Why an Olympia Boycott is Bad for Human Rights in China March 26, 2008
Posted by philosophyblogger in asia, human rights.Tags: boycott, china, human rights, olympic games, press freedom, tibet
trackback
For the last few months and in particular since the uprising in Tibet in March 2008, voices calling for a boycott of the Olympic Games in China are becoming louder. Many claim that the Peoples Republic of China should not be supported in hosting the Games in August 2008 because of the countries human rights record. But is this actually conducive for the human rights situation in the country? There are good reasons to doubt that.
The Beijing government points out the spirit of the Olympic Games, when trying to prove its right to host the Games. Others see the Games as one of the very few occasions to exert pressure on the one party regime. Both views are right. However, China is very self-reliant and even economic and other sanctions would have little effect on a possible change of the governments position towards freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the death penalty and the right to unrestricted access to the Internet and hence the thoughts of others.
But in fact, China will not compromise its policies for the sake of the Games. On the contrary, the Games are actually an event that can bring China closer into the world and keep it in a position of international engagement and dialogue. By boycotting the Games or its opening ceremony, the only thing achieved is to play public sentiment in China into the hands of the governing party. The mainland Chinese public is proud to host the Games and sees it as a step-stone in joining a global family and the league of “world nations”. Any attempt to boycott the Games will be seen as an attempt by the West not to let China come into that position and not to let its people gain the pride they have been working for so hard in the past years. China was closed for decades and this leaves scares into self-understanding and the view towards the outside world. This deep rooted specialty of the people in the PRC needs time to be reflected upon and to be overcome. A boycott is hence the last thing needed under these circumstances.
As a result, the intercultural dialogue among the public societies will suffer. Dialogue will be further poisoned with distrust and the identity development of the Chinese Nation will experience a drift away from joining international norms and a drift towards looking for a distinction and superiority in certain cultural values.
Of course, not all people in China would share this feeling and there are many in the PRC who support change and support a boycott of the Games. Real change – and this means sustainable change – however will not come about through external pressure and blaming and shaming, but it will come through an opening of the public debate from within the country. Reforms in China need to come from within and need to have its most support from within if they are to have any chance of impact and momentum.
Therefore let us apply caution when shouting at a country that is orienting itself in the world and whose citizens are subject to media control and nationalistic propaganda. Who needs to be engaged is the society in China, not just the government. The Chinese government is much more sensitive to internal public demand then to any pressures from outside. Pressure from outside will mostly result in an increase in the restriction of the media, restriction of Internet access in China, increased propaganda, and hurt public sentiments which plays into the wrong hands.
So your argument is that, because the Chinese people will get propaganda going their direction, we should abandon discussion, protest or expressing our views, thereby letting the propaganda stand unopposed and the propagandists claim a public victory? Here’s a hint about activism: You can’t let what propagandists do sway your mindset very much.
The right of Beijing to hold the games is irrelevant. Their right to hold the games does not give them a simultaneous right to oppress their people, whether Falun Gong, Christians, Muslims, Tibetans, peasant workers, slave workers, sweatshop workers, etc. etc. More importantly, while they have the right to hold an Olympics, and the Olympic Committee has a right to approve Beijing, the rest of us have a right to not be involved in the process. Whether that means athletes not showing up, whole nations boycotting the events, people not watching or buying merchandise, etc., all of it is within OUR rights.
Why wouldn’t China compromise? China has been attempting to win international trust and appeal. They want to expand outwards into new markets. The Olympics are a major symbolic victory in that domain. Using it as a leverage point is a good thing.
I notice that you don’t cite any polls. Admittedly, doing so is fairly difficult given the lack of quality polling in China (as I learned the hard way regarding the Falun Gong debacle), but nonetheless, since your entire argument is premised on what “mainland” Chinese supposedly think, this is a glaring weak point. And even if you had polls, they still wouldn’t be appropriate bases for the claims you’re making. There’s very few polls or studies that establish that a culture will respond to criticism as relayed inaccurately by their government (which may not matter depending on access to alternative media) in a particular way. It is this element of your argument that is so weak: Foregoing a call for justice based not on evidence but on conjecture.
Also: Does what Tibetans think matter?
Acceptance of China and peace with it for the last thirty years hasn’t moved closer to better results. It’s probably actually moved further away. When exactly do we decide that a culture is worth having dialogue with? When do we stop pandering and actually express our opinion, divisive and unpopular as it may be?
Of course real change in China will come from within China. But that is another staggering weakness of your argument. Tibetans and other protesters there are clearly using this opportunity to try to get their agenda through. Clearly THEY estimate that they need Western support and comrades. (All revolutionary or progressive groups generally need backing). So are they wrong? Are their estimations incorrect? Who are you to say that? The key part of their tactic is that it leverages international outrage to give them more political clout. Less outrage, less clout. Less clout, more oppression, more closing of opportunities for change. The math couldn’t be any clearer.
[...] boycott, china, humna rights, olympic games, tibet trackback In response to the article “Why an Olympia boycott is bad for human rights in China“, which argued that an international boycott of the Games in 2008 would play into the hands [...]