Boycott the Olympics for Human Rights and Democracy? Since when are sports humane or democratic?

Boycotting threats by Olympic athletes represent the most heinous realization of growing international anti-Chinese sentiment, beyond the refusal of politicians to attend the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. The boycotts will inevitably be ineffective at realizing their aims because the aims are elusive to everyone involved. The hysteria caused partially by the media in the West has led us away from dialogue and rational action, instead favoring ultimatums and empty-handed pseudo-symbolic gestures.

The modern Olympics were established in 1896 in an effort to avert international conflict by allowing hostile nations to face their perceived enemies in a sports arena, and thereby mitigate tension. Although this may no longer be an applicable use of the Games, the Olympics have in recent years been used to foster international cooperation and understanding, something that is desperately needed in the current environment of tense diplomatic relations with China. Given the Chinese government’s obsession with the Olympics, corresponding with the overwhelming governmental spending that goes into training athletes in athletic schools, it seems that perhaps the most effective mode of action would be for the United States to compete in the Games, and to rack up a higher medal count. This would effectively nullify much of the propaganda currently in circulation pertaining to China’s superiority in sport and the importance of hosting the Games to China, perhaps in small part turning public opinion.

Although I believe strongly in the ability of boycotts to work in specific circumstances, I do not feel that the current situation with China provides such a straightforward opportunity because issues such as democracy and human rights cannot be quickly realized goals. During the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s, in the United States, boycotts in tandem with demonstrations were effectively utilized to bring about equal protection under the law, in order to begin instituting far-reaching cultural change with regard to how race is perceived and dealt with in the United States. In the world of sport, the sporting boycott against South Africa lasted more than two decades; however, it was precipitated not by apartheid, but rather by the fact that international multiracial teams could not compete in South Africa by virtue of South African law. The sporting boycott in tandem with much other international maneuvering, diplomacy, and other boycotts effectively isolated South Africa, and over time caused the change of the specific practice that was under attack: apartheid.

Other boycotts, when not coupled with diplomacy and farther-reaching action, are often detrimental to all parties involved. The economic boycott of Cuba, for example, has done nothing more than foster resentment and deprive Americans and Cubans of the ability to trade freely. The complete isolation of North Korea has not improved the lives of the citizens of that country, and has instead led to a propaganda machine that paints Americans as the enemy. North Korean children are taught to count with pictures of dead American soldiers while the government develops a nuclear program without hope of international regulations. What these boycotts lacked was an end plan: there was no specific action that could lead directly to these boycotts being lifted. I maintain that boycotts are only effective if those being isolated are given a reasonable way out, a concrete action that would lead to conciliatory results on all sides.

Isolating China from the 1950s and into the early 1970s created an environment of resentment on both sides, and did not benefit either side economically. With Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, a dialogue between the two countries began, and was followed by trade and tourism, which has greatly benefited the United States, especially in terms of increasing consumer good availability and capital spent by Chinese citizens in the United States. In China, Nixon’s visit helped foster capitalism and a greater recognition of Western democratic principles that had been previously unacknowledged and ignored. Growing U.S. discontentment with China in recent years has more to do with economic troubles in the United States, and mismanagement by the U.S. government in regulating the flow of safe goods from China into the United States. At such times, the Chinese government acts more as a scapegoat for American complaints rather than the object of legitimate criticism. Scapegoating the Chinese is easily accomplished in Western politics and the media by focusing on human rights issues such as Tibet, or better yet, the fact that China is not a democracy but rather ruled by a communist authoritarian system.

When the American public thinks about the authoritarian system in China, we often forget that the United States has been, and still is, complicit in the support of many human rights violating dictators throughout the world. In comparison to all those U.S. authorized dictatorial regimes, it seems the current Chinese government’s most critical problem is clinging to the communist name when capitalism permeates modern Chinese culture. Combined further with the historically tenuous relationships the United States has had with the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and China, it is hard to believe that the communist name does not contribute to China’s negative appearance on the world stage.

The problems China is dealing with today are so inevitably linked to international popular opinion and institutionalized problems in the Chinese government that they cannot be solved quickly or effectively by an international boycott. There is not a concrete way for the Chinese government to respond to the boycott because there are not any specific goals of the boycott. “Stopping human rights violations” or “instituting a democracy” may be important steps for China to take, but they are not issues that can be resolved overnight, or even over a few months. It took 13 years after the American Revolution for American politicians to draft the Constitution and almost 200 years more to enforce equal rights for its citizens.

It is unreasonable to think that such mammoth issues as human rights and democracy can be combated by something as flimsy as boycotting a sporting event. The most that it has the potential to accomplish is to briefly embarrass the Chinese government, which would just cause the propaganda machine to go into overtime, as it tries to convince the Chinese population that the United States is the cause for their national disgrace. We have already seen the Chinese people rally behind the government as protests sprung up around Europe protesting the Olympic torch, viewing the protests as a symbol of attempted injury at their national pride, pride being one aspect of Chinese culture that will not be injured without great outcry from the entire population.

A boycott could also turn to humiliate the United States: the Chinese government will claim victory at the Olympics when the Chinese top the medal charts without American athletes. The athletes themselves are also often ignored: I would be very upset by a boycott if I were an athlete forbidden to compete for my Olympic gold. But the most important thing for Americans to consider is how we are perceived globally, and where our allies are going to come from if we continue to isolate country after country. There is no better ally than a country trying to follow in your own footsteps. In terms of trying to instill our values of equality and democracy around the world, what better gateway do we have than to let our citizens interact with China in an open forum and show the Chinese the respect that democracy champions?