about the Chicoms hosting this is that it comes at a major pricetag which, unfortunately, will be ultimately borne on the backs of the citizens. While I'm not supporting a boycott per se if any athletes want to participate in this, they should pay their own way.

And yes, the '36 olympics provided a feel-good moment when Jesse Owens excelled, but it didn't impede Germany one iota. And it didn't make the world a better place.

I suppose we'll always have some burning need to keep this silly excuse for a sporting event political: now that we don't have the Russians or East Germans to kick around anymore, we need to make some kind of "statement" against the Chinese.

You can try a boycott for all it's worth but don't expect much. Remember this has been tried many times before (Moscow '80 and LA '84 most prominently) and The Show Has Always just Gone On -- sometimes (see LA) to great and profitable effect. Boycotters don't give themselves much of a chance to respond.

That being said, and given that the modern Olympics have degenerated into a giant marketing fest where professional athletes pull on patriotic clothing to compete for Wheaties box placement, I don't see much of a downside for bowing out. The larger debate in my view is why anyone cares for this insipid charade anymore.

(BTW, Captain Hate: second your vitriol against the IOC, but the Israelis murdered in '72 were in Munich, not Berlin.)

Boycott the opening ceremonies is not productive. Having athletes display Tibetan flags as they walk is appealing. As is carrying banners. What about having 100 or so athletes chant "Free Tibet Now".
Boycotts silence those not on hand. This is a huge opportunity for free people to speak their mind in a politically primitive society. Speak up.

Ouch, thanks for the correction, valjean; as I was typing it seemed odd and I didn't take the time to confirm.

A boycott does sound good, but I think places like China need the light of whatever exposure we can give it. Lift up the rock. World focus on China cannot avoid Tibet, persecuted Christians, censored YouTube, weblogs, etc. It will be interesting to see what, if any, freedom athletes have to mosey around, take pics, blog, etc. If the athletes are going to be limited by the USOC, etc. then going is a big waste of time and of an opportunity to lift the rock.

My thinking matches Boojum's. There is no new information here. Why is something we have known for decades suddenly a problem?

There is a simpler solution.
Make no expenditures spent after today tax deductible.
Previously paid is under the old rules, but al spending paid out after March 26, 2008 is not tax deductible.
Cut further spending by those who have already spent the money to get airline tickets, interior travel, rooms, and tickets for specific events.

March 25, 2008: Should we boycott the Beijing Olympics?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post