Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
BEIJING BOYCOTT.
Hillary Clinton just sent out an email praising Gordon Brown for pledging to not attend the Olympic opening ceremonies in Beijing. She called upon Bush to follow suit, and wants the other presidential candidates to join her:
I wanted to commend Prime Minister Gordon Brown for agreeing not to go to the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing. That was an important decision by Prime Minister Brown and I am calling on Senators McCain and Obama to join me in my request that President Bush also not attend the opening ceremonies.
Obama has been hesitant to tell Bush to do so, though he says he's conflicted about U.S. participation. And Clinton herself has stopped short of calling for an all-out boycott of the games. I'm of the mind that a boycott should be all or nothing -- if you think the issue is important enough to skip the opening ceremonies, it should be important enough to skip the whole thing. Regardless, good for Clinton for taking up the issue.
--Kate Sheppard
COMMENTS (11)
I disagree, for the reasons expressed by Steve Clemons. Good for Obama (and good for Bush, for what it's worth) for not taking the superficially more attractive position on this issue.
Posted by: alkali | April 9, 2008 5:34 PM
Because of our pre-emptive war in Iraq and our actions at Abu Graib as well as Guantanamo, the U.S. is in no position to lecture anyone about human rights. Hillary is just pandering to the anti-China crowd.
Posted by: marvyt | April 9, 2008 5:53 PM
China is very flexible,
China is very flexible,
If you want a friend, China is your friend.
If you want a competitor, China is your competitor.
If you want a partner, China is your partner.
If you want an enemy, then China will a qualified enemy to you, make no doubt about it!
Posted by: SZ | April 9, 2008 6:29 PM
Skipping the opening ceremony boycott is not going to change Chinese policy. But this only the latest round in this game between the US and China...remember the Dalai Lama's visit and China refusing to let the Kitty Hawk carrier group dock in Hong Kong?
Obama does need to provide a clear answer, though. So much of what makes him appealing are his clear stands on Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, and Cuba. It could damage his brand a bit, as I argue here:
http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/the-subtle-danger-obamalympics-poses-to-his-candidacy/
Posted by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano | April 9, 2008 6:49 PM
Hillary is grasping for something that she can say that she did.
We are supposed to ignore the fact that, after welcoming them like royalty, she accompanied Chinese generals on tours of sensitive military areas while Bill was president.
Posted by: Web Smith | April 9, 2008 8:04 PM
Hillary's statement proves that she would not be good president. I do not think not attending the opening ceremony would be helpful to improve China's human right. It is really naïve to think so. Her confrontational approach would not work. On the other hand, Olympics is about having a great party for people all over the world. To mess it up with politics and spoil the party is not polite as a world leader.
Posted by: Charlie | April 9, 2008 8:57 PM
We don't live in a pre-historic era. This is a new world. China is a new world. Making boicot does not improve the civilization. China was selected to set Olympic Games and it should receive the same consideration as the past Olympic Games. There is "no war" in China. Tibet still belong to China as Taiwan and Hong Kong. Tibetans are not victims. They are free people.
Posted by: Luu | April 9, 2008 10:20 PM
I used to be very liberal on Tibet issue and support more Tibetan autonomy. However, I am really upset by distortion of facts and lies by these Tibetan exiles and outrageous biases by the west media. People forget the simple facts that majorities of the death toll are innocent Chinese people killed by these violent monks. These rioters are criminals, period. Remember 92 LA King Riots? Don’t you agree that U.S. government took deadly force to quickly bring about the society safety and stability? China is entitled to use whatever measures necessary to safeguard people’s lives and properties, including forceful and deadly actions as any sovereign nation should. China SHOULD CRACKDOWN these violent criminals! Because of the Olympic PR, China actually restraint! The actions of violence against innocent Han Chinese and hijacking Olympic to someone’s hidden agenda WILL NOT help any effective solution for Tibet issue.
I would be more impressed if China declare the organizer as Terrorist and start to deal with them as such. If there are factual linkage between the violent riots and Dalai Lama, China SHOULD NOT have any dialogue with Dalai Lama and should learn how U.S. dealt with Saddam. As for those threatening boycotts or threatening boycotting open ceremony, I would say “Bring it on, make it the day”. I am sure that Chinese will take it as regret and will just move on.
Posted by: Tony of CA | April 9, 2008 11:21 PM
Hey, why criticize the actions of the Chinese government? It's just another example of the hard left in action, cracking skulls in the name of utopia.
Posted by: Fellow Traveler | April 10, 2008 3:44 AM
If you've been looking for specific examples of how U.S. foreign policy over the last few years has jeopardized human rights around the world, look no further than these last few comments.
Posted by: Trevor J | April 10, 2008 9:49 AM
China's actions in Tibet have nothing to do with "the hard left" and have a lot more to do with control over a source of fresh water. You think the current round of food riots are bad, wait until we have water riots.
I don't support an olympics boycott, though. This just punishes american athletes -- it's not like it had any tangible effect in 1980 on the USSR.
Posted by: dbt | April 13, 2008 10:38 AM