Thursday, Mar. 20, 2008
Playing the Games
By Joshua Kurlantzick
Even when he's not filming, Richard Gere knows how to do drama. In the wake of the deadly protests in Tibet, Gere, a longtime Tibet activist and friend of the Dalai Lama, made a splashy announcement. The Hollywood star declared that "if [the protests] are not handled correctly, yes, we should boycott [the Olympics]. Everyone should boycott."
Gere does have a point: the unrest in Tibet stems from years of brutal Chinese religious, economic and political repression. And well before Gere's statement, many other activists had called for a Games boycott, for myriad reasons. Press watchdog Reporters Without Borders argued that a boycott should be considered given China's jailing of journalists. Darfur advocates Steven Spielberg, who recently withdrew as an artistic adviser to the Games, and Mia Farrow have called for a boycott because of China's Sudan links. "I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual [with the Olympics]," Spielberg said in February. Burmese activists have echoed the Darfur protesters, trying to shame Beijing for its close ties to Rangoon. Even many top athletes are now mulling a boycott.
Apart from in Tibet, China has clearly contributed to suffering in Darfur and Burma; it is the main diplomatic protector of Khartoum and Rangoon, and the major consumer of Sudanese oil. The Games are also hurting the human-rights climate in China — Beijing has been rounding up prominent activists before the Olympiad.
But a boycott would backfire miserably. Besides hurting athletes who have spent years prepping for the Olympics, a boycott will cost activists whatever ongoing leverage they have over China. Once a boycott is declared, activists almost surely would lose any interaction with Chinese officials, who would simply write them off. Through their pressure, Darfur advocates have in fact won private meetings with influential Chinese officials. In the past year China's stance on Sudan has undergone a major shift. From ignoring complaints about its Sudan links, China has appointed its own special envoy for Darfur and has sent aid to the peacekeeping force in the conflict region. U.S. President George W. Bush's former envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, publicly praised China's stance, and even Jill Savitt, director of the activist group Dream for Darfur, acknowledged that Beijing has taken some measures to reduce suffering in Sudan.
Only a combination of tough public shaming, which clearly tarnishes China's valued global image, and private dialogue with Beijing, not ostracism, can produce results. Indeed, by spotlighting China's abuses in Xinjiang province, where there are policies as harsh as those in Tibet, while quietly reaching out to Chinese officials, the Bush Administration has won the release of leading Uighur dissidents.
Some foreign activists believe a boycott will gain support among Chinese liberals, and a few Chinese rights activists such as lawyer Gao Zhisheng agree. But most average Chinese, whatever their anger at Beijing's repression, eagerly await the Olympics. Across China, nearly everyone I have met is proud of the Beijing Games, and a boycott will only turn them against the West. Without a doubt, China's state-controlled press would play up this angle, using a boycott to demonize Western nations and to fuel Chinese nationalism, the country's most potent, and dangerous, political force. In January, the
People's Daily previewed this strategy, writing that China suffers "accusations from all over the world, including misunderstandings, sarcasm and very harsh criticism" over the Games. Shortly after Spielberg's withdrawal, Chinese bloggers, among the most ardent nationalists, made the
People's Daily sound tame with their fury at the West.
Given that the Olympics are sparking Chinese pride, advocacy organizations with some of the longest experience dealing with China, such as the savvy International Campaign for Tibet, have harshly criticized Beijing's rights record but have not called for a boycott. Even the Dalai Lama has not advocated one, citing how important this year's Games are to the Chinese people.
As China has become more powerful, it has boosted its leverage on the world stage. Many nations, especially neighbors, are now reluctant to cross Beijing. India, which once welcomed Tibetan exiles, including the Dalai Lama himself, now restrains Tibetan protesters. Nepal has done the same, sometimes brutally, and has indicated that it will clear and secure the Everest route for the Olympic torch — thereby possibly pre-empting anti-China protests. Twenty years ago, when China was weaker, a boycott might have been possible, since other countries could ignore Beijing. Today, the world needs China, with all its warts, to help solve diplomatic crises from North Korea to Sudan, to power the ailing global economy and to help bring stability to its neighborhood.
Today, China can no longer be ignored.
