ღ開●心ღ

No One Benefits from Full-Scale Olympic Boycott

By Josh Peter, Yahoo!

Storming the streets of cities around the world, protesters have followed the Olympic torch on its way to Beijing and demanded China address human rights issues. Many of those shouting through bullhorns, waving Tibetan flags and trying to snuff out the torch call for nothing short of a full-scale boycott.

“If the Olympics go ahead and China celebrates, what message are you sending to the world and other countries?” said Nyunt Than, president of the Burmese American Democratic Alliance in San Francisco, a group that has endorsed a boycott of the Games. “That it is OK to use the Olympics as a cover-up to hide your atrocities and bloodshed being committed all over the world? We are letting China get away with crimes against humanity by letting the Olympics move smoothly.”

Such talk has been met with widespread resistance, and from voices as diverse as President Bush and Amnesty International, the human rights group that has excoriated the current administration for everything from the U.S. role in Iraq to the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Neither Bush nor Amnesty International are calling for a full-scale boycott. Neither are any other Western leaders or prominent human rights groups. That, in turn, has raised a question.

Why not?

Why, as demonstrations in the streets have escalated, have world leaders and human rights groups avoided seriously considering boycotting the games? A host of experts and former Olympic athletes cite the following reasons:

ECONOMICS

Global leaders have denounced the Chinese for having exported tainted products such as pet food and children’s toys with elevated levels of lead. But jeopardizing China’s role as a major trade partner could devastate the global economy.

For starters, China purchased $65 billion of American-made products in 2007, and U.S. consumers snatch up more than $100 billion per year of products made in China. Giving up inexpensive products made overseas is one thing, but finding someone to buy billions of dollars of American products is another.

In 2001, China secured membership to the World Trade Organization – an international group designed to monitor and encourage open trade – despite its record of overlooking poor working conditions that fell short of international standards. It signaled recognition of China’s growing economy, which in terms of size ranks second behind the United States and rivals that of the entire European Union. The Chinese also have become a major trading partner for Japan, and its economic influence as a buyer and seller of goods is expected to increase.

“The attitude towards China is not one of confrontation, but one of engagement for economic gain,” Jon Eguia, a professor of politics at New York University, wrote in an email. “A boycott does not fit this pattern.”

Or as Ho-fung Hung, a professor of sociology at Indiana University, observed, “I think realistic economic interests will overwhelm human rights considerations in world leaders’ calculations. These interests are particularly essential now provided that China seems to be the only bright spot of hyper-economic growth amidst the dark cloud over the global economy.”

POLITICS

The bloody crackdown in Tibet is a flashpoint for longstanding critics of China’s human rights record. But experts say that while the Chinese government falls short of what is expected in an open and democratic society, it has made incremental progress toward political liberalization.

Perhaps more importantly, as China has emerged as a world power, Western countries have forged political ties, collaborating with the Chinese on issues such as anti-terrorism and the threat of nuclear weapons in North Korea.

“The U.S. is unlikely to jeopardize these more important matters of a symbolic gesture,” Yan Sun, a professor of political science from New York University, wrote in an email.

Though recent protests have targeted China, the United States has its own problems in the international community. The war in Iraq has drawn worldwide criticism and, experts say, could make it difficult for America to claim the moral high ground.

“The war is extremely unpopular globally, perhaps as unpopular as China’s actions in Tibet and certainly with far more consequences internationally,” said Scott Kennedy, director of Indiana University’s research center for Chinese politics and business. “It’s not to praise China or justify China’s human rights policies. But if you get into that kind of gamesmanship, I’m not sure what that will achieve.”

A boycott would alienate more than China’s government, according to Sun, the political science professor from NYU.

“Any form of boycott will be offensive to the one billion-plus Chinese people, including not only those at home but also diaspora communities abroad,” he said.

HISTORY

By most accounts, the U.S. Olympic boycott in 1980 and the Soviet Olympic boycott in 1984 failed to achieve their goals. President Jimmy Carter barred U.S. athletes from competing after the Soviet Union refused to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan. But the Soviet military remained there until 1989.

The Soviets and other Eastern bloc countries retaliated with their 1984 boycott in hopes of undermining the Olympics held in Los Angeles. Yet measured by TV ratings and profits, the 1984 Olympics stand among the most successful ever.

Those looking for evidence of boycotts as an effective tool can turn to South Africa and apartheid, toppled in large part because the international community cut off trade and funding to the country. But galvanizing a united front against China would be far more difficult, according to Kennedy, the Asian studies expert from Indiana University.

“In South Africa, you had a regime that maintained a political system and social system which was universally seen as retrograde and not acceptable,” he said. “It was not a country as integrated into the global community. It was relatively easy to ostracize South Africa.

“China is a country which has a lot of things that are quite problematic and troubling. But it’s in the middle of substantial change. China today is not Mao’s China. It’s not a country that’s standing still. It’s in the middle of transformation, and there are a lot of people in the world that recognize that and see the glass in China is half full.”

ATHLETICS

Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev applauds the parade of teams during the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics in Moscow on July 20, 1980.

After the 1980 boycott, U.S. athletes emerged as undeserved victims. Human rights groups that otherwise might show little interest in athletics now recognize this part of the equation.

“We believe the Olympic Games are an amazing opportunity for athletes, and we want them to have that opportunity,” said Amy Elizabet, a former board member of Students for a Free Tibet.

But some athletes who were part of the 1980 U.S. Olympic team say those groups are missing the larger point: It’s not what the athletes were denied, but what the world was denied. The Olympic Village, where more than 10,000 athletes from countries around the world live during 2½ weeks of competition, fosters greater understanding, according to members of the International Olympic Committee such as Anita DeFrantz.

DeFrantz points out she is the daughter of a civil rights worker and, as a result, developed a keen understanding of the value and importance of protest. But she emerged as one of the most vehement critics of the 1980 boycott – not just because she was a rower on the U.S. team, but because she had competed at the 1976 Games in Montreal.

“It made me believe that peace in the world was possible,” said DeFrantz, who won a bronze medal in 1976 and is the first woman to represent the United States on the IOC. “I wanted to believe it before. Then living in the Olympic Village, I realized it was possible.

“When you live in a community of successful people and you can sit down at any table and share a meal and talk with anyone about experiences at the Games, you know that peace in the world is possible and, indeed, more likely than not.”

Ron Neugent, a swimmer on the 1980 U.S. team, still expresses awe at what he experienced during an international meet a year later. After the competition, he said, two of the Soviet Union’s top swimmers fraternized with a handful of American swimmers.

“We were in one of the swimmers’ hotel rooms, just kind of sitting around, shooting the breeze,” Neugent said. “They were telling jokes about their government (policies), and I was just shocked because you had this image of the Soviet Union’s athletes basically being robots.

“I came to the conclusion after that that people throughout the world are the same. We just have a different style of leadership. That’s one of the great aspects of the Olympic Games, the cultural exchange that goes on.”

PROTEST

A full-scale boycott would be a rebuke against China, and political observers predict the Chinese would retaliate. But countries pressed to protest China’s action in Tibet have found less severe ways to do so. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will not attend the opening ceremony. Others, including Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are urging President Bush to follow suit, while protesters have seized on another opportunity to express discontent.

As the torch made its way through London, Paris and San Francisco last week, thousands poured into the streets. While China hoped to bask in the glory of an 85,000-mile torch relay, the so-called “Journey of Harmony” instead has spotlighted controversy surrounding the country’s oppressive history.

“There’s some question as to what would be the effect of a full-on boycott,” said Daniel Kaye, executive director of the International Human Rights Program at UCLA. “The trend since Tiananmen Square in 1989 has been an engagement with China.

“I think there’s a sense (among some governments) that China has made some progress on some issues pertaining to human rights and rule of law, and they’ve made enough progress not to deserve a full-on boycott. And then second, and this may be the more important issue, is it would be seen as punishing athletes as a way that would be unnecessary. …

“These are athletes from all over the world, and many of whom will go on to positions of leadership. They have this opportunity (at the Olympics) to see and experience other cultures and to break down barriers. It’s not like you see a policy outcome the next week. But certainly for these (athletes), it changes the view of who they are.”

That, Kaye suggested, is part of why human rights groups and Western countries see subtle pressure as a more effective means to bring about change in China. Even Than, president of the Burmese group that has called for a full-scale boycott, said there is value to negotiating with the Chinese.

“I believe we need to have all sorts of strategies,” Than said. “You don’t need everybody calling for boycott at the same time.

“It closes the door for China to act.”