Why Bush Should Not Attend the Beijing Opening Ceremonies

President Bush's announcement that he will attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics came in the wake of brutal crackdowns in Tibet and during a week when seven peacekeepers were murdered in the Darfur region of Sudan, where China continues to underwrite the carnage.

It also came at a moment when a growing group of U.S. and international politicians have taken a stand by eschewing the opening ceremonies -- the only component of the Games geared not toward celebrating the athletes but entirely toward burnishing the Beijing regime's political image. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper were joined recently by European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering in deciding not to attend. Barack Obama and John McCain have indicated that if they were president they would not attend unless they saw a significant improvement in China's human rights record.

Bush has squandered an enormous opportunity. Beijing has been notoriously indifferent to traditional diplomatic pressure, but it has leaped into action to protect the Games. Early efforts by human rights activists to link Darfur to the Games prompted Beijing to hastily appoint an envoy to the region, to soften its veto threats on the U.N. Security Council and, most significantly, to sign last year's U.N. resolution authorizing a protection force for Darfur.

A presidential boycott of the opening ceremonies might have proved to be a powerful additional point of leverage with an otherwise intractable regime. A boycott limited to the opening ceremonies also would have had the advantage of not targeting the athletes. And it would have sent a strong symbolic statement to Beijing at little substantive cost to U.S.-China relations.

Instead, Bush has made a powerful statement tacitly approving China's behavior. His decision is regrettable.

It was a missed opportunity for the United States to stand strong in support of the anguished people of Darfur as well as the Tibetans in their long struggle.

It was an opportunity to express solidarity with those Chinese citizens whose human rights are being denied, to demonstrate moral leadership and to represent the values and principles our nation was founded on.

It was a golden opportunity now lost.

Originally Published in the LA Times

Actress Mia Farrow has made nine trips to the Darfur region. Ronan Farrow, a student at Yale Law School, has worked on human rights issues in Darfur and South Sudan and on U.S.-China relations for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They are mother and son.

Read more HuffPost coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games

Comments

[EuLupu]

Let me see... A bunch of wealthy and overpaid actors traveled to Darfur and want a boycott of Olympics Games that happen to take place in China. Without questioning the genocide in Darfur I am questioning their intentions and methods - why do they not staged protest after protest in front of the White House and UN to solve the problem? I mean thousands of these actors for days and nights. Rwanda was a MASSIVE genocide where US and a bunch of other western countries UNDERWROTE the carnage. 1994 Winter Olympic Games were not boycotted or stopped to pay tribute to Rwanda genocide. If we would apply the twisted logic of boycotting world sports events we will not have any. This is not about China is about the Olympic Games and the goodwill they spread. They need to go on if we want to keep the hope alive. For once Bush is doing the right thing regardless of his motive. We had Olympic boycotts one after each other - Moscow and Los Angeles. Did they solve the problems???

[MagisterLudi]

Further politicization of Olympic Games is THE worst idea I have ever heard.

For a few weeks we forget the creeds and colors and politics and just watch in awe at the beauty of human body in competition and the endurance of human spirit.
Just as ancient Olympians did.
This sense of commonality of the human race is much more important than a short term benefit of humiliation of the host nation.

Think about it.... Enjoy the Games.

[BaltimoreSteve]

Really now....Face it Bush is attending the opening of these games because he simply likes to go to sporting events. He is not smart enough to think logically that his not attending might upset his money supply for the invasion in Iraq. He really craves a good stadium hot dog. I've got it....Let's tell him that dogs are off the menu for the Olympics. That might get him to cancel attending the ceremonies.

[moreupnorth]

Face it Bush is attending the opening of these games because he simply does not want to upset his money supply for the invasion in Iraq. Where else would he get the money to continue his domination of the Middle East?

[MagisterLudi]

We're talking about Olympic Games. Take your Middle East preoccupation to another thread elsewhere please.

[shanghaislim]

Stand up for Human Rights Violations in America................

..............to show some consistency.

Human Rights Violations around the world as a total theme might make us take you more seriously?

[kvass]

A better reason for him not to attend would be the possibility he will make this country look even sillier by doing or saying something bushley stupid and embarrass the hosts and his own citizens.

[Sportswoman]

I think that a "Slap in the face of the Beijing government" was what this article had in mind. Right or wrong move, it certainly would send a message to the world that the US cared about human rights--but then, this is the MC of the Waterboard Show at the G-House. I would never expect this President to care about the people of any another country. He has shown callous disregard for people in the mideast, Europe, and here at home. All he cares about is $$$ and oil. Oil and $$$. His disregard for the Constitution here at home and the basic human rights of Americans underscore our lack of surprise when he responded to the boycott question with a smeer, a chortle, and 'This is about sports" almost said in a guffaw.

[Kache]

The Games aren't just about the Chinese government. It's about the people.

The Chinese people have come a long way over the last 20 years. Forget our obsession with their government for just a few minutes and look deeper and you'll find a citizenry proud of it's accomplishments. China has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, and that has not been the result of the government, but the result of billions of days of hard work, smart work, and achievement built upon achievement. The Chinese people are proud and have every right to their pride, and deserve our respect.

[ceti]

Asking for Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics begs the question -- does Bush have any moral legitimacy over China, especially in the area of human rights? Having Bush lecture the Chinese is not going to help anyone, and will only make matters worse. China can rightfully throw such an act back in the administration's face. Citing Brown, Harper, and Merkel is not going to impress the Chinese either. Brown and Harper in particular have demonstrated their imperial pretentions as has Merkel, who has gone along with the Bush administration.

[seanymike]

It seems petty for the president not to attend the opening ceremony as a form of protest to an ongoing social injustice in China. Not attending will not change what's going on between the Han and the Tibetans. It's an ideological difference between the two parties in China, not between Bush and the Chinese rule. Not going would be redundant because he's in office for 6 more months and I believe would be completely forgotten by the closing ceremonies. There's better ways to help the TAR regionand cancelling one of Bush's vacations is not a plausible one. The media has made this a popular story and frankly I'm sick of hering about it. Bush not going is neither a step forward or a step back, just picture taking diplomacy. Besides, I would rather him be in China than in Washington where in his last months he's seemed as resilient as ever to pass his agenda. So look at it this way: If Bush is in China, he's not here.

[Tremonius]

Did you see the current Harper's? There's an explanation about how the US foreign policy is driven by China. Seems the government functionaries who sat at the China desk with names like Haig and Snowcroft are now enmeshed in lucrative consulting and corporate schemes. The think tanks which tell you, as Rice does, that 'Constructive Engagement' means democracy always and every time are talking less about history and more about corporate profit.

Also you must factor in just what would happen were the Chinese to decide to no longer fund our wretched excess in bloated deficits. They could, with some pain to themselves and much to the US, drop the dollar in favor of the yen or the euro. That would be a mess much worse than empty slots at the opening ceremonies this August.

[agachieng]

Another "Opportunity Missed"?(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-farrow/opportunity-missed_b_110869.html)

[moskie23]

Boycotting the Beijing Olympics is a terrible idea. China is trying to become friends with the rest of the world, and it is having to gradually improve its human rights record in order to do that. From the perspective of the chinese government it is doing a pretty good job of improving human rights, and even though on any absolute scale it isn't doing to well, compared to China a few decades ago it is much better. Boycotting the olympics would be a slap in the face of the Beijing government and only help to convince them that they really are being opposed by Western governments and will need to rely further on governments like the ones in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Russia, Angola, etc for economic and political alliances.