Here is Nina Hachigian of the California for the Center for American Progress discussing UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s decision to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.
America has so little leverage to influence human rights in China that it is supremely tempting to hold the Games hostage. Yet the only proven methodology to make progress on human rights in China is boring, incremental and politically thankless, at best. America can help on the margins to empower civil society on the ground there, embed China deeply into a world system that reflects liberal values and encourages open trade, and, most of all, lead by example – not a U.S. strength, as of late. The bold move would be for the United States to join the Human Rights Council at the United Nations where China’s record could be publicly scrutinized each year. But you know that when a U.N. bureaucracy is the SUGGESTED solution to any problem, American politicians will run for cover, fearing accusations of waste and bias.
Calling for a boycott of the Olympics, on the other hand – that will get A POLITICIAN on TV, and it sounds principled. Unfortunately, it will not help the people of Tibet one iota. Public shame will not work with China – it never has. It just reinforces the common Chinese perception, or misperception, that the West does not want it to succeed. Appealing to China’s pride, its fervent desire for normalcy, its wish for respect, might.
My standing theory is that the primary purpose of liberal think tanks is write editorials bashing liberal activists so it’s good to see new kid of the liberal think tank block Center for American Progress is getting in the act.
Actually I think this a fairly good description of how difficult it is to get China’s government to change it’s behavior. Where it fails is trying pretend that there is some clear alternative to the various things activists would suggest. Here Hachigan again on what we should be doing:
“Yet the only proven methodology to make progress on human rights in China is boring, incremental and politically thankless, at best. America can help on the margins to empower civil society on the ground there, embed China deeply into a world system that reflects liberal values and encourages open trade, and, most of all, lead by example – not a U.S. strength, as of late. The bold move would be for the United States to join the Human Rights Council at the United Nations where China’s record could be publicly scrutinized each year.”
This is half baked for two main reasons, firstly there is no proven methodology for improving human rights in China, and it’s odd to act as if they there was. Secondly, there is no contradiction between boycotting and do the things she suggests we do. Supporting the UN Human Rights Council, empowering civil society in China, economic integration with China, and America leading by example on human rights are all good things and I could easily support them. But there is no reason we can’t do those things and still boycott. In the case of Gordon Brown, I imagine he’d tell you he is trying to do those things and he’s planning to boycott the opening ceremonies
I would suggest that there is a contradiction between the rhetorical call to empower civil society in China, while ignoring civil society calls to boycott the Olympics. This is the main reason I support a boycott is because there are people on the ground in Tibet protesting and risking their lives and to do nothing is tantamount to siding with the riot police deployed against them.
I can’t stand here and tell you a boycott will improve the situation, but let’s not pretend that we’re really close to a solution, but a boycott would screw everything up.
Filed under: China, International | Leave a Comment
Tags: 2008 Olympics, Beijing Olympics, Boycott, Boycott of the Olympics, Center for American Progress, China, China Civil Society, China Olympics, Nina Hachigian, Olympics Boycott, Opening Ceremony Boycott, Summer Olympics, Tibet
-
Recent Comments
Blogroll
No Responses Yet to “Empower Civil Society Aboard, Ignore Civil Society at Home”