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

[suitablyemoname]

I love the relativism here.

China's human rights record is as bad, if not worse, than Cuba's, but you just know that if the Olympics were to be held in Havana, the Americans would throw a shit-fit.

[zastrazzi]

The one argument I keep hearing repeatedly is that the athletes shouldn't be punished.

Since when are the rights of a few athletes more important than applying any and all pressure to stop gross human rights abuses? We should somehow turn a blind eye to torture and executions so someone can prove they run faster than someone else by a few milliseconds?

In terms of priority and importance, these aren't even in the same ballpark.

[thanks4thefish]

Right, but if boycotting the Olympics is taking the place of serious action like trade sanctions or, you know, the government actually taking a stand on this issue, then yes, the athletes unfairly pay the price so the government doesn't actually have to do anything.

[zastrazzi]

That pre-supposes that boycotting the Olympics isn't a serious action and has no consequence for the Chinese. Additionally, an Olympic boycott is definitely a stand by whichever government does it, as virtually any team heading there is financially supported in some way or another by it's home country.

Frankly, boycotting the Olympics is an *excellent* way for a country to take a stand on the issue, as it's intensely public. Sanctions are effective as well, but aren't much of a 'public' statement. I think a lot more Canadians would be vocal about Chinese abuses through an Olympic boycott than something as dry and distant as sanctions.

[allhatnocattle]

I don't give a crap about "punishing" athletes in this manner. They always have competitions. If not the Olympics it's the Pan-American Games, The Commonwealth Games, etc. When the NHL was on stike, er, locked out, the players made due.

The players should be proud that their country took a political stand at their expense, rather then saddened that they lost a opportunity at winning a medal.

[mijopo]

Well, setting aside the effectiveness question, on which I disagree with you, cultural and economic boycotts have proven effective in the past, there are other reasons to consider a boycott. For one, it witholds a general indicator of legitimacy which may prove to be a disincentive to other nations who might otherwise think that the world is able to grow comfortable with nations that abuse human rights and support genocide.

Secondly, there's a simple question of right and wrong. If I learn that my neighbour beats his wife and kids, and he invites me over to play poker, I'll decline the invitation. What if I learn that if I won't play he can easily find someone else to take my spot or that he'll continue to be an a-hole even if I don't show up? Doesn't really make a lick of difference, I just don't feel right about socializing with such a creep and if he owned a store I wouldn't feel right about buying goods from it.

[mijopo]

But at the same time as an earlier point was made: we shouldn't punish the athletes necessarilly either.

Nobody made this point earlier, did they?

[zastrazzi]

I raised the point as one that should be dismissed as a factor ;)

[zastrazzi]

So basically you're arguing that unless we're willing to boycott or sanction every country that engages in it, we shouldn't do it at all. An all or nothing proposal?

I don't think that's reasonable or practical. While we should certainly apply pressure in every instance, I don't think you can practically sanction/boycott every country that is guilty of it at the same time.

[mijopo]

I agree, there are other transgressors, but your argument is a bit like saying, "look there are a lot of criminals out there, is it really fair to go after this particular murderer?"

If our economy really does depend on human rights abuses and exploitation, the answer is not to just shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well", it's to start with the worst transgressors and work hard to change the situation.

[allhatnocattle]

I'm not sure that China is the worst transgressor. Not in scale or percentage or by any qualification I'm aware of. But because we have a relationship with China (which is absent from most transgressors) it sets a tolerance precedent and actively sets certain demands.

[allhatnocattle]

We would never boycot the USA on their GitmoBay abuses. Not sure why that is. It's publicly known and reported. It not a matter of repercussions really because even if we lost most trade they would still be our #1 trade partner. It's not like we'll stop the flow of oil.

As much as we trade with China, we're not entirely above ceasing our relationship with them, at least for a while. If in the unikely case that PMHarper put his foot down and said no more trading, no more visiting, no more dealing with China, I think the Canadian public wouldn't caught completely unaware. But that's beyond where we would extend ourselves in support of global human security.

Boycotting the Olympics at this point seems inevitable. It's the one scenario that will hurt them more then it will hurt us. For that reason it seems like the most likely path of action.

Our athletes will just train for whatever other events they have on their schedule. I simply can't feel too sorry for them.