Olympic Boycott: Heads of State and Athletes Weigh Their Options

World leaders have many reasons to make them consider boycotting the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. But if activists are looking for moral champions, maybe they should focus on athletes instead.

China, with the blood of Tibetans on one hand and Darfurians on the other, is facing mounting calls for world leaders to boycott the Olympics. Today, Poland's prime minister announced his decision not to attend, joining his colleague, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who announced his own boycott yesterday. On Tuesday, Nicolas Sarkozy openly discussed the possibility of boycotting the opening ceremonies. And as the EU meets tomorrow to discuss China and Tibet, various member nations are weighing their options:

A boycott of the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games is being discussed as a leverage point in Austria, Belgium, Britain, and France – to be determined by how China handles the frustrations of its Tibetan minority.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has "left open the option" of boycotting the ceremony, Germany has blocked talks with China on economic development, and Britain's foreign secretary, David Miliband, says that Tibet demonstrations will be authorized as the Olympic torch is carried through London on April 6.

Prince Charles, a friend of the Dalai Lama, had already decided in January not to attend the opening ceremony, he said, in a letter to a human rights group.

The issue of a boycott raises complicated questions about the relationships between Europe, America, and China. Bush has made it clear that he will attend the Games and views them strictly as a sporting event - though clearly they are more than that. But a number of American activists have expressed their unease regarding China, notably Steven Spielberg and Mia Farrow.

Regarding the internal American debate on the issue, I have several concerns. One is that, as many anti-boycott voices point out, the US does not necessarily have the moral authority to judge China at this point - to paraphrase the Gospels, take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbor's. With Guantanamo, serious and widespread allegations of torture, and illegal occupation in Iraq underway, the US' human rights record - never lily-white to begin with - has been severely tarnished.

Another concern is that I do not want calls for a boycott to feed into xenophobia and isolationism. Americans have long feared China, dating back to the nineteenth century and laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. During the past few years, a number of politicians including Democrats have targeted China on issues like toxic toys. With an economic downturn in this country and leaders and citizens casting about for a scapegoat, we may see even greater rage directed at China. Calling for a boycott should not offer an excuse to peddle hatred and feel smug about ourselves as a "bastion of freedom."

A third concern is that a boycott cannot become an extension of the Bush administration's logic of not talking to people we don't like. We have to live in the world - and speaking as someone who wishes the US would engage with Iran, engage with Hamas, and engage more fully with Putin, I cannot support policies that shut down dialogue.

That doesn't mean, however, that dialogue and engagement can't be complex. A boycott, after all, is a symbolic action, thus allowing for a degree of flexibility. This, I think, is why some European leaders are talking about boycotting the opening ceremonies, and not the whole event. You get your message across, but you still keep the lines of communication open. And you put the onus on the other guy to respond.

However, the issue doesn't just exist at the level of geopolitics. Any discussion of boycotts should also take the athletes into account, because they may be uniquely positioned to make strong statements.

That doesn't mean that their choices aren't complicated too. For individuals who have trained for a decade to reach the height of human ability and coordination, 2008 may be the chance of a lifetime. Should their governments deny them the right to compete?

On the other hand, athletes have special opportunities to voice their objections to Chinese foreign policy. One possibility would be for athletes to take a cue for Tommie Smith and John Carlos' moment of protest at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. In fact, some athletes have already spoken out:

A group of top French athletes Thursday launched an open petition to Chinese President Hu, asking him to respect human rights and not "spoil the games," according to the letter printed in Le Nouvel Observateur weekly.

I certainly respect the decisions of heads of state to boycott the opening ceremonies, or to skip the Games altogether. But given the geopolitical concerns I outlined above, I would tentatively say that I am more in favor of protest actions by athletes than by governments. In a sense, athletes are freer to take a stand than governments are, and in a way athletes more truly represent the ordinary people of the world. Individual or small group acts of courage, performed at moments of high drama televised across the world, might offer the best way of sending a message to the Chinese government. Athletes, regarded by many as heroes, could take a more pure moral stand than the American government ever could.

My own thinking on the Games is evolving, and I'm following the news about boycotts with great interest. Throughout, I keep asking myself how I would feel if China boycotted an Olympics held here - or how Americans in general would react. The people who say that boycotts would stoke the embers of international tension make a good point. But if a Chinese athlete were to raise a fist in protest, condemning my government over abuses at Guantanamo and elsewhere, could I really object?

One thing is for sure: it's going to be a long summer, and the road to Beijing tense indeed.

Alex Thurston March 27, 2008 - 4:05pm

Alex Thurston's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: China | Olympics 2008 | Opinion | Tibet )

And sorely abused by all

And sorely abused by all those forces in the world that would love to foster another great power conflict.

After centuries of rampant colonialism the west is scarcely in a position to question the Chinese now. What exactly was Britain's role in creating the current Tibet morass as part of their playing of the great game.

Although I sympathize with suppressed people everywhere, I believe that here in particular patience is a desired position.

My biggest concern, however, is that as in Myanmar a short while ago the fingers of the West are all over the present disruptions in Tibet. I have no evidence but history would suggest the likelihood of such interference in what the Chinese consider their internal affairs.

The athletes should of course be free to speak their conscience. Let the games begin. Let's put the Great Games of the past in the trash bin where they belong.

hvd March 27, 2008 - 4:55pm

Wikipedia:

"Tibet"

... a rebellion led by noblemen and monasteries broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June 1956. The insurrection, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959. During this campaign, tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1972 when the CIA abruptly withdrew its support. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented full-scale land redistribution in all areas of Tibet...

More info -

The CIA Circus: Tibet's Forgotten Army

It was code-named 'ST Circus'. But there was nothing funny about the way the CIA funded, trained, armed and ultimately used and betrayed the Tibetan cause. This is the war no one knew about. This is the war that shatters the popular impression that the non-violent Tibetans allowed the Chinese to stroll into Lhasa in 1951 after token resistance. A war that is relived in The Shadow Circus: The CIA in Tibet, a gripping documentary made for the BBC by Tenzing Sonam and his wife Ritu Sarin.

(...)

Tenzing's father, Lhamo Tsering, was a senior resistance leader and the CIA's chief coordinator for the Tibet operation. In 1958, he was trained at CIA camps in Virginia and Colorado's Rocky Mountains. He documented the entire movement, writing at length on the subject. Though he died on January 9 this year without realising his dream of a free Tibet, The Shadow Circus stands tribute to the man.

(...)

'We had great expectations when we went to America. We thought perhaps they would even give us an atom bomb to take back,' says Tenzin Tsultrim. 'In the training period, we learned that the objective was to gain our independence,' adds another grizzled veteran. But the Americans had other ideas. 'The whole idea was to keep the Chinese occupied, keep them annoyed, keep them disturbed. Nobody wanted to go to war over Tibet...It was a nuisance operation. Basically, nothing more,' says former CIA agent Sam Halpern.
(...)

The most poignant summary comes from Tenzing's father: 'We were able to utilise [the American] help for our own ends. We couldn't just go and fight the Chinese with empty hands. I don't see our armed struggle as something that was helpful only at a certain point in our history, something that is finished. We should look at it as one chapter in our continuing struggle for freedom, one that still has some meaning.'

Speaking of curious symmetries - what motivated Bush to give the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal in October? Why then? And then immediately after, why did Stephen Harper break with previous Canadian policy and meet with him officially? Both seemingly pointless moves by men not primarily known for their humanitarian instincts overwhelming their realpolitik. Close together, and now as we see fairly close before this insurrection - and at the time seeming to produce little tangible result besides enraging the Chinese.

I want to highlight this:

... 'The whole idea was to keep the Chinese occupied, keep them annoyed, keep them disturbed. Nobody wanted to go to war over Tibet...It was a nuisance operation. Basically, nothing more,' says former CIA agent Sam Halpern...

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch March 28, 2008 - 2:38am

Blaming the Tibetan exile on the CIA??

I guess I have a different take on this, and it's not pro-China, or more accurately, pro-Han. I spent nine wondrous days in Tibet in 1985. Nine of us had a Tibetan guide for that period -- a very rare opportunity. We toured Lhasa, all the major temples, looped down to Gyantse & Shigatse, then north out to Damxung and up to a pass overlooking the central Asian plateau.

Our guides' tales of Chinese rule, especially during the 1960s, were horrifying. Of course, America can hardly cast stones from its glass house, but don't cut the Han any slack about their takeover. They ran right over Tibet -- destroyed many temples -- killed, raped, imprisoned, and tortured thousands of Tibetans -- slaughtered hundreds of snow leopards with machine guns. They put everybody in brainwashing school, and foisted plenty of Cultural Revolution around. Then Han started systematically settling Tibet. Also, note that they really carved Tibet into different provinces; ethnic Tibet stretches beyond the Tibetan "Autonomous" Region into four major Chinese provinces, including much of western Sichuan.

I rarely have much good to say of Harper or Bush, but spending time with the Dalai Lama is praiseworthy.

trob March 28, 2008 - 3:13am

Hang on though.

I'm neither trying to paint the Chinese as the good guys here nor suggesting the meetings with the Dalai Lama were collusion; what's much more plausible for these Mayberry Machiavellis to do is to set him up. I would be astounded to hear that the Dalai Lama would have anything to do with a violent uprising.

But whatever the Chinese may be - as far as I am aware, CIA involvement in Tibetan insurrection is a matter of documented historical fact. There's no controversy there.

But I'm not really sure of the point you're making - the Chinese are bad guys and therefore this is an argument against the theory that the CIA might be - once again - sponsoring a Tibetan insurrection?

-----

Edited to add - this is not directed to yourself, but because I asserted it's a matter of historical record, and because the old "lefty tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory" gambit is still a tiresome popular classic in discouraging informed speculation, I edited this to suggest further reading for all interested in further informing themselves about this part of history -

The CIA's Secret War in Tibet

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison

April 2002
320 pages, 24 photographs, 9 maps, 6-1/8 x 9-1/4
Modern War Studies
Cloth ISBN 978-0-7006-1159-1, $34.95

Defiance against Chinese oppression has been a defining characteristic of Tibetan life for more than four decades, symbolized most visibly by the much revered Dalai Lama. But the story of Tibetan resistance weaves a far richer tapestry than anyone might have imagined.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison reveal how America's Central Intelligence Agency encouraged Tibet's revolt against China--and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. They provide the first comprehensive, as well as most compelling account of this little known agency enterprise.

(...)

"The inside story of one of the CIA's most tragic covert operations. Agency officers in the Wild East; nationalist, religious, and ethnic conflict--this is the stuff of a great yarn, which the authors tell in engaging detail."--John Prados, author of Presidents' Secret Wars: CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf

"A masterful account of how the CIA sought to play the 'new great game' on the roof of the world."--David F. Rudgers, author of Creating the Secret State: Origins of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1943–1947

"An excellent and impressive study of a major CIA covert operation during the Cold War."--William M. Leary, author of Perilous Missions: Civil Air Transport and CIA Covert Operations in Asia

KENNETH CONBOY is a former policy analyst and deputy director at the Heritage Foundation whose other books include Spies and Commandos:How America Lost the Secret War in North Vietnam and Spies in the Himalayas: Secret Missions and Perilous Climbs.

The late JAMES MORRISON was a thirty-year Army veteran and the last training officer for the CIA-sponsored Unity project. He coauthored numerous books with Conboy, including Shadow War: The CIA's Secret War in Laos.

I might also suggest the Feb 2004 edition of Military History magazine, which I am informed has an article by Joe Bageant (not the one who wrote "Deer Hunting WIth Jesus") entitled "War At The Top Of The World" (once again, not to be confused with Eric Margolis' book of the same name) detailing this operation.

Bageant's subsequent feature article at HistoryNet entitled "CIA's Secret War In Tibet" is available online here.

if those aren't sufficiently specific, detailed and authoritative, there's always "Tears Of The Lotus", the documentation of the CIA's involvement in the sponsored TIbetan insurrection, written by Roger McCarthy, the CIA agent that ran the operation. His book was presumably cleared by the CIA before publication was permitted, as is legally required.

"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch March 28, 2008 - 3:43am

Maybe I'm not arguing with you

I just don't want to let Han Chinese off the hook here. We can't let the US off the hook for atrocities in Iraq, but the "complication" of Chinese-Tibetan relations does not excuse the one-sided hegemony and cultural genocide of the Chinese.

That the US CIA would bait-and-switch support for the Tibetans is shameful and manipulative. I appreciate your reminders and sources on this.

It may be that Bush is not very principled about all of this, or informed -- no surprise there! Harper appears to have taken a more consistent line against the Chinese on human rights, despite plenty of Chinese trade and immigration. I support anyone's pressure on the Chinese to be less controlling of their minorities, particularly the Tibetans.

I was just at a planning meeting for the five-day visit of the Dalai Lama to Seattle in April. Now everyone is nervous that His Holiness may not come. More on this Seattle visit, emphasizing compassion for children, at
www.seedsofcompassion.org

trob March 28, 2008 - 6:20pm

I Agree

This not about the ones that gave up childhood or any normal life until this event. Let the Games go on.
jo6pac

jo6pac March 28, 2008 - 8:56pm

No, the games need to go on.

No, the games need to go on. The people that have training since the age of ? should have this moument in time, everything else should step a side. I'm the far left and this has nothing to do with my feelings as much as every group would like you to think it does. I think behind the smoke screen is even a bigger game that we as citizens of the plant should fear once the games are done.
jo6pac

jo6pac March 27, 2008 - 10:15pm

games go on only for some...

there are several kinds of athletes for whom the Olympics are not the most important event... cyclists have the Tour de France, soccer players have the world cup, runners have any number of marathons worldwide.

Its not the only pony in that show...

Plenty of athletes could safely boycott the Olympics and not risk affecting their place in history. They have other options. Leave the Olympics with the weird sports: pole vaulting, shot putting, and hammer throwing.

--
http://bexhuff.com
Of COURSE you can trust the US Government! Just ask the Indians.

bex March 27, 2008 - 11:22pm

It's not so simple...

..as 'simply patriotic' or 'simply sport', when it comes to the Olympics...

Yes, there are a number of sports, the players of which have lives outside the Olympics...cycling, marathonning, soccer/baseball/basketball, etc, but remember, not all teh players on the National team are pros, with outside lives.

Indeed, several sports are still 'amateur', and have no real source of funding, or competitive venues outside the Olympics and the World Championships....like: Rowing, wrestling, Judo/taekwondo, pentathlon/heptathlon/decathlon. For these and the others, this competition is very important, and to miss it would kill their ability to compete. Try telling Curt Thomas that "oh well, 1980 was only year, no biggie, right?"--his lost chance at Gymnastics was pretty much IT for him...and he wasn't the only one.

The athletes have as much respect for our country's ideals and leaders as the next Citizen, and indeed might have even more awareness, since they're aware all through their Government-sponsored training who it is they're playing for. (before you start on about private/personal training, remember about the multi-million-dollar training center we have in Colorado--it's not only for Winter sports) Some will be more idealistic than others, it's the nature of the beast. Idealism can be viewed like religion....people feel it differently, stronger/weaker, deeper/shallower, similarly to how they view their relationship with God (or lack thereof....whatever floats the boat).

I think it would be best to put it to the athletes themselves, to make the decision whether to perform individually, and not think any less of those who elect not to, whatever the reason. Lord knows, there are some reasons that have nothing at all to do with politics: Beijing's pollution is bad even on a good day, and asthmatics are going to have problems. Others will definitely factor into their decision China's (mis)treatment of Tibet, the Falun Gong, Hong Kong, Darfur (and much of Africa), and elsewhere China has flexed its hegemonistic muscle around the world.

Let the athletes decide whether or not to go, and support them, whatever their decision. They've sacrificed a significant part of their lives to compete for the USA, we should support them even if they decide they cannot compete in a place like China....and we should support those who do go, and root for our team like the partisans we are.

We are them, and they are ours...I salute them all

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

justadood March 28, 2008 - 2:48am

America should take a stand

but we won't. The Bushies and others are too tied into Chinese money. Don't forget they service a large part of our national debt. Economics will win out. America will not take a stand because of economics, and the fact that America won't get on board will suck a lot of wind out of the sails of the European boycotting of the opening ceremonies.

The bottom line is that if the Chinese feel its needed they will militarily crush the Tibetans (again). They know the Bush or Obama (or hell, it doesn't matter who the President of the US is) response will be same - passive standing by, hoping that that business as usual won't be disrupted. Same as in Darfur.

The fact that America has no moral authority, in spite of being well-established, is irrelevant. We would establish moral authority by boycotting the games. It would give us unquestionable moral supremacy over the Chinese to do that.

But we won't do that, and you have to look at the reasons why. The reasons why have to do with what America cares about: our money and our business.

America doesn't care about human rights. Yes, you read that correctly. Where were we in Darfur - in Rwanda - in Burma - standing idly by, hoping that business as usual would not be affected.

And that is exactly what America will do with respect to Tibet also.

Write the date down you read this. Remember my post and check back. I'm dead on right about this. I guarantee it - prove it to yourself.

We will not boycott any part of the Olympics, and what's more I guarantee you all American Olympic teams going to China will get a "Come To Jesus" talk about why they better not pull a "Tommie Smith" in Beijing.

We live in the real world. Hello?

yogi-one March 28, 2008 - 4:59am

I find it odious when athletes stand on pulpits

when getting their Olympic medals and making political statements. The Olympics isn't supposed to be about politics, it's about the competition between the athletes.

canuck March 28, 2008 - 12:36pm

Jeez...what happened to the previous post I made?

A bold call to end hatred in Tibet
ANDY WONG/AP

Mar 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Bill Schiller
ASIA BUREAU

BEIJING–In the windstorm of nationalistic fervour that has swept China over the past two weeks, touched off by the troubles in Tibet, Wang Lixiong's voice stands out.

He wants peace in Tibet, he says.

The government's policies have failed, he adds. And the path to peace is obvious: direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

The proposition is a bold one at a critical time – especially from a proud Chinese national.

But it's the best way forward, says Wang, a leading Chinese intellectual and dissident.

"If you don't call this a failure," he observes, during a rare interview this week, "what is it?"

Last weekend, when the Chinese government starting filling the nation's homes with seemingly non-stop televised images of Tibetan rioters pillaging and killing in the streets of Lhasa, Wang worried about the spiral of hatred being stirred up.

He and a group of friends – Chinese writers, scholars, artists and lawyers – drafted a petition calling on the government to dial down the rhetoric, reflect on its policies and deal directly – and peacefully – with Tibetans' leader-in-exile.

The petition also called on Tibetans not to engage in violence.

A well-known novelist and environmentalist, Wang was the petition's first signatory.

"Too many people are being inspired by propaganda now to hate the Tibetan people," he says.

At 55, his strong, individual voice remains a concern for the Chinese government. In the past four months, he has been placed under house arrest four times.

"We just felt it was time to stand up and present an alternative approach," Wang says of the petition. "We also need to let the Tibetan people know that there are Chinese people who do not hate them."

The barrage of anti-Tibetan sentiment whipped up by state organs in the aftermath of last week's anti-Han violence has been pervasive, focusing sharply on the Dalai Lama himself.

The Tibetan leader has been demonized on state-controlled radio, television and newspapers as "a jackal," a "wolf in monk's robes" and a man with "the heart of a beast."

Wang doesn't buy any of it.

He met the Dalai Lama on four separate occasions in 2001. He may be the only living dissident in China to have done so. He was approached by a go-between – he won't say who – and the meetings took place in Washington and Los Angeles.

He wrote about them in a book entitled Unlocking Tibet, which won him few fans in government circles.

Contrary to government propaganda, Wang believes the Dalai Lama to be a man of peace.

For his part, the Tibetan leader has condemned the violence in Lhasa, said publicly he supports the Beijing Olympics and – despite cries from his youthful followers to "Free Tibet" – made clear he is not seeking an independent state.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/404810

------

Hopefully, this repeat post, the Agonist software accepts.

The dispute between China and Tibet is complicated and other countries need to butt out.

The Olympics only comes 'round every four years and athletes need to be given the opportunity to display their athletic abilities. Some athletes train all their lives just to compete in this single event and they should be given the opportunity to display their abilities while competing at the highest level.

Politics needs to be put on the back burner so athletes can achieve their life's dream.

Athletes with overlapping political allegiances should not expect all athletes to make similar political statements...some athletes dedicate their entire life's to simply excelling in their sport. There will be copious time after the Olympics for people that hold strong opinions to voice them as vociferously as is their wont. I have nothing except disdain for leaders who wish only to score political points when so many world athletes from so many, many countries trained so hard to compete in their individual events. It's disgusting when athletes on podiums make political statements while in the background the flag of their country and their anthems are being played. That was NOT the time to draw awareness to their political cause. Big deal...so you're from a western nation that guarantees your right to say whatever you like...they're are hundreds of countries where making such statements would land the person in jail. Some thought needs to be accorded to athletes who are not given such freedom. It's the height of western pomposity to not give due regard for those who are not able to speak so freely and also for those athletes that don't give two hoots about political affairs that happen in their country who train only to excel.

canuck March 28, 2008 - 12:46pm

American should be boycotted and not allowed in

With the rationale I hear, with Americans killing and maiming Iraqis and such and you want to boycott China. Screw that. The US is creating much more world disorder than the Chinese.

Bucksouth March 28, 2008 - 1:16pm

yeah right when is the US going to be held to account

for the devastation they caused in Iraq? As a member of the Security Council it's not possible to hold them to account. I hear only 68 Iraq peoples are being given admittance to your country. A dismal number compared to the number of Iraqi's that were displaced by your invasion of their country.

There will not be a similar hanging of your President that was accorded to the President of Iraq that was decapitated because of the incompetence of the people that hanged him. Too bad President Bush and his cabal will never meet a similar fate.

canuck March 28, 2008 - 1:26pm

All permanent members of the Security Council

are given Carte Blanche to perpetrate whatever human right abuses they wish to make. The preponderance of Western countries on the Security Council ensures they are able to do whatever the hell they want.

canuck March 28, 2008 - 1:37pm

The Dalai Lama's Dilemma

By Melvyn C. Goldstein

Who has written several other books about Tibet.

canuck March 29, 2008 - 1:11am

Merkel says she will not attend opening of Beijing Olympics

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, yesterday became the first world leader to decide not to attend the Olympics in Beijing.

As pressure built for concerted western protests to China over the crackdown in Tibet, EU leaders prepared to discuss the crisis for the first time today, amid a rift over whether to boycott the Olympics.

The disclosure that Germany is to stay away from the games' opening ceremonies in August could encourage President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to join in a gesture of defiance and complicate Gordon Brown's determination to attend the Olympics.
More

adrena March 29, 2008 - 1:25am

Confirmed photos of Chinese soldiers with monks clothing

See
http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/chinese-orchestrating-riots-tibet.htm

trob March 29, 2008 - 2:00am

I guess

that means it wasn't the Dalai Lama who, as the Chinese claimed, was a wolf in sheep's clothing, but the Chinese themselves.

adrena March 29, 2008 - 2:28am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Olympic Boycott: Heads of State and Athletes Weigh Their Options

Comment viewing options