Clinton Wants Bush To Boycott Olympic Opening Ceremonies

WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday called on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies for the Olympic games in Beijing, a fresh sign that politics, not sports, may take center stage at the summer games.

The Democratic presidential candidate said a boycott would underscore U.S. concerns about recent unrest in Tibet and questions about China's relationship with Sudan.

"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for presidential leadership," she said, charging the Bush administration "has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China."

She said Bush should not plan on attending the ceremonies "absent major changes by the Chinese government."

Her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, recently said he was conflicted about whether the U.S. should fully participate.

Bush has said he will attend the Olympics because it is a sporting event, not a political event.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters Monday that Bush's position had not changed, nor had the administration's concerns about China's human rights record.

"We have never been afraid to express those views either directly by the president or the president's senior advisers when they travel to China and publicly," Fratto said.

Story continues below

advertisement

Obama issued a statement late Monday saying he has been "deeply disturbed by the recent events in Tibet, and have communicated my concerns in public and to President Bush," adding that if China does not take quick steps to respect rights and freedoms in Tibet, "there should be consequences."

The political debate over China's hosting role is rapidly overtaking the sports-themed torch ceremonies around the globe.

In Paris on Monday, organizers canceled the final leg of the traditional torch run through the city. In the face of chaotic protests and repeated attempts to douse the torch, organizers snuffed out the flame and put the torch aboard a bus in a humiliating concession to protesters decrying China's human rights record.

At least two activists got almost an arm's length away before they were seized by police. Another protester threw water at the torch but failed to put it out before being taken away.

The disturbances in Paris followed similar efforts in London on Sunday, where the torch was run through another gauntlet of protesters.

Clinton's announcement comes as her campaign tries to recover from jettisoning its chief campaign strategist this weekend for his involvement with a U.S.-Colombia free trade deal she opposes.

Rival Obama said in a TV interview earlier this month that he was "of two minds" when it came to full U.S. participation in the Olympics.

"On the one hand, I think that what has happened in Tibet, China's support for the Sudanese government in Darfur, is a real problem," he said, before adding: "I am hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, among other U.S. lawmakers, has suggested Bush should consider staying away from the opening ceremonies following China's crackdown on protesters in Tibet.

___

Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

Comments

[dontshootme]

Give me a break!

If Hillary had sewed up the nomination on super tuesday there is NO way she would be proposing that we boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

How can anyone here take her seriously on this one, when you know this position is totally born of political calculation.

Hillary has seriously been running to the left this past week
-talking up gay rights on Ellen
-firing Mark Penn for his Colombian fling
-now, talking of an Olympic boycott

This is all stuff that gets headlines during the primary season, but should we see Hillary get the nomination (highly doubtful) will get shunted to bottom, last page of any Hillary position paper.

[elsrks]

I am in TOTAL agreement with dontshootme!
These are last ditch efforts in the Clintonian constantly changing Strategy-- --what is there to lose-- why not take a more progressive stance now-- it's worth a try?? especially in the primary --Sweeping progressive proposals-­-interesti­ng!! Chelsea is using the "Progressive" word in her stump now!
Are we to believe she is now principled??? and not conflicted on this very complicated Olympic issue?

"Polls: Obama,Clinton Tied in Pa"-- This is cause for us-Obama supporters to be prepared.
Take notice--this NEW heavily PROGRESSIVE Agenda seems so purposeful and CALCULATING!!
Also, it is a Distraction from Friday afternoon news--their Tax Returns, Penn's conflicts of interest (or non conflicts??)., library donors, her campaign mess and financial difficulties, and the Math.......

Hillary is a disingenuous and dishonest person.
I have a hard time believing anything that she says.

[jthNET]

The Olympics were supposed to be a non-political event, where, no matter what wars were going on, they would cease, to allow the Olympics to occur. It seems to me, than when people try to use the Olympics as political leverage or to go against this premise, it usually backfires. Maybe it's karma, I don't know. But, it seems against the tradition to use it as leverage against China.

This is not to say that China is without fault, or the US, for that matter. But the Olympics were supposed to be a time when we laid down our weapons and 'fought' in sport, instead of blood.

[k6007]

How about a worldwide boycott of WalMart, instead? That'll probably pull more weight than a symbolic no-show at a once every four yr. event.

[jthNET]

But, how would a boycott of WalMart show China anything? Aren't the products in WalMart stores already purchased? Wouldn't that hurt more Americans than China?

[goodsnservices]

Hillary calling for Bush to boycott the Chinese Olympics shows just how LITTLE she actually understands about foreign relations.

Here's a hint, Hillary. Human rights is the biggest sore spot between the west and China, but not because it's a bogeyman state, but because it values rights of the community and state above individual rights. It's a cultural thing. But we keep banging them over the head with it thinking that somehow that will make them change their behavior. Instead, such treatment is interpreted by Chinese as disrespect for their sovereign rights and gets their backs up. If you want to change Chinese behavior toward individuals, you're going to have to take a longer-term approach, because just doing what we've always done has changed NOTHING. If you want them to change, you have to first convince them that you respect them so they'll listen. Then you have to convince them that treating individuals humanely is in the interest of their country. Boycott the Olympics, the thing they have put so much into as a symbol of their respected place in the world, and you shame them. Shame them, and they'll NEVER forgive us. Think about that when the loans come due in 25 years...

But then again, you are the status quo, aren't you? You'll be out there making your millions anyway, while the rest of us suffer for your stupidity.

[kyeblue]

Final, someone with a brain. I like your post.

Normally, when politician makes a dumb move like this, it usually has some popular appeal and give him or her some short term boost in popularity. But I am not sure if Hillary has achieved this. People say Hillary is calculating, but her calculus is just awful.

[kyeblue]

Dear Hillary,

as a foreign policy expert, I would worry much more about Iran's getting its nukes, than Chinese and Tibetans killing each other. DId your advisor forget to tell you before he quits that North Korea is massing its troops along DMZ. And did your friend Corzine mention to you why his former Goldman Sachs colleague Paulson was in Beijing last week?

We need f*** collaboration from China NOW more than any moment in this nations history.

[LeoMarvin]

Does that mean the rights of the Tibetan people should just be swept under the rug? I agree that trying to fix problems without adequate context can cause unintended consequences as bad as or even worse than the original problem. We've seen that played out to disastrous effect in Iraq. But Tibetans have had cause to complain for a long time, and their quiescence for most of that time has only kept their cause out of the public awareness required to force it onto political agendas. So now that Tibetans are in the public mind, how do you suggest addressing their concerns in a more constructive way than the proposed boycott before they slip back into obscurity?

[kyeblue]

No. But just as you suggested, boycotting Olympics or its openings does nothing for the Tibetans, if not for the worse. Only a handful western scholars understand the complexity of Tibetan-Sino love-hate relationship. Don't you know that Dalai Lama even has a palace in Beijing given by a Chinese Emperor. The negotiation between Chinese government and Dalai Lama never stopped since 1980. The current clash is staged by those younger Tibetan exiles who are impatient with Dalai Lama, and openly promote a more violence approach. Those younger people, many never lived in Tibet, understand little about its own history and how to deal with Chinese.

The western leaders, like Brown and Condi Rice all did right thing by calling for negotiation between Chinese government and Dalai Lama. Unfortunately, Chinese Government is now extremely nervous about a failed Olympics, and just like any person, when nervous, doesn't behave rationally. The constructive way is to calm down the Chinese government first then push for talks. A joint statement from major western powers to support Beijing Olympics will do more good to Tibetans than calling for boycotting, in both short term and long term.

[truthskr]

Finally, something I could possibly agree with Hillary on. Unfortunately, such a gesture would have absolutely no effect. Bush has soundly pissed away any leverage or influence the US may have once held over China, due to many issues, but particularly of late by selling our country to China (among other equally oppressive nations) in the form of heavy, crippling foreign borrowing and debt. It's a little hard to wag your finger at your banker only to turn around a minute later with your hand out asking for some more allowance.

The Olympics and China aside, Bush is also certainly in no position to repudiate the human rights policies of any nation when he himself neither adheres to the civil liberties of the nation over which he presides, nor abides by the international laws protecting the sovereign states he chooses to illegally invade and occupy.

[mommadona]

Gee - I'm not sure Bush's Chinese handler who is Poppy Bush payroll would go along with that idea.....

Oh, didn't you KNOW?

George H W Bush is on their payroll.
And the Unification Church's Sun Myung Moon's payroll.
And the Saud's payroll.
And the Abu Dabai payroll.

Old man's got his lower extremity inserted at every level.

[faretheewell]

OK Hillary, I have to give you kudos for this one. It certainly falls short of calling for the US to boycott the entire event, a better solution, but it is a step in the right direction.

This certainly doesn't make up for the lies, and failure to admit your screw up on the Iraq vote, but it is a good call.

[k6007]

It would be......IF you could believe anything she says.

[4GoodOldAmerica]

Even though it is an obvious attempt for Mrs. Clinton or her new strategist to get attentions away from Mark Penn problem... it is good to have another voice for boycotting Beijin olyjmpic. But. She should have done this much earlier if she was seriously concerned with this issue.

[drdrbob]

I've had problems reconciling the venom of the Obama and Clinton supporters with the utilization of critical thinking (obviously in very short supply), and the future of this country. The comments today relative to the olympics have finally done it for me. I was leaning towards Obama, but no more. Clinton DID NOT propose boycotting the olympics, JUST the opening ceremony (as a number of others from around the world have suggested). Obama is still waffling. Obama's supporters on this website, if they represent the majority of his support, are as dangerous to our future, though in different ways, as Bush/Cheney and McCain.

[babar77]

Well this actually pushes me more towards Obama - but I was already there. Even before boycotts were being called, I wondered personally what a boycott in the Olympics would truly accomplish. Personally, I like the fact that Obama takes his time to truly think out his positions, and he only takes action when he feels that action can actually generate real change. In this case, I think Obama does have the time to think this through and he should.

Personally, I'm not so sure any boycott of the Olympics ever truly accomplished anything - other than a bunch of asterisks next to medal counts because major countries did not participate. The Olympics are supposed to be about sport - not politics. They are supposed to be an opportunity for countries to find common ground in friendly competition and set aside conflicts, even if it's just for a couple of weeks.

Plus, I wonder if boycotting the Olympics could actually have a reverse effect. The reduced media coverage might actually harm the causes your boycotting for. And if you think the state run Chinese media isn't going to spin a boycott to it's populace, you've not being honest with yourself.

[mice]

The headline to this article is misleading... HRC is only calling for a boycott of the opening ceremonies, not the actual Olympic games. But I agree with you... it's something to think about. Considering the Olympics is not supposed to be about politics, now suddenly using it for politics should not be a decision to take lightly. On the other hand, it's hypocritical for the US to boycott the ceremonies to protest human rights violations when the world is watching, but then allow and in some cases depend on human rights violations when it's not. This seems pretty much on par with how Hillary has acted duirng her campaign -- in the public eye she is superficially for popular liberal stances, but when the camera's not on she behaves differently. (I.e., Mark Penn)

drdrbob, c'mon! I don't believe you that because of some comments on this blog story, that suddenly you believe that Obama supporters will be as dangerous for this country as Bush/Cheney and McCain. That is a ridiculous statement.... one that is definitely lacking of critical thinking. It's true that I dislike Hillary, but you can be sure that I'd vote for her in a heartbeat in a race between her and McCain. I know what's at stake with the Supreme Court. I'd rather have her in office, heeding to the demands of lobbyists, big corporations, and the military industrial complex, rather than McCain doing those things and appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

[mix2007]

This is a bad idea.

I think official rebuke from the US would be VERY poorly received in China. It would result in a backlash.

But NGO and media criticism can put effective pressure, without giving the excuse of blaming it all on America.

The press and activisits are already doing a good job against China. That's the best strategy.

[goofy2]

The issues involved between our country and China are many and complex. Those issues should be addressed privately, by informed appropriate parties, and outside political contests and posturing. It amazes me how many "experienced" politicians want to turn international affairs into public "pissing contests" in no-win situations. Negotiating is more likely harmed than enhanced by the kind of posturing Hillary's idea promotes. A proper US response to China's unexcusable crackdown on Tibetan or any other dissidents will not be crafted under political pressure, and would likely involve more than the absence from a world event of a President whose presence is not exactly revered worldwide.

[babar77]

Exactly. For the life of me I cannot see how the world would take a boycott from the US seriously right now. This is the main problem with giving up the moral high ground.

[gwhizz]

Baby steps, barbar, baby steps. If we sit on the fence on this one, it'll be even harder to try to start regaining the high ground again. This is a good first step back to the high ground.

Those of you poo-poohing this because "it won't accomplish anything", get over it. It's a GESTURE. It's not supposed to accomplish anything beyond making a statement and that statement is, "we don't approve."

[Wiredwilly]

A boycott of the Olympics to protest the enslavement of Tibet is like a boycott of the New York Philharmonic to protest the Iraq War. They simply are not related. China just HAPPENS to be hosting the Olympics this year just as the New York Philharmonic just HAPPENS to be based in New York. Both are positive cultural phenomenon that get used by people totally uninvolved to promote a political agenda. An effective boycott would be a boycott of Chinese products sold in the United States and a freeze on all U.S. business transactions with China. However , that would be meaningful, whereas an Olympic boycott can give the politicians the appearance of supporting Tibet without actually doing anything to offend their Corporate masters. It is astonishing how oblivious people are. People were promoting Tibetan freedom in 1970. The politicians are noticing NOW ??? 30 years AFTER the Viet Nam War people figure out the Counter Culture was CORRECT about the War. The People are correct about Iraq now, The People want peace, The Politicians are still creating carnage. Want the truth ? Listen to The People, not the Politicians. Listen to Aaron Russo on You Tube.

[julieeiluj]

Oh no. What if they call our loans? Aren't they financing our war? Oh, woe is us...;)

[Warmglobe]

I choose to boycott her!

[NightRider]

I am still thinking about Hillary's Tuzlas (Lies) these last couple of weeks.

Bosnia - ducking sniper fire

Ohio - woman denied health care service

Montana - she criticized Iraq before Obama did.

We need to boycott Hillary for lying or misspoke or sleep-deprivation or!