President and prospective nominees take stands on boycott (well, some of them, anyway…) at Summer Olympian

Click here for the Lead Stories

President and prospective nominees take stands on boycott (well, some of them, anyway…)

Posted April 16, 2008 at 09:45 AM by Os Davis

Section: Beijing 2008, Culture/History, Socio-Political, Featured Writers, Os Davis, Special Features, SoundOFF

Tibet Flag

Maybe someday presidential campaigning will become an actual Olympic sport; after all, the primary season and leadup to Election Day nicely coincides on a quadrennial basis with The Games.

In terms of politicolympical extravaganza, host nation China’s recent, um, strict handling of Tibetan protestors coupled with a fight to the finish in the Democratic Party and a highly unpopular president, Decision 2008/Olympiad XXIX is one serious river of competitive juices flowing.

This week’s watchword on the campaign trail: Boycott, as in promises to do so.

The hardest-line stance (perhaps indicating the highest level of tactical desperation) was unleashed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in time to head the Monday morning headlines; Clinton gained the admiration of Mia Farrow in stating:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.

Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

Whether or not this stand works in Pennsylvania, another hurdle in Clinton’s dash to the marathon finish line (now there’s a sport: the 26-mile hurdles), remains to be seen. “Free Tibet” is already a pet issue among the Baby Boomer set making up her most steadfast constituency while Hillary remains weak among the 40-and-unders.

The poll numbers aren’t exceeding helpful in determining the Clinton bid’s fate, either: Just about half the American voters polled by Zogby Interactive indicated that the US should do as Clinton says; a surprising 31% would favor an all-out boycott based on China’s human-rights record in general. Forty-six percent “think a boycott by President Bush and other world leaders would best express dissatisfaction to China.”

Barack Obama, meanwhile, scrambled to give voice to an appropriate stand of his own on the issue after stating last week that “I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think that what’s happened in Tibet, China’s support of the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem.” and “I’m hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it’s partly about bringing the world together.”

Yesterday, that became:

“If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the president, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet.”

Meanwhile, on FOX News (imagine that), Republican to-be-nominee John McCain echoed Obama in caution, saying that “I think the President ought to keep his options open and use that as a pressure lever, and he has plenty of time to decide that. Obviously, we don’t want the Chinese to continue this kind of behavior.” (Oh, those naughty Chinese!)

“I think the President ought to keep his options open here and decide as we see the situation and the threat evolving.”

As for the take of America’s sitting president, perhaps this can best be summed up with the virtual assistance of excellent journalistic pit bull Les Kinsolving of World Net Daily. In questioning White House spokesman Dana Perino on Tuesday, Kinsolving went to work on the Olympic issue:

Kinsolving: Since we presume the president is as devoted to human rights as any world leader, why has he failed to join the president of France, the chancellor of Germany, and now the prime minister of Canada in their announced refusal to appear at China’s Olympic Games?

Perino: I actually don’t think that they have announced that they are going to do that. I think they announced that they are considering it.

Kinsolving: …does the president believe that both the Catholic League and Sen. Clinton are wrong to make such a request?

Perino: No, they can make any request that they want. But I just told you what the president’s position is.

Anonymous journalist: Is the decision to attend the Olympics irreversible, or might it be affected by developments?

Perino: Any time the president – the president can always make a change. But the president has been clear that this is a sporting event for the athletes, and that pressuring China before, during and after the Olympics is the best way for us to try to help people across the board in China, not just Tibetans. And we are calling on the Chinese to reach out to the Dalai Lama, or to have – or to reach out to the Dalai Lama’s supporters and people, as they used to have a dialogue and we think that that was quite useful, and we are encouraging them to do that again.

Kinsolving: Wouldn’t it be a better plan…

Perino: You had two questions.

Kinsolving: …if he pulled out? Wouldn’t that be a good protest?

Anonymous journalist 2: I just wanted to be specific. Is it being considered to attend the games and skip the opening ceremony? Is that under consideration?

Perino: I would not put it that way, no.

At least that’s clear, then…

Wait, this just in! ESPN, The Worldwide Leader in Politics, has reported that Bush national security advisor Stephen Hadley weighed in a bit stroppily on the matter on Sunday: “I think unfortunately a lot of countries say, ‘Well, if we say that we are not going to the opening ceremonies we check the box on Tibet.’ That’s a cop-out. ... If other countries are concerned about that, they ought to do what we are doing through quiet diplomacy, send a message clearly to the Chinese that this is an opportunity with the whole world watching, to show that they take into account and are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect. They would put pressure on the Chinese authorities quietly to meet with representatives of the Dalai Lama and use this as an opportunity help resolve that situation.”

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of SummerOlympian.com, TFS Media Network or our sponsors.