[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20080416" target="_blank">Boycott or Nott?</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> April 16, 2008

The cries for a formal boycott of the Chinese Olympics are becoming louder. Though unwilling to endorse such sentiment, several prominent western world leaders, including Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, Nikolas Sarkozy, and Stephen Harper have announced that they will at least meet the activists halfway, and boycott the games\' opening ceremonies in Beijing. <br> <br>The debate over whether or not dictatorial regimes should be permitted to host the Olympics is as old as the Olympics themselves. At the end of the day, it all boils down to an even older debate about engagement vs. disengagement. <br> <br>What do you think we should do? Post in my forum.

[xerxes]

I say not as well ......and so does Fahreed Zakaria:

Quote:

Our Tibet Protests Won't Work

Public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime in Beijing as private pressure.At first glance, China's recent crackdown in Tibet looks like a familiar storyline: a dictatorship represses its people. And of course that's part of the reality -- as it often is in China. But on this issue, the communist regime is not in opposition to its people. The vast majority of Chinese have little sympathy for the Tibetan cause. To the extent that we can gauge public opinion in China and among its diaspora, ordinary Chinese are, if anything, critical of the Beijing government for being too easy on the Tibetans. The real struggle here is between a nationalist majority and an ethnic and religious minority looking to secure its rights.

In these circumstances, a boycott of the Olympics would have precisely the opposite effect that is intended. The regime in Beijing would become only more defensive and stubborn. The Chinese people would rally around the flag and see the West as trying to humiliate China in its first international moment of glory. (There are many suspicions that the United States cannot abide the prospect of a rising China.) For most Chinese, the Games are about the world's giving China respect, rather than bolstering the Communist Party's legitimacy.

For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?

China's attitude toward Tibet is wrong and cruel, but, alas, not that unusual. Other nations, especially developing countries, have taken tough stands against what they perceive as separatist forces. A flourishing democracy like India has often responded to such movements by imposing martial law and suspending political and civil rights. The Turks for many decades crushed all Kurdish pleas for linguistic and ethnic autonomy. The democratically elected Russian government of Boris Yeltsin responded brutally to Chechen demands. Under Yeltsin and his successor, Vladimir Putin, also elected, the Russian Army killed about 75,000 civilians in Chechnya, and leveled its capital. These actions were enthusiastically supported within Russia. It is particularly strange to see countries that launched no boycotts while Chechnya was being destroyed -- and indeed welcomed Russia into the G8 -- now so outraged about the persecution of minorities. (In comparison, estimates are that over the past 20 years, China has jailed several hundred people in Tibet.)

On this issue, the Bush administration has so far followed a wiser course, forgoing the grandstanding taking place in Europe and on the campaign trail. It has been urging the Chinese government quietly but firmly to engage in serious discussions with the Dalai Lama. Diplomacy can be scoffed at, but every multinational business that has had success in persuading the Chinese government to change course will testify that public humiliation does not work nearly as well on the regime as private pressure.


Negotiating with the Dalai Lama is in Beijing's interest as well. It faces a restive population that lives in about 13 percent of the land area of China. Many Tibetans want independence. But the Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he does not seek independence, only cultural autonomy. Even last week he rejected any boycott of the Olympics and urged his followers to engage in no violent protests whatsoever. If there were ever a leader of a separatist group whom one could negotiate with, he's it. And once the 72-year-old Dalai Lama passes from the scene, Beijing might have to deal with a far more unpredictable and radical Tibetan movement.

So why doesn't the Chinese regime see this? Beijing has a particular problem. Now that communism is dead, the Communist Party sees its legitimacy as linked to its role in promoting and defending Chinese nationalism. It is especially clumsy when it comes to such issues. Clever technocrats though they are, China's communist leaders -- mostly engineers -- have not had to refine their political skills as they have their economic touch. In the past they have stoked anti-Japanese and anti-American outbursts, only to panic that things were getting out of control and then reverse course. They fear that compromising over Tibet would set a precedent for the unraveling of the Chinese nation. China has grown and shrunk in size over the centuries, and its dynasties have often been judged by their success in preserving the country's geography.

In fact, in almost all cases -- Turkey, India -- granting autonomy to groups that press for it has in the end produced a more stable and peaceful national climate. But that is a lesson the Chinese government will have to learn for itself; it is unlikely to take instruction from outsiders. Its handling of the protests in Tibet is disgraceful. But humiliating the entire country over it would make matters worse.

[Wada]

Nott!

[ridenrain]

Unless they wear a yellow ribbon or do something in protest, their participation simply adds legitimacy to the event. I would like to see our athletes go and win but then I'd like to see a protest from the podium similar to the Mexico Olympics of 1968.
Let's see the Chinese and the IOC disqualify people after the world saw them win.

[canuckns]

Maybe they should wear FREE TIBET headbans or something, putting them on once they are on the podium.

[ChrisV82]

I'm a fan of the comic in general, but I just wanted to point out that your normally decent spelling and grammar kind of took a dive off a cliff.

[CanadianJeff]

Not. If you simply leave them alone then what's to stop them from just cutting themselves off and oppressing their people at home.

Interaction forces them to question their outlook and adapt to interact with others. I would agrue for example that the core reason there is no chinese sympathy for tibet is simply becuase they don't view communism as evil. For them it's not only normal but the only way of life they know. So for someone to opose communism (or the chinese lifestyle) not only doesn't make sense but challenges their daily lives.

People naturally opose change from an outside source if it's the only way of life they know. People are naturally protective of what they believe is their way of life.

[Chumley]

I will say
you should protest
all day
if that is your way.
But to boycott
that spot
when emerging from the past
they have as yet not
won't help their lot.
Or ours
On second thought.

[Voyager]

Boycot or not, this is going to end badly.

Chinese censorship has been simply unbelievable, just in general. They've successfully eradicated the memory of Tianamen Square, and all the chinese people know about Tibet right now is that Han are getting burned alive, and their torch-bearer's are getting mauled over it. Not exactly conductive to any sort of sympathy towards the other side.

Honestly, the Olympics are simply to big an event to use as an engagement tool. It doesn't just engage, it grants legitamacy, and a lot of people just aren't ready to grant China that, and they're lashing back. My concern is that this backlash will generate a counter backlash in China that prompts China to do something stupid. That would be bad.

Harry Voyager

[Calbeck]

We have boycotted the Olympics in the past for less. Are the Tibetan people less worthy of such an act now than were the Afghani people in 1980?

We already have engaged the Chinese in trade, something upon which they are more dependent than we. An Olympic boycott should be the first significant warning --- all hand-wringing and finger-wagging aside, it affects them financially to lose the tourism and other related investments. It is a small enough thing to do.

[Wally_Sconce]

I say we go but make a big scene about it. Thats always more fun than boycott.

[Chumley]

Aging_Redneck wrote:

I say we go but make a big scene about it. Thats always more fun than boycott.

second!

[Vinid]

For those who are playing the home game of world politics, you'll find that boycotting the olympics and wearing free tibet head bands and free tibet bumper stickers do exactly the same thing for the people of tibet. Jack.
If you would really like to make the chinese sit up and take notice of what you want, hit them where it hurts. Boycott their goods in stores, only buy items made in countries that use ethical treatment of their workers, that will show them that people are serious. Of course only one person doing it doesn't do much but if many people did, it would create a bit of a stir.
Stop preaching from your mighty pulpet and actually DO something useful for the cause of the Tibetan people, boycotting the Olympics just makes you look like a putz, its supposed to show unity and peace can be accomplished for at least a few weeks.
The Chinese have no intrest in your freedom of speech, and care far less what you say.

[BartSimpson]

Vinid wrote:

For those who are playing the home game of world politics, you'll find that boycotting the olympics and wearing free tibet head bands and free tibet bumper stickers do exactly the same thing for the people of tibet. Jack.
If you would really like to make the chinese sit up and take notice of what you want, hit them where it hurts. Boycott their goods in stores, only buy items made in countries that use ethical treatment of their workers, that will show them that people are serious. Of course only one person doing it doesn't do much but if many people did, it would create a bit of a stir.
Stop preaching from your mighty pulpet and actually DO something useful for the cause of the Tibetan people, boycotting the Olympics just makes you look like a putz, its supposed to show unity and peace can be accomplished for at least a few weeks.
The Chinese have no intrest in your freedom of speech, and care far less what you say.

/\/\/\/\/\

What he said.

Myself, I keep it simple: I boycott WalMart and avoid Chinese products wherever I can.

And I will not be watching the Beijing Olympics.

[DarthNilus]

I don't get it.

First,
Why do people listen to CNN? They've always objectified news to their liking, especially in a political sense. I don't exactly know how to express myself about them, but it's more like... Die CNN Die! (Not german) They've done a "Pets in Peril" or something, and that was like the biggest one-sided view I've ever seen.

Why should you boycott the Chinese from hosting? Even if Tibet wishes for freedom, how will they support themselves economically? China and India would be isolating themselves from them, and then just having Tibet end in economic turmoil and depression. What? they have a "tourism" industry? and what resources would they exploit and support visitors.. Americans?!

"The Chinese have no interest in your freedom of speech and care far less what you say." Whoa whoa. This is starting to get racial, isn't it? Since when did the antagonist speak for the protagonist? PLUS when have people ever read something OUTSIDE of CNN or American news? It's hard to read another pov, as "pro-tibetists" wouldn't post Chinese reasonings without already objectifying it. IE: "we have heard china done so and so which has helped tibet. BUT otherwise fuck the chinese government" That's how I see this stupid Tibet issue right now. A racial attack on China, where America hopes to slow the Chinese economy.

One more thing...
Shouldn't there be an alternative to it? I mean, we might as well boycott the Vancouver Olympics because many of us know, it's so damn hard to deal with EVERYTHING rising to the cost of living. Vancouver doesn't deserve it! World Class City my three testicles!

PS...
Boycotting would RUIN the athletes! They've trained all their lives to be a part of being an OLYMPIAN, only to be destroyed by politicians.
The Olympics are recognized all over the world as an Event of International Pride and Peace... How would this work?

(sorry for all the words but ,"This makes me so mad" with peoples ignorances)