Beijing 2008.

08Apr08

Hilary Clinton wants nothing more than the United States to use the recent attacks on the Olympic torch bearing tradition in Paris and San Francisco en route to Beijing to stop genocide around the world. She supports an act of protest at the Olympic Opening Ceremony to stand up for a less violent world.

“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,” Mrs Clinton said.

She wants a boycott by the President. The Olympics games are not new venues for political and social protest. In fact, the Olympics are known to be boycotted  due to international concern of government opression (Melbourne Olympics: 1956, Moscow: 1980, Los Angeles: 1984).  Clinton believes that if Bush does not show himself as a representative of America at the opening ceremony then the United States can most strongly convey its disapproval of the Chinese government. How is this so? The Chinese government is hosting the Olympics. There is nothing much to be done to change that. I’m sure she thought of this, yet the next best option in her logic is for the President to not go to the opening ceremonies.

It’s too late to make a point via the Olympics. Just like the empty threats the Bush administration made to promote and ensure international compliance of nation-states hesitant to join in on the Global War on Terror, Hilary’s belief in an Olympic boycott is years too late. As it is years late in acknowledging the fronts of war the United States is presently engaged. You can’t just make a decision to be against the Olympics even if the government hosting is failing. The Olympics is an event that represents too much internationally in terms of peace and humanity to ever be boycotted, even if the host shares with the Olympics, a history of controllable and uncontrollable terrorist attacks.

Bush not being at the opening ceremony does not mean the US Olympians will not compete. Bush not attending the opening ceremony is an empty threat. His absence, a move that would be out of line with the ideologies of the majority of Americans, does nothing to support change in China. Isn’t the Olympics more about bringing the world together rather than a leader throwing a hissy fit, an act the nation definitely doesn’t support?

Clinton supporting a Bush boycott of the Olympics is scary. Hilary isn’t ready to lead a nation. A stand of absence is an invisible move and the most weak option. The protests and the international stands do more than show the Chinese government and international community that people want China to stop oppressing its citizens and are using the Olympics as a means to express disapproval. Support of the Beijing Olympics is waning quickly and for the Chinese to regain an approvable reputation, change can be nothing but forthcoming.

An answer to bring about change in China is not for our President and diplomatic teams to throw a boycotting fit. Instead, China and America need to learn from failures. America failed before invading Iraq by not harnessing a coherent and cohesive global consensus. We need to work to bring nations together and confront not hide out against, the crimes against humanity being executed by the Chinese government. The focus needs to be on making a stand at the Olympics not with a U.S. absence but with a participatory U.S. presence.

Obama does not agree with Clinton. Last week, he said,

“I’m hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it’s partly about bringing the world together” and Monday in a statement did not address the proposal to boycott the opening ceremony. If the Chinese government did not work “toward meaningful autonomy for Tibet,” Obama said, “there should be consequences.”

Consequences. Agreed. Not unorganized, irrational demonstrations supported by the Clinton campaign. Hillary in contrast to Bush may have European support, as,

“European leaders are considering a boycott of the opening ceremony. The Bush White House is not.”

For once, I will agree with Bush. In this one case I am glad he is president instead of Hillary since he has sense, for once, to not engage in an opening day boycott. Please, Hillary stop with the dramatic exaggerations.

Do we really need all citizens of the world to lack the support of their country’s leaders at the Olympics? Isn’t it unfair for athletes engaging in peaceful competition to lack the peaceful interaction that exists among our world leaders during the Olympic games? Let’s let our nations’ athletes parlay and let’s let our leaders peacefully, stand by.

 

Filed under: Reasons Not to Vote for Hilary   |  Leave a Comment
Tags: CST-NWS-sweet08.article, hillary boycotts the olympics, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/07/86616, http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/882550