Should Bush attend the Olympics In China?

 

Everyone seems to be weighing in on whether President George W. Bush should attend the Olympics in China.  Just about every major politician in America and Europe and, of course, most political pundits, are giving President Bush unsolicited advice on how he should deal with the Chinese regarding Tibet.

It’s easy to give advice: Bush should not attend the opening ceremonies or he should not go at all because of the Chinese repression of the Tibetans.  We, that is, the United States, should stand in solidarity with the Tibetans, and the president should teach China a lesson, show them that the world disapproves of their brutal policy of repressing dissent. But, does anyone really believe the Chinese would be influenced by this, other than being angered? 

 

Given the fact that “saving face” is such an integral part of the Chinese culture, chances are they would be highly offended.  National leaders invariably react to perceived insults, and being slighted or lectured is not easily forgotten or forgiven, especially by those in other cultures where they often have long memories. 

Paul Jacob notes, “…the Olympics has long been about politics: but almost always the errant politics of puffed-up nationalism, from a deviant French judge to despots seeking to mask their sinister statecraft in the spirit of athletics.” (“Don’t go, President Bush, don’t go,” Townhall.com, April 13, 2008).

However, would the president’s boycotting the opening ceremonies or the Olympic events really accomplish anything, except perhaps to induce some sort of reprisal?  Thinking back to the 1980 Olympics, a total of 16 countries, led by the United States, either did not attend the games or were not represented by their national flags in protest for the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  The Soviets later retaliated by leading a boycott of the 1984 summer Olympics in Los Angeles, which resulted in 14 nations not attending (Wikipedia).  The athletes paid the price for the political posturing of their respective nations.

 

What sort of blowback might we experience this time if the president cancels his plans to attend the opening ceremonies and the games in China?

Expressing disapproval is always tempting. However, what may be suitable for individuals does not necessarily also apply to nations. 

China and the United States are inextricably tied to one another in commerce, and the Chinese are heavily invested in the U.S. through the purchase of our bonds, which puts them in a position to seriously impact both our currency and our economy.

We often hear about “quiet diplomacy,” and attending the Olympics in China can provide an opportunity for President Bush to talk directly with Chinese leaders about human rights and Tibet.  U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, “…called the boycott issue a ‘bit of a red herring,’ arguing that the international community would be better served using its leverage with China to pressure it to hold talks with Tibet’s spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama…We think it is very important to deal with the Tibet issue, but we think the best way to do that is through the kind of diplomacy we have been undertaking, not by the kind of frontal confrontation that is being suggested by some.” (Yahoo news, April 13, 2008).

 

As offended as I may personally be by China’s brutal repression, and as difficult as it is to refrain from speaking out, I believe that both we and the Tibetans will be better served by “quiet diplomacy” on the ground than ineffectual political posturing from afar.