Tibet, Beijing and Olympic Sponsors: To Boycott or Not
I have been working in Shanghai as an ad man since 1998. I have also been privileged to enjoy a courtside seat as China gears up its infrastructure and emotions for the Beijing 2008 Olympics. I am also a "official" torch bearer, slated to carry the Olympic flame 200 meters sometime this summer, somewhere in the Middle Kingdom hinterland. Until recently, the Chinese have been eagerly anticipating their epic coming out party. Pollution? Not to worry, locals say. The government will ensure "blue skies" by shutting down factories. Traffic? Again, no problem. One thing the bureaucrats know how to do, they say, is manage logistics.
The Rumbles of "Policitization"
Now, however, the specter of Tibet, international opprobrium and potential boycotts, both political and commercial, has created an undercurrent of anxiety. As yet, no one is predicting anything dramatic -- for example, a major country forbidding its athletes to participate in the Games. However, the recent stridency of Big Brother propaganda accusing Western media of anti-China bias -- it's reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution brainwashing -- suggest that tension is mounting and the masses are being prepared for a less-than-glorious bow on the world stage.
As a American raised with an unshakable belief in the righteousness of Western values and institutions -- the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; universal human rights; bottom-up representative democracy; and efficient capital markets -- I instinctively empathize with the impulses of the protesters. However, as someone who has lived in China for almost a decade, sometimes frustrated by the lack of a fully developed civil society but often inspired by the ambition and heart of the Chinese nation and people, I believe that both governments and corporate sponsors should -- no, must -- continue to support the Games. True, Westerners have a responsibility to express their displeasure, even anger, regarding the PRC's frequent failure to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the international community of nations. However, these grievances should be productively channeled and expressed with a full appreciation of China's fundamentally different world view.
The Chinese World View: Cyclical Determinism
What is that world view? The Chinese want to be modern; they want to be "international." But they are not becoming, and do not want to become, "Western." Unlike Americans and Europeans, the Chinese are morally relativistic (but not amoral or immoral). They believe in fate and maintain a cyclical view of both the cosmos and human events. In the Chinese universe, an intricate structure where everything is connected and yin morphs inexorably into yang and then back again, the only constant is change. Therefore, if there is any moral absolute, it's the near-sacred belief in the supremacy of stability and order. (Mao remains a hero, despite awareness of his "mistakes" because he unified the nation after 100-plus years of foreign domination.) In this context, the Tibetan imperative has, in Chinese eyes, little to do with human rights or respect for indigenous culture. Rather, the recent protests by the monks represent a threat to "unity," the most important bulwark against the disintegration of the motherland and chaos across the country.
Moral relativists are also pragmatists. China is blessed with an expansive, albeit ethnocentric, world view and a supremely realistic appreciation of its strengths and weaknesses relative to other nations. The Chinese government and people also boast a unique ability to absorb the influences from other countries and apply them in a domestic context, one with both challenges (a huge population; a lack of systemic checks and balances; widespread poverty in the countryside) and opportunities (a gigantic production base; an ambitious population; a consumer class with critical mass; "faith" in the wisdom of the central, but not local, government). The Chinese know they need to integrate themselves with the rest of the world and do so in a manner that does not unsettle a stable geopolitical order, one which made the country's gains of the past three decades possible. But they will insist on doing so in a manner that: a) suits China's distinct circumstances, b) reflects China's status as a equal partner vis-à-vis the West.
Why Beijing 2008 Resonates
A hot-headed "boycott agenda" - either of the Games themselves or the all-important opening ceremony -- by American and European activists and politicians would be, to say the least, unfriendly and, most certainly, counter-productive. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the games, to not only to apparatchiks but also the Chinese people. The country's emotional investment the Olympics is about more than modern China's debut on the world stage. It is more than an acknowledgment of the nation's rightful place as a budding superpower, soon shoulder to shoulder with the United States. It is even more than a confirmation of a new "glorious" era, the end of the eclipse that has enveloped China since the Opium War. The rise of an Olympics-worthy China validates the Middle Kingdom's entire worldview and confirms, in no particular order, the ebb and flow of history, the cyclical essence of yin and yang, as well as a renewed Mandate of Heaven. Beijing 2008 represents a vindication of Han culture.
In atheist China, the Games are collective spiritual balm.
On a personal level, individual identities are smothered, burdened by layers of suppressed expression. Chinese ego repression ensures that individual identities are linked to national pride. All strands of Chinese culture -- Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism -- deemphasize the individual. Yet both Confucianism and Deng Xiao Ping's "to get rich is glorious" mandate put a premium on (state-endorsed) achievement. The vast majority of Chinese, particularly younger and wealthier ones, are caught between two mutually-exclusive goals: standing out and fitting in. Chinese ambition is restrained by convention. In this context, Brand China -- i.e., nationalism -- is seized en masse as the ultimate identity surrogate. Therefore, the Olympics reflect not only the nation's potential but also "my own greatness."
The Harsh Winds of Rejection
Therefore, a successful Olympics -- i.e., positive PR in both media and political circles, void of humiliation and lost face -- would yield a confident China, one less inclined to stir up trouble abroad and more likely to grasp the fruits of political and economic integration. And a successful Olympics would ensure that is haunted by fewer demons with no cause to lash out with its back is against the wall. On the other hand, if the PRC sees the world as lined up against it, the Middle Kingdom will not emerge from its self-protective cocoon. It will not look up and out; instead, it will, claws extended, shield itself from indignity or worse. And the consequences of such a defensive, self-protective crouch would make the suppression of Tibetan monks look like a walk in the park.
Everything from continued adherence to WTO regulations and constructive collaboration with North Korea to commercial reform and openness to human rights dialogue would take a huge leap backwards. And that would benefit no one, least of all the Tibetans, a people who have only recently begun to emerge from crushing poverty.
The Corporate Sponsorship Question
Corporate sponsors have nothing to be ashamed of and should maintain their support. Indeed, most should be proud of their efforts to develop holistic strategies which benefit both the bottom line and the development of China and its people.
Johnson & Johnson's "Golden Touch, Golden Mom" elegantly fuses universal mother love with a distinctly Chinese premium on "winning." But it has done more than produce a couple lovely television ads to push product. Its corporate responsibility efforts, from sponsoring neo-natal care units to supplying medical equipment to backward villages helps make Chinese children healthier, better able to contribute to society. UPS is contributing its logistic management expertise to ensure smooth operations during the games. Both Adidas and Nike are, through sponsorship of the Games and athletes, respectively, are promoting a sporting culture driven by ground-level participation and joyful release, not the edicts of a totalitarian behemoth. And TOP-sponsor Lenovo is spreading the fruits of information technology throughout the countryside as it conducts the Olympic Torch Run, with the nation cheering along the entire route.
Of course, corporate sponsors -- and government leaders -- must defend themselves against simplistic (yet understandable) accusations of using Beijing to sell product at the expense of human rights and international fair play. They should: a) leverage back channels to convey legitimate Western concerns rather than publicly humiliate a nation in which lost face is equated with diminished status and limited negotiating flexibility; b) promote dialogue with the Dalai Lama, a generous but strategically-challenged leader who does not, in fact, to promote Tibetan independence but, rather, cultural autonomy; c) Initiate PR campaigns that anticipate the concerns well-intentioned protesters, highlighting the business community's role in nudging China to evolve into a modern, responsible state; d) remind the world of the progress that China has, in fact, made in: forging a more (albeit still far from satisfactory) rule-based society, implementing corporate governance reform, lifting millions out of poverty and dramatically raising life expectancy. Meritocratic "corporate diplomacy" has driven much of this and, by the way, represents the freest form of self-expression, both in the workplace and through advertising.
Real Progress, Whether We Want to Admit it or Not
It's worth noting that China's young generation, at least those kissed by the winds of economic reform, is the most hopeful on the planet. Even amongst Western critics, that should count for something. Optimism is underpinned by faith that their strong central government will protect the nation from instability and lubricate the gears of progress. Whether we want to believe it or not, there is no push for bottom-up representative democracy in China. Yes, the middle class wants its economic interests promoted; they want to know that property rights are protected. Yes, the masses hope an independent judiciary will emerge to check the power of corrupt local bureaucrats. But the vast majority of Chinese supports the government; thirty years of centrally-orchestrated economic progress has yielded real return. And personal liberties have expanded dramatically; there are 200 million netizens who express opinions relatively freely, as long as the third rail of organized dissent is not touched.
No, the standards are not the same as our own. No, their cultural orientation is not "individualistic." And they have a long road ahead of them, rife with challenge, frustration and disappointment. But the Chinese are making progress in their way and by their own standards. In the meantime, their ambition, audacity and scale of their miracle continue to impress anyone who visits the Middle Kingdom - Americans, in particular.
A culturally tone-deaf boycott of Beijing 2008 would do more than slight the Communist party. It would reject the aspirations of 1.3 billion Chinese souls. And that could destabilize the 21st century.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Strangely most of the boycotting by govts has been by European and Asian countries, why all the US bashing. The Darfur and boycott org. are standard practice. Why do not raise such concerns when the same people also boycott the WTO or the Iraq war? These are the same people
It shows that China and the US are still the standard kicking dogs.
You're asking us to sacrifice our own values in deference to the Chinese worldview. While I understand there are different worldviews, there are some that I do not wish to affirm. So if the a successful Beijing Olympics, as you suggest, would affirm their worldview, then I hope it fails. If China wants to be a respected superpower, it must develop a thicker skin and realize that its worldview is in the minority. That is yet another reason to apply pressure. Just because a bully is big and potentially dangerous is no reason to give in to everything he wants.
These corporations are interested in money, plain and simple. They want the consumers and they want the sales. They're only doing PR because it's a way to soften their image when they know human rights abuses are taking place. Being an Olympic sponsor is not some inalienable right that corporations possess. It is a business choice, based on how much money they can make. And it is my choice not to support them or the Olympics.
I plan to carry out my own little boycott on participating sponsors. They probably won't notice but at least I can sleep at night. In the end, we must be true to ourselves.
I am Chinese, now lives in USA. What a pity if you respond to the blog artile like that way, "You're asking us to sacrifice our own values in deference to the Chinese worldview. " I do not see any signs that Tom ask you to sacrifice your own values, the only thing he insisted is to understand or respect the other different worldview of 1.3 billion people in the oriental world before you make your decision. Don't always use freedom, human rights or democracy to declare the advantages of western values. Could you tell me how many of the people in the USA really care about the freedom, human rights of the 1.3 billion? Do you really think all the 1.3 billion people are idiots or brainwashed and need be rescued by the western countries? Stopping judge them like that way and Leave them alone! Their country should be determined by their own people.
Of course, you have rights to do whatever you want to do to boycott the 2008 Olympics, I don't mind. I fully respect your freedom and rights.
Interesting post, and some good points made. How many of them add up to rationalization is of course an open question. I'm not aware, for example, that by attending the Nazi Olympics of 1936 the U.S. contributed to world stability much, even if it did unintentionally tweak the Aryan obsession with superiority through the likes of Jesse Owens. Nor did the U.S. probably accomplish much by boycotting the Moscow games of 1980, except for not putting its imprimatur on a dictatorship's coming-out party. So showing up in Peking help the emergence of China as a force for peace and stability or simply give a locally-perceived thumbs-up to its arrogance, repression, and what many perceive as cultural and even literal genocide? Hmmm....
Early into the war in Afghanistan the US accidentally killed some Chinese diplomats. The 3 youngest of my Chinese co-workers were ready to attack and kill Americans. The oldest co-worker barked some commands to these youngsters in Chinese and they back pedaled about killing Americans.
My Chinese friend, who loves America and escaped from China told me that the older guy was telling them to shut up and not give themselves away. The older guy comes from a family that is very important in the Chinese Communist Party.
These are all American citizens, but with the exception of my friend they are all 100% loyal to the Chinese communists.
The Chinese government only allows loyal Party members to leave China.
WE have to watch our backs. China is a threat to our Freedom. I don't think we should stop trading with them or start being paranoid but Americans should realize that religious extremists like Bin Laden are not nearly as dangerous over the longterm as the Chinese Communists are.
China is buying up America and its influence is spreading. America needs to push back.
After the US government , Red Communist China is the greatest threat to American Freedom.
Corporations who advertise at the Olympics should be boycotted by those people who respect Freedom and human rights.
I get what you are saying but also consider your words to be suspect: you are an ad man working in China.
I find much about the Chinese people to be admirable but they are also victims-products of a massive and total propaganda effort by the tyrannical Chinese government. The propaganda programming of the Chinese people begins at birth.
As my Chinese co-worker says. "In China The (communist) Party is everything and life itself is not a right. Life is a privilege granted to you by the Party."
When I ask my many Chinese co-workers about Freedom of speech and censorship they say that the Chinese government wants everyone to be happy and when bad things happen(or when the government kills, sickens people etc.) the government is doing the Chinese people a favor by stopping those bad stories.
Thanks, God! Finally someone tell some truth! American people felt threatened! "Red Communist China is the grestest threat to American Freedom." Really? Greatest threat? How do you know that? Did you do any strategic analysis by your own or you only got the impression from some media? Could I say you are brainwashed by some media? In your world, Red, Communist only represent Blood or Genocide? So you always felt so unsecure when you think about growing China?
Also, I understand the feeling, why we should understand or respect their worldview, their culture, and their morality if China is the greatest threat? The only thing you should do is to oppose, boycott, or fight with the country. What a fervent patriot? How ridiculous!
My own perspective is to Leave China alone. The future of Tibet should be decided by all the residents living in Tibet, especially Tibetans (in fact, several ethnicities lives in Tibet, not only Tibetan), not just Chinese government, even not just Dalai Lama.
ShanShan, some Americans are paranoid, creating enemies from the thin air, they see people threatening them everywhere, Iraqis, Afghans, North Koreans, Cubans, Iranians, Venezuelans, Chinese, ....even though none of these countries ever send people over here to do pyhsically harm to a single citizen. None ever.
They talk so much about human rights but they forgot what they once did to the indigenous people in their own country. The killings, torture and murder of innocent people in Vietnam and now Iraq.
Maybe these are the younger generations of USA today who will be the leaders of tomorrow. If this is their tone today then the World will not be a peaceful place in the future.
Brendan O’Neill at Spiked says it all:
Using Tibet to settle scores with China
http://www
Read your link--interesting, well and convincingly written--but not what I would call a hard hitting investigative journalistic piece; More like persuasive opinion backed by very little else. He certainly has his views regarding the PRC, but I demand more from a writer on such a sensitive and complex topic, and would have preferred to see research backed by verifiable fact and authority that anyone could refer to for corroboration.
Rule of Law, thanks. I appreciate the open-mindedness in your response. This opinion piece has more research, with links.
http://www
Note that Brendan O'Neill also came out strongly against the Iraq War back in 2003. This doesn't mean he's right now, but the guy has big cojones and good instincts in cutting through the media fog.
P.S. Besides--"
Why not boycott because the games are boring? That's what I do every 4 years. Seriously-the Games are happening. People who feel stongly enough will tune out, possibly raise their voices to their legislatures, then go back to driving their subarus to the gym & using 50 Chinese-made products a day. And are ALL Chinese people really that brainwashed by the 1,000 years outdated thinking of their leaders that they will shudder & become depressed if a few countries don't come to their party? Well, then they take themselves entirely too seriously, & telling someone that doesn't hurt. Why is everything international approached with coddling & bowing? Just scrap the wasteful thing entirely, & every country use their Games budget to feed some poor people or build some hospitals & schools. Or if it's so great for marketing & the corporations, let them foot the bills for all the logistics.
First, in a Dictatorship, those 1.3 billion souls can hardly be said to have their hands upon the levers of the economy--that privilege is reserved for their masters.
Second, never fear a boycott by the US. China holds our purse strings through billions of dollars in loans that have allowed the Bush Regime to continue its war of occupation in Iraq, and they will Not jeopardize that money source. To lose it would mean needing to repay the PRC on demand, and a raise of taxes here to support the cost of the occupation. Neither is palatable to Bush, and a boycott is assuredly not an option.
In America, the 300 million American souls can hardly be said to have their hands upon the levers of the economy-- that privilege is reserved for their masters, the big greedy coorperations that take money from them and ship their jobs to China!
Bless you roadblock, you seem to be the only one who got it!
Well it's good that Tom is a 'bottoms up' kind of guy but is their any objectivity in asking possibly the most respected China based American advertising person for their view on an Olympics boycott when their own income is directly related to the outcome of that question?
Is that not akin to asking the Chinese Communist Party if they pause on the 'smashing and crushing' of the 'Dalai clique' and instead start negotiating?
Obvious isn't it?
Paradoxically I agree with Tom's urging of a successful Olympics, but here is where we differ. I believe it's up to the individual to make their own decisions. A boycott should be personal and not top down centrally dictated. People should make their own mind up. I have no problem with what people choose for themselves and don't try to push my opinion down peoples throats.
But then working in China it's easy to forget that some people are able to think for themselves and are told what to think.
Disclaimer: I work directly for Tom Doctoroff and he knows full well that I speak my mind clearly.
I'm old enough to recall similar Crypto-corporate advocacy pieces of days gone by. In the eighties there was outrage against Saudi Arabia for the public beheading of a female adulterer. Who ran full page ads in prominent newspapers urging the public to "calm down" and recall our "special relationship" with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mobil Oil.
And it's a good thing we did calm down. We continued our calm and "special" political and economic arrangements with the Kingdom. Things have really changed due to calming and not rocking that boat. And what did that yield?
How about 2 wars in the region, and an attack on our country on 9/11 where the majority of the perpetrators and actors were hmmm . . . Saudi Arabian.
And now, we finance much of our debt with Chinese funds and we import many important subcomponents for our manufacturing base (many of them tainted apparently). Another special relationship that the author of this blog posting likely doesn't want to see interrupted.
My question: "What will be the fruit from this relationship with tyranny?"
As usual, the admonition to “Follow the Money” when evaluating someone’s position, seems to hold here as well.
P.S. When you are next talking to your Chinese masters could you ask them to consider turning off the Pollution for a little while longer than just the Olympics? We here in the SF Bay Area have had our fill of it drifting across the Pacific and adding to our own.
False analogy! 1) You underestimate China. Saudi Arabia is nothing in comparison with China. Saudis turned to terrorism when they get upset with the US because they cannot have any better means. China is different. 2) Saudis are aggressive religios bigot. China is secular, and made up with an atheist majority.
The Chinese are more afraid of Japan than they are of us, and rightly so. China makes junk for the masses. When we stop buying it to put food on the table instead, they will feel it greatly. The Arabs, great friends of the Bushs, have oil beneath their ground, and the world runs on oil. Even China must have it. The Saudis, unlike yourself, have the wisdom not to offend us and their religion is what it is. The Chinese, on the other hand are well known for their racial animosities and the caste system in China is much like that of India in keeping down those of low birth.
Great post, Agent!
Never again should the world's democracies allow the Olympics be held in a tyranny, especially one that is so openly a kleptocratic gerontocracy. It's not just Tibet. It's the way animals are brutalized, people are terrorized, and the environment is despoiled in China.
Without Olympic in china...Ti
Arouet, please stay on top of what is happening in China. It may have been a gerontocracy 20 years ago, but these days, the new leadership is younger and more sophisticated: "The main outcome of the 17th Party Congress is that it selected two younger leaders and these leaders will succeed Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao in 5 years....5
More sophisticated at what? Murder, perhaps, or disappearing people?
Bush has a Degree from Harvard. It's worth about as much as the value he give our Constitution.
Excellent post Tom Doctoroff.
Anti-China sentiment in America is on the rise. The talk of boycotting the OIympics for Tibet, Darfur, etc., gives many Americans unthinking, sanctimonious cover for their fears and prejudices -- but people who TRULY care about human rights will NOT BOYCOTT. The Olympics do a lot to create GENUINE goodwill.
A boycott will not help the causes it purports to help. Chinese are more receptive to change and influence than ever before -- don't waste the opportunity to sow the seeds for a mutual, peaceful and prosperous future.
By the way, it cannot be emphasized enough -- the exiled Dalai Lama DOES NOT seek an Olympic Boycott. If America persists in this, it could very well destroy all diplomatic and political efforts for holding substantive talks with China's top leadership.
touché, Ashen.
"Anti-China sentiment in America is on the rise. "
Yeah, no kidding. That's what happens when you machine-gun monks. Go figure!
Here is an article with actual witnesses from the Washingonpost
http://www
If the Olympics were being held in Iran, would you say the same thing? We're told that even speaking to Iran without 'conditions' is somehow rewarding them for their behaviour. So what would you call cheerleading China's big Olympic show?
Isn't what's good for Iran, good for China too? China has nukes. They oppress their population. They violate human rights and support those who commit genocide in Sudan.
Oh, wait. China IS different right? They own a good chunk of our debt. It is different because without it we'd have no access to goods because we rewarded American companies for moving over there and exploiting their labor. In other words, we're basically China's bitch so they can get away with whatever they want to do and we can't say 'boo!'.
Isn't that what you really mean?
The Olympics is an athletic event which should not be boycotted for political reasons.
However, it should also not be attended by western political leaders - that would be a political endorsement of China's actions in Tibet (and even Darfur).
If Bush and Brown had a conscience, they would not be attending the Olympic ceremonies.
Bush especially never has cared about human rights in any country (except in Cuba or Iran or Venezuela) - all he cares about is power and oil.
Loading comments…
Posted March 28, 2008 | 01:19 PM (EST)