Guest Entry: Richardson's Idea on Boycotting the Olympics Deserves Further Consideration

This article was submitted by Stephen Fox, a political activist from New Mexico.

I am very glad that more and more people seem to recognize the importance of Richardson's breakthroughs regarding the Bush Administration's abjectly failed Iraq policy.  These failures have impacted almost every phase of American foreign policy, which has based more on military power than traditional diplomacy for the past six years.  Richardson's effectiveness is even clearer now, with Lieberman threatening to attack Iran.  I find this posturing and blustering to be totally absurd and even dangerous.

I strongly agree with Richardson's overall focus on diplomacy, and putting economic sanctions on Iran.  I agree especially with his innovative idea put forth during the New Hampshire debates.  There has been a general silence among nations vis-a-vis China's ghastly atrocities in the human rights realm, and not just about China and Darfur, but towards Tibetans.  China has constructed in Tibet dozens of prisons which, for Tibetans, are exactly like Auschwitz and Dachau.

I posited the same idea in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, in correspondence to His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, and to many heads of state, that the moral indignation of the nations in the Olympics in Beijing in 2008 should be harnessed into at least the threat of boycott.  To be effective, this could be perhaps worded more diplomatically.  During the debate, both Senator Edwards and Senator Biden clearly agreed with this point by Richardson.

Make no mistake: this is probably the last chance in human history to do anything constructive about Tibet, to prevent henceforth the genocidal treatment of Tibetans remaining in Tibet, which has since 1969 seen 1.2 million Tibetans killed.  This totals roughly 20% of the entire population of Tibet.  American political powers could decline to put to use what little remains of our power of moral suasion in the world at large, and we could to once docilely capitulate to dim-witted politicians who say that the Olympics are only about sport, and not about politics, and such claptrap as "a boycott would unfairly punish the athletes."  Then we would be no better than many nations who were oblivious to the growing obviousness of the genocide of Jews in Europe before and during World War II.

Actually, the USA was for many years totally oblivious in this regard, whether you blame Roosevelt or anti-Semitics in the State Department, all of which is thoroughly documented in Arthur Morse's book, While Six Million Died.  In that light, I think Richardson is on the right track!  The case is even stronger, when you consider the dead pets and the poisoned cold medicines and toothpaste from China.  Those considerations are just not "about politics": as it was about life and death for many.

Comments

[granny]

BRAVO!!!

I am 100% in agreement with Stephen Fox's postiton regarding China, the WORLD Olympics, and the Tibetans.

This is probably a once in a lifetime opportunity for the world community to step up and say: We will not condone genocide, or support those who engage in it.

This feeble response:"a boycott would unfaily punish the athletes." is an embarrassment to the human community.

Our contemporary refusal to take a moral position as we watch genocide being committed in other places across the world - as well as in Tibet, gives a false and hollow meaning to the rhetoric we engage in regarding our failure to "know" what was happening during the Holocaust.

At the Nuremberg Trials citizens of that country came forward to plead their ignorance, their inability to swim against the current; and "we" in our ivory tower, were quick to condemn. Ah, how "what goes around, comes around" ...Now it is our turn: What ever the world community chooses to do, it is imperative for the strength and character fo this country to stand up and say "No", we will not look the other way.

[Scott]

Richardson is wrong about economic sanctions. They don't work and are very bad for the 21st century. The government needs to drop barriers to direct citizen action.

[George]

There is so much to say about this but to be quick:

1. I dont like making the Olympics a political event. Nothing will be solved by non-participation anyway.
2. If we really cared about this, we wouldnt need the Olympics to make that clear.
3. We cant really afford to do anything about it because of our other foreign policy commitments and blunders.

As usual, it comes down to voting intelligent people into the White House. If you think Bush will do anything, you're completely insane.

I appreciate the information though.

[granny]

I disagree with George. First, this is not about thinking George Bush is going to "do anything" This isn't about Bush - it's about us. And frankly, we, as a people, ought to be looking, right now, for every available avenue, to demonstrate that "we" are not Bush.

Second, the Olympics are political, like it or not. The atheletes have fun, the countries, on the other hand, spend mega bucks to posture, and to win, and it matters to them.

I'm not sure how we'd interpret "nothing to be solved" - "Solutions" are few and far between, but progress is made in the small steps. It is a matter of enormous pride and honor for the Chinese (whose sense of moral and ethical behavior is not identicle to ours)to be "respected" in this public arena, in the eyes of the watching world. And it's not beyond imagining that if we stepped forward, others might follow.
The Chinese will go a long mile to prevent that kind of publicity.

And it wouldn't be a bad idea if we gave some thought to our own honor at this point, too.

Third, I cannot agree with the concept that because our foreign policy has been deceitful, mismanaged, and outright bungled, that we should then add to that by wimping out on a moral issue. If that's the basis upon which the next decisions will be made, then nothing can be changed. We'd just continue down the road to ruin...

As to "if we really cared", that I do agree with. Sad to say. But still, better late than never.