Kilgour, Defrantz and Olympic boycotts

[mijopo]

There was a great discussion yesterday on NPR between David Kilgour, former MP and human rights lawyer, and Anita DeFrantz, American IOC member.  Kilgour was there to voice his support for a limited opening ceremonies boycott but ended up speaking out very strongly against Chinese human rights abuses, and China's role in Tibet and Darfur, and the

Comments

[thanks4thefish]

If you want to send a message on principle, I would think that part of the point is to take a measure of pain to prove a point, to say, 'we will make this sacrifice because we believe this is right'. Who is sacrificing here? An Olympic boycott doesn't hurt the economy, it doesn't hurt Canada's foreign relations, it doesn't hurt Canada's consumers who enjoy low prices because of Chinese manufacturing. The only people who are sacrificing , who are suffering to prove this point are the athletes. And if, as you say (incorrectly) that what the athletes do doesn't matter, then really we're not sacrificing much of anything. How is that standing on principle? You're defeating your own argument to say in one breath that a few athletes don't matter, and then in the next breath that boycotting the Olympics somehow then equates to taking a stand.

Further, the goal of this type of action, aside from taking a stand, is to effect real change. The reason all those yahoo christian family groups in the States boycott GM or Disney for (supposedly) endorsing homosexuality is because they think collective action can hurt the bottom lines of those companies, and convince them that they are suffering financially because of their policies (this is not a boycott I support by any means, but it's a useful example). What real, tangible change do you think would result from Canada not attending the Olympics? Looking at history, the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics accomplished exactly nothing. The Soviet Union did not withdraw from Afghanistan (the action the boycott was protesting). I promise no one would miss Canada at the Games.

And as long as Canadians keep shopping at Wal-Mart, and wooing China to buy our steel, oil, and grain, the boycott basically demonstrates that we will make empty gestures but aside from that, its business-as-usual. Some stand.

[allhatnocattle]

The point is to take a stand in order to embarrass Chinese officials into taking corrective measures. No matter how the Chinese respond, it effectively communicates the point to 30 million Canadians. Yes, indeed, it is the least amount of action/sacrifice to make, but it makes the loudest point in doing the least. Kinda like driving a hybrid SUV.

[thanks4thefish]

Yes, because history shows us that whenever the Chinese government is embarrassed, they inevitably respond by showing humility and contrition.

[allhatnocattle]

Are you dense? No matter how the Chinese respond, with action or inaction, it effectively communicates the point to 30million Canadians

The similarity to driving a hybrid SUV is incredibly appropriate. The point of driving any hyrid is to help save the environment with less emissions, etc. But we know that the reality is pollution levels remain high and is offset negatively by every dirty emitter around he world. A hybrid SUV isn't much of sacrifice at all. But it effectively communicates that the hybrid driver is somewhat aware, somewhat concerned, and willing to help.

I'm sure you'll agree the situation in China is bad, maybe even dire. We have many options available to us. On the one extreme we do nothing and ignore the problems. At the other extreme, we go in, shock'n'awe, take over and force the Chinese to be good people. Neither extreme is desired. And the middle ground is vast. An Olympic boycott is the least action/sacrifice towards making the biggest point.

The boycott of the 1980 Olympics didn't change Soviet policy in Afghanistan. But it was certainly effective in making a point. It raised the issue to millions of otherwise politically unaware.

Not a straight success and the Soviets remained in Aghanistan until 1989. But it made the point clear. In that regard the objective was achieved. Before that the cold war was murky. We knew we hated them because they were communists. We knew there was a wall in Berlin. We knew they had nukes. In the simplist of terms, we the public we're never sure what Brezhnev/Andropov was supposed to bring to the table. Nuclear proliferation treaty? The thing that was put out in the forefront was a complete withdrawl from Afghanistan. The boycott made the public aware. Not just here, but in the Soviet Union as well.

[zastrazzi]

And if, as you say (incorrectly) that what the athletes do doesn't matter, then really we're not sacrificing much of anything. How is that standing on principle? You're defeating your own argument to say in one breath that a few athletes don't matter, and then in the next breath that boycotting the Olympics somehow then equates to taking a stand.

I didn't say what the athletes do doesn't matter. I said that affecting a few athletes isn't even on the same scale as the human rights abuses suffered by people in China. If you're arguing that dashing athletes dreams of winning a gold is on the same level as someone imprisoned, tortured and then killed for their organs... then we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for the effectiveness of boycott, I think you may find things somewhat changed since the 1980 games in Moscow. As a result of the negative media China has received in the past year, more and more people are aware of and discussing the issue. More people are taking the step to avoid purchasing Chinese goods. Is it enough to make the Chinese government notice? Hard to say, I don't have access to those numbers and the Chinese government isn't a great source for reliable information.

Also, you seem to be drawing an incorrect conclusion from what I've said thus far. I am not making the argument that a boycott alone is sufficient to affect change in China. It's an excellent and very public start to effective measures that will cause ongoing discomfort and embarrassment to the Chinese government.

The real question is, is there enough will from Canadians to push that will onto our politicians to really do something about it. That I'm a lot more cynical about, both for my fellow citizens and whether our government would do anything.

That said, it doesn't mean I won't advocate for it.

[thanks4thefish]

I don't think they are on the same level (athletic competition and human rights violations) by any means. I was just making the point that to say you're asking a very small group of people to make a sacrifice so the larger Canadian populace and the Canadian government doesn't have to.

[zastrazzi]

In the grand scheme of things, I think a lot of Canadians would be more than a bit disappointed if we missed the Olympics. I'm fighting my cynicism as much as I can, and would be at least hopeful that a rather noisy boycotting of the games, and why, would encourage a lot more Canadians to rethink what buying choices to make.

While my own individual purchasing choices has negligible impact, it combined with others has more of an impact. The more people who are aware of the problem and what they can personally do about, the better.

Is the sacrifice significant? Depends on who you are I guess. I can afford to spend a few extra bucks here and there to buy something NOT made there, and I'm willing to spend a couple of seconds checking to see where the product was made.

It's not wholly about the Olympics in my case. I also object to buying things from countries that are environmentally irresponsible, and prefer to reduce my risk for lead ;)