Wrong time, wrong place

Daniel A Bell
April 18, 2008 5:30 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_a_bell/2008/04/wrong_time_wrong_place.html
Since Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister,floated the idea of boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, other politicians have jumped on the bandwagon. Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper said he won‘t attend, as did British PM Gordon Brown and the German chancellorAngela Merkel. All three candidates for the US presidential elections have urged George Bush to do the same, allegedly to protest human rights violations in China.
It seems absurd on the face of it: like accepting an invitation to a dinner party but refusing to greet the host, hoping that the snub will improve the host‘s behaviour. In fact, it is absurd. No good can come out of it other than securing a few votes in the politicians‘ respective countries.
The opening ceremony is not meant to symbolise the idea that China is "successful and grand", as some western observerssay, but rather international friendship. As it happens, the ceremony will feature sayings from theanalects of Confucius meant to highlight this theme, such as "the world‘s peoples are all brothers" and "isn‘t one of life‘s greatest pleasure to have friends visit from afar?" The competition will start at the games, and that‘s where we might see some crude manifestations of nationalism. If the aim is to punish Chinese leaders who care more about national glory than about human rights, the opening ceremony is the last place to start.
What are the likely effects of boycotting the opening ceremony? It seems to me that any political action needs to be informed by the likely consequences. In this case, the one predictable consequence is that the host will be upset. This will just make it harder to work on issues of common concern, such as nuclear non-proliferation andglobal warming. No matter how much one might sympathise with the Tibetan cause - and a boycott won‘t help, even the Dalai Lama has opposed a boycott - is it really worth giving vent to such emotions?
I do not mean to imply that the Olympic games should be free from protests. The example of theAfrican American athletes raising their fists at the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico is often cited. But they were protesting against their own government, and such protests are more likely to be effective than criticising the host. Imagine if US and UK athletes were to protest their country‘s involvement in the invasion of Iraq? That‘s more likely to do some good than any attack against the Chinese government. If there is to be any protest about Tibet, let the Chinese athletes do it: a civil and respectful call for moderation and dialogue - perhaps even a veiled pun - by a Chinese athlete is far more likely to be effective than anything foreigners can do.
Does this mean foreigners should be silent about human rights abuses in Tibet and elsewhere? Of course not. Foreign governments can be involved in dialogues on concrete human rights issues, such as minority rights, sharing experience and knowledge. Such approaches are often helpful in the long term. Individual citizens and NGOs that show willingness to listen and learn can also be effective. But dissing the host can only make it harder to achieve progress on human rights.