Gideon Rachman makes an excellent point on the idea of boycotting the Olympics in China this summer:
[…] But now that the Chinese have been awarded the games, I think it would be an even bigger mistake to boycott them. Much as the West would insist that the boycott was aimed only at the Chinese government, it would be both portrayed and percieved as an insult aimed at the entire Chinese people. The great task of international relations over the next generation is going to be managing the rise of China. Picking symbolic fights - and so whipping up Chinese nationalism - is the wrong way to go about things, I think.I was living in South-East Asia, when China made its first failed bid to get the 2000 Olympics. That rejection - in favour of Sydney - sparked fury even among many “Overseas Chinese”, who saw the snub as a deliberate effort to humiliate China. The Chinese chose not to bid for the 2004 Olympics - apparently it was an unlucky year. (Something to do with the Chinese word for “four” rhyming with death?) So there is a huge amount riding on 2008.
And a huge amount that could go wrong naturally, what with a marathon run in the Beijing smug, the situation in Tibet and the presence of the American president. President Bush has been foolish enough to accept an invitation to the Olympics - which means that if something does go awry, he will be on the spot and dragged into events.
I have no opinion on a boycott of the Olympics nevertheless I think that it would a petty and insignificant act. Further, it is an easy and show-offish to a complicated situation that requires bolder solutions. If the goal is to send a message about human rights, why not do something that will have the most impact, why not have the chutzpah to call for a boycott of all Chinese goods and to stop diplomatic relations with China? The West wants to have both ways, it has become addicted to cheap Chinese goods so it is looking for other ways to prove and to assert their moral superiority of the Chinese by reminding them that they may be an economic power, but that they are still a dictatorship. The point is that all of this talk of boycotting the Beijing Olympics is meaningless because it affirms the West’s insatiable appetite for cheap goods and its lack of courage to put its money where its mouth. I think it is far worse to pretend that human rights mean more than commerce by taking grand but meaningless such as the boycott of sporting event than to admit one’s weaknesses and to admit shamefully that the West is willing to sell its soul for cheap stuff.
