Good Call or Bad Call? Boycotting Opening Ceremonies

World leaders have been placed under increased pressure recently by protesters to skip the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics in China. Protesters, regardless of whether you agree with their actions of attempting to stop the Olympic torch run, have brought sunshine on anti-Tibet policies by the Chinese government and other human rights infractions as the country moves forward with hosting the summer games.

Some leaders, such as Gordon Brown of England, have decided to skip the ceremonies out of protest to China’s actions. You can’t fault their decision. President Bush seems to be leaning towards going to the ceremonies. You can’t seem to fault him either on this decision.

First, Bush is, as the article I posted mentions, a sport purist like most Americans. Looking at athletic competition through the lens of politics seems awkward and out of touch with the true spirit of Olympic competition. While I hold the same view of the Olympics, one could easily argue that the Olympics hold a different place because of the international nature of the games and some of the previous games that have been held that have had a political overtone to them. Thus, a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies would seem to be in line of previous boycotts and also keep the athletes who have trained for the games eligible to participate unlike the boycotts of 1980 and 1984.

However, Bush has to look at the larger picture when it comes to relations with China. The struggling American economy depends on China for resources and the two countries are a large economic trading partner. A decision by Bush to upset the country’s population and government could damage the economy more than rising gas prices. China is a trading partner the American government and economy can’t afford to lose at this point. Bush, in his final months of his presidency, would not want to make a decision that could have such a devastating impact on the country’s economy.

Also, Bush has international policy initiatives to consider. With North Korea an issue, China is an important communication partner to discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons with Kim Jong-il. If Bush boycotts the Ceremonies, he risks losing the communication partner in a situation that is far from over. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and thus has the use of a veto over any discussion or plans the Security Council is presented with and a boycott could lead China to routinely use the veto against the United States.

The situation for Bush is not as clear as go or not go, as protesters would like to think. So what could Bush and others do to make the political point to China that its human right violations have gone on for too long and it’s time for a change? Bush, as it seems to be his intent, could use the game to highlight the human right issues while in the country and have a more direct one-on-one conversation with Chinese leaders over the issues. Then again, we’ve known about these issues since 1989 … isn’t it time for China to clean up its country?

Then there is the possibility of declaring China unfit to hold the games. That seems unlikely given that we are almost at the 100-day mark for the start of the games. It would be a logical and security nightmare to moving the games to anywhere else in the world, including 2000 Olympic host city Sydney. That’s not including the concerns of media, fans, and the athletes. That means we are all but stuck with China hosting its first Olympic games in August.

There is no clean answer in this political hot potato no matter how you view the Olympics, Bush, or sports. Be prepared, folks, for the most political Olympic games since Russia boycotted the 1984 Summer Games.