Hillary Clinton's Wrong-Headed Play on Olympic Games
Hillary Clinton is making a wrong-headed play in her call to President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games.
After the collision of an American EP-3 spy plane and a Chinese jet fighter in April 2001, neoconservative high priest Richard Perle advocated preempting China’s bid to host the 2008 Olympics. He felt that keeping China from being able to enjoy the prestige of hosting the Olympic games was the best way to punish China for the transgression of harassing an American military plane that may have been in its air space.
On CNN's Crossfire, I debated Perle on this issue and suggested that the approach he advocated was ultimately harmful to American interests and would seriously harm our ability to generate a broad array of contacts with China in different spheres through which we could hopefully constructively influence and encourage what Bob Zoellick coined a “responsible stakeholder” track.
In recent months, Fred Hiatt, editor of the Editorial Pages of the Washington Post, advocated boycotting the Olympics because China was failing to use its influence on Burma’s military junta. Others have advocated keeping U.S. athletes at home because China continues to deal with the Government of Sudan and has done little to advocate for relief in Darfur. James Fallows and I both countered Hiatt on this.
And now Hillary Clinton has called for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the games in Beijing in response as a rebuke for not stopping the violent clashes in Tibet and not using its leverage with Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur.
This stance by Hillary Clinton is as wrong-headed as her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman IRGC amendment calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be classified as a terrorist organization and as nationally self-wounding as her vote on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.
Hillary Clinton is not out of bounds in advocating for other nations to look into their souls and to call for adherence to basic human rights conventions. She is not wrong to speak about human rights in every speech she gives and to speak to advocates of liberalism and choice who have been incarcerated in China, in Egypt, in Burma, or wherever else there are political prisoners.
But she is out of bounds and reckless when calling for the weight of the presidency to be used to punish another nation at an event which is drawing China into the blue chip end of the international order, into global institution building and stakeholding, and which is stroking China’s national pride at a key point in its ascendancy as a self-realized important power.
Hillary Clinton’s call for boycotting the opening ceremonies is an example of a simple-minded, binary approach to US-China relations.
Apparently, she has been led to believe that if Bush is absent at the ceremonies that China will help us on Sudan or allow Tibet a track to political autonomy or independence. This is wrong and naïve. China will do neither – and if anything, we will embarrass those in the China establishment who are advocates of deal-making with America and proponents of responsible global stakeholding, which has been the course we have seen China on.
There is no doubt that China’s positive role in the troubled Six Party Talks moved our affairs with North Korea forward – even though this process proves to have predictably unpredictable swings up and down. China also proffered some counsel to Iran behind the scenes in advocating release of several intellectuals that Iran had arrested last year as China was not eager to see a substantially tightened third round of economic sanctions out of the UN at that time, and China helped give Iran an important nudge when we needed it.
America and the world have a serious brewing problem with Iran and an ongoing challenge with North Korea. China has secured strategic footholds in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and is spreading its influence in the Caucuses. China is not a natural ally of Russia – in fact, quite the reverse – and yet bumbling American policy seems to be throwing them together in common circumstances in ways that should not be happening.
Hillary Clinton or any President needs to avoid the temptation to pander to the American public when crises with the key global powers emerge. They need to demonstrate an awareness of our core interests with China and what we most want from China in the arena of international affairs.
Nukes should be at the top of that list – and then there should be a cascading set of second and third and fourth and fifth priorities with a state like China. A new or revised economic arrangement with China would be second on my list – and then perhaps a serious commitment to climate change in third or fourth place. Human rights should be on the list -- but make the pursuit of Chinese subscription to a higher human rights bar a serious effort characterized by consultations, encouragement, deal-making that involves incentives and yes, disincentives. But Clinton gave no sense of a fuller, serious game plan on the human rights front.
Which battles with China do we need to stalemate on, or delay, or even lose to achieve our primary national security and geopolitical objectives? And more importantly, what battles does China really need to win to be able to work with us?
But what we got from Hillary Clinton today was a shallow, binary, knee jerk impulse to withdraw the prestige of American attendance at an event that will not succeed in achieving the baseline objectives with Sudan or Tibet – and very well could raise China’s price for cooperating with us on other of the more important fronts in which we need them.
A call to boycott any aspect of the Olympics is part of the current of not wanting to deal or directly negotiate with other nations on the "bad countries" list. It is a silly and counterproductive impulse that Hillary Clinton should reconsider.
This kind of posturing makes America look incredibly immature -- as if it has lost touch with the realities of statecraft and with its own important role as a global stabilizer.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
Hillary has once again shown an utter lack of foreign policy insight, as well as a petty and rude nature.
"This kind of posturing makes America look incredibly immature -- as if it has lost touch with the realities of statecraft and with its own important role as a global stabilizer."
We have in fact lost touch with the realities of statecraft. And several years ago we ceased being a global stabilizer. Our only hope is for the American public to somehow, miraculously, find a way to drive the plutocrats out of Washington.
April 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, agree with Hillary on this. Of course, I've never claimed to have any foreign policy insight, but I don't see this being anything more than a symbolic statement. No better, no worse.
I'm curious as to Obama's position on this.
April 7, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary goal in foreign policy is to further the aims of our country, not to win votes from unthinking xenophobes. We have had almost 8 years of "foreign policy" aimed only at enriching a few friends of Bush. It looks like, in the extremely unlikely event that Senator Clinton becomes president, we will face another 4 years of foreign policy without proper goals. Fortunately Senator Clinton will not become our president. Another month and she will totally self-destruct.
April 7, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
important fronts in which we need them.
Can you say "six party talks", Hilary?
April 7, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, policy-by-pander is how we get a good amount of our harebrained foreign policy in this country. Why should China be any different?
Take a dart and throw it at a map. If it doesn't land on one of those big blue watery areas, then it probably hit a country that is doing something shitty somewhere in the world. So what is it now. China is doing too much abroad, in Tibet? China is doing too little abroad, in Darfur? Hey, maybe they should try doing everything just right - like we do! We really nailed it in Iraq, didn't we?
Just four decades ago, China was a desperate, poor, isolated, paranoid basket case of a nation groaning under the yoke of nutjob Maoist insanity. Then we, and other nations, began a policy of engagement and helped open up China to the world. Since then, no dispassionate observer could deny that the situation in China has improved immeasurably. While still far from achieving their full potential, the life prospects for the quarter of the world's population that lives in China have risen to a level few would have believed possible back in the 60's and 70's. And not only has China benefited enormously, but much of the rest of the world has also benefited from the incredible industry of the Chinese people, and the gradual liberation of Chinese economic potential from the sick, oppressive bonds of Maoism.
Every day, China's engagement with the world opens some door, knocks down some barrier and builds some bridge to people in other countries. Yet, at every step along this path, there have been ideologues, prigs and conflict-seekers who have decried this engagement and demanded a harder line, despite the blindingly manifest evidence that engagement has produced a small miracle in our time, and improved the lots of hundreds of millions of people. If we had listened to those naysayers before, China would still be the thoroughly backward, ideologically rigid, madcap hell hole its was under Mao, or the Gang of Four.
If Clinton really cared about the security and future of that little girl in the 3am commercial, she would be doing everything she can to foster continued engagement with China, and to build every bridge necessary to work with them on issues of common, vital concern. A wrong play now could doom that little girl to a future of Sino-American conflict, and possibly war on devastating scale. So what do we get 3am Hill? Foreign policy by tee shirt, tossed off on the fly in the middle of a nomination battle.
The fact that the Olympics are even in China this year represents the long gradual triumph of patient global statesmanship. It should be celebrated. There is a lot more right with China than there is wrong. But Americans are really just pathetic sometimes. They seem to have am insatiable need to find villains everywhere, maybe so that there can always be someone, somewhere they can hold themselves up against as morally superior and exemplary. The heirs of a 3000 year old civilization are starting to move again, and approaching what could be the next brilliant stage in their history, and what do we get? A lot of spoiled, selfish boo-hooing about how China's success is a threat to our own dreams of perpetual awesomeness and specialness.
Our own president is a war criminal who launched an illegal war of aggression based on lies to the US public and the to international community. Maybe he should be boycotted, no? Until some of our politicians start making that call, I'm going to continue to think they are the world's greatest hypocrites.
April 7, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary could be triangulating, if Bush doesn't go the Chinese don't have to spend an extra $25 million protecting him, freeing up money that might be filtered through Mark Penn and his PR firm to do something more important, like buying PR or politicians.
On the other hand, the Tibet protests pale in comparison to what America, through Bush, have done to the people of Iraq, Bush is an emperor without clothes or a conscience, and the world knows it.
April 7, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
glad you posted this. I think boycotting any part of the games is unwise and demonstrates an arrogance toward the world that has had negative consequences.
My opinion is that Hillary isn't taking this position for the reasons you might think. She might well be doing it to distance herself from foreign trade issues. Or any free trade agreements. It may sound illogical to some, I admit, but foreign relationships, in the context of what just happened with Colombia, and her past support of NAFTA, could be perceived by a lot of Pennsylvania voters as bad for workers.
I'm not saying that perception would be correct. Just wondering if some voters make that association with the anything China.
April 7, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that a PR spectacle like the goddamn, stupid-ass Olympic Games intrudes upon the political discourse of the United States during a presidential election year merely serves to reinforce my long held view that they should be moved permanently to Greece. That, or abandoned altogether.
April 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh come on, guys, the reason she did this is simple: she wants to win sympathy from the Obamaists, decrease her negatives with the left wing of the party, and increase her palatability as the nominee to the Party.
and I'm a Hillary supporter!
April 7, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had similar thoughts about all the money and headaches China could save by not having one of the world's dumbest and most despised lame-duck "leaders" come to visit. So why does Senator You-Know-Her want to do the mainland Chinese any favors? If she really had anything against the Communist Chinese government and its policies, she would DEMAND that they entertain both Sheriff Dick and Deputy Dubya for the remainder of their terms of office here in America.
Deputy Dubya Bush has already kissed the Chinese Emperor's ass by denying the newly elected President of Taiwan (the "Hong Kong Horse" Ma Ying Jiou) permission to visit America. What a double bonus for Communist China, since they favored Mr. Ma over the native Taiwanese candidate in the recent elections and then got to slap him in the face after he caved in to so many of their demands for "normalization."
At any rate, Senator You-Know-Her doesn't know Jack Shit about China or the Chinese. I had a short-term, six-month job in Beijing when 'first lady" You-Know-Her started shooting off her mouth before coming to China to bloviate about how the Chinese should treat women in their country. The Chinese didn't publicly respond to the rude guest insulting her hosts. They just quietly moved the location of You-Know-Her's scheduled speech from a convenient downtown venue to some nowhere forum on the outskirts of the city. I had to laugh at all the bitching and griping we heard in the local English press from You-Know-Her and her entourage when they found so few people showing up for her hard-to-locate harangue. Subtlety: an oriental concept with which the obtuse oligarch You-Know-Her has little, if any, acquaintance.
Bottom Line: the Chinese own the American government -- literally -- to the tune of enormous holdings of our treasury bond debt, not to mention their ability to supply most of the cheaply manufactured goods that America can no longer produce for itself. To get around our trying to stiff them on the interest payments for the loans they keep floating us (by devaluing our currency), the Chinese have simply resorted to buying up American real-estate (much more of which they'll soon get at even lower, bargain-basement prices) and other relatively "hard" American assets.
American Warfare Welfare and Make-work Militarism has turned America into a dead-beat thug with only its discredited "protection" racket to sell to a world that neither needs or wants the enormously destructive costs of the "protection."
Fools and knaves "run" the American government, and have run it straight into the ground. You-Know-Her holds charter membership in that oligarchic claque of cretins and has no standing whatsoever as a critic of what she has helped cripple. From "The Best and the Brightest" to "The Worst and the Dullest" in only one generation -- hers. You-Know-Her and all her corrupt, credulous circle need to go -- now. They've done enough harm already.
April 7, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're full of shit. I was there and the venue was overflowing.
April 8, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
All thanks to President you-know-whose administration and its emphasis on giving China preferential trade status overlooking the human rights record. Funny how this has all benefited Walmart so nicely.
April 8, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I understand and respect the national-interest point of view, I tend to find it a little cold-hearted. I think there is a way around the boycott-or-not-boycott issue, and it's a very simple one. Since governments and heads of state won't boycott because it is in the national interest (and we thank them for taking care of it), we, the citizens can boycott. We can pledge not to to watch the Olympics. I think it would send a vert strong message if there was a significant drop in viewership. And besides, it would hurt the CIO where they care the most (and no, it's not human rights...): combine brand destruction with dwindling ad revenues...
April 8, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Santa Monica.
Is your goal to;
A Send a message to the Chinese
or
B Do away with the Olympics
or
C "geld" NBC?
If C is your aim, you have lots of busy busy company in Hillaryland.
The street protests springing up around the world are sending the message to the Chinese and their government in a much more effective manner than yet another jihadette against NBC . The Chinese people will see their own damn rulers causing their collective honor to be questioned. Leave them to it.
What I find to be a very serious troubling concern is the likleyhood that Hillary is so diplomatically deaf that she doesn't know it's not good strategery to make booboos when mourning her good friend Benazir, to insult Putin and hasn't a clue about what "face" means. In the sense of Chinese honor, that is.
Way to go, Hillary.
Right smart of you to get a head start running the world by making enemies and convincing more players on the world's stages that you're not just clueless; you could in fact could be dangerously inept in this sector.
April 8, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I don't care about GE and NBC. But I'd definitely love to help end the Olympics. The whole Olympics racket is a disgrace, from the ridiculous pompousness (and not to mention fascistic undertones) of the flame lighting and the flame relay, to the disgusting display of the worst nationalistic chest-thumping (from pretty much everyone involved), all this to sell more sneakers, sodas and burgers. And don't get me started on the athletes - juicing is pretty much the norm, even in marginal sports...
Furthermore - and more seriously - the Olympics are a political event. One of the main idea besides awarding the Olympics to Beijing was that it would deepen China's engagement with international organizations - the kind of coming of age that Steve argues about. The Olympics were supposed to bring about a change in the way Beijing dealt with its own internal HR issues, or something of that sort.
Not that I want to pile on, but it's quite the opposite that happened. In the past two years, there's been an unprecedented 'clean up' campaign in China which has resulted in thousands of people being sentenced to death (and the bullet charged to their families). Also, there's been a pretty harsh crackdown on dissidents and critics of the government. So getting the Olympics seem to have send the Chinese regime into repression overdrive, not the other way around.
Now the Olympics have a sorry record as a showcase for dictatorships (think Berlin 36, Mexico 68, Moscow 80) - but they're certainly not the only international sporting events to do that. The 1978 World Cup in Argentina was held as the Argentinian army, with the tacit agreement of the US, was 'disappearing' prisoners by dumping them alive from choppers into the Rio de la Plata.
The point is that there's not international sporting event that is not 'apolitical' - those who hide behind the 'apolitical' fiction of the Olympics are the money people at the CIO and the goons at the Chinese Foreign Ministry and BOCOG.
OK, I guess I said my piece.
April 8, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mostly agree with Steve's take. There IS certainly a downside to Sen. Clinton's proposal. But it seems that your analysis goes too far in assuming a disproportionate response by the Chinese ruling regime. It seems that they might do something more like the denying an aircraft carrier port access than ending their help in controlling nuclear proliferation.
And if Merkel and a few other EU heads feel comfortable with this act, can it really be perceived as American cowboy diplomacy?
I discuss this further at:
http://elvaliente.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/clinton-china-and-change/
April 8, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she called for a boycott of the opening ceremonies by the president, if changes do not occur in China's treatment of Sudan and Tibet.
April 8, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This all reminds me of Jimmy Carter's boycotting the Moscow games in 1980, which led to the subsequent Soviet boycott of the LA games. The Soviet boycott had more teeth because it involved all of Balkan Europe and made the LA games seem like the Mickey Mouse event they turned out to be.
Sadly, there were no foreign policy benefits for the Afghans, whose invasion prompted the US decision.
April 8, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her call for a boycott was for domestic consumption, I feel sure, and campaign rhetoric rather than a foreign policy statement. The concept is very 20th century and as others here have noted unrealistic considering our current status as the world's biggest bully. We have no moral legs to stand on after the, torture, rendition, gitmo, and preemptive invasion policies of the last eight years.
April 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what do you geniuses think should be done? Nothing? This is symbolic, certainly. We've all learned that boycotting the Olympics displeases the networks and the people rich enough to buy a plasma TV, so it must not happen. But what do you suggest that might make China back off, or announce talks to discuss the future of Tibet? On the other hand, depriving the Chinese of a close look at W might be a good thing for America and for the Chinese.
April 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I agree with Hillary that dubya should not attend the opening ceremonies except I would prefer he didn't go at all. I would rather he didn't go any place where he would be considered a representive of this country. Crawford is about right for him.
I'm not sure what leverage we have with China now, if we have any at all, but I believe Tibet is better handled through diplomatic channels rather than through humiliation, which might be very counterproductive...for Tibet as well as for the U.S.
April 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The opinion expressed in this article is more proof that all America and Americans in general care about only their own economic interests. Tibetans, Sudanese and Burmese dont matter....... These poor "turd world" blokes can and should be sacrificed upon the altar of the new American world order where trade with China and bombing of Iraqis for oil is more important then petty issues like human right violations. Free Tibet should not be allowed to come in the way of free trade with China. Bush and his henchmen shall ensure that by their very exalted presence in Beijing Olympics. Never mind the fact that while they applauded the emergence of Great China at the Olympic stadium, Tibetan monks will be shot, tortured, nuns raped and monasteries razed.........Bush will hail the emergence of another evil empire as the model for Asia.......so long as the cheap Chinese goods keep flowing into satiate the eternally voracious appetite of American people. Once their stomachs are full with Iraqi oil and Chinese goods they can always send their media whores like Pelosi, Hillary and Richard Gere to lecture the world about human rights, liberty and freedom.
Even France (the ones who you call surrendered monkeys) has more moral courage then Americans to take a stand on this issue.
April 8, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
an indian, I wonder if you would similarly support a Free Kashmir? After all, the Kashmiris are also fighting for independence from India.
It is probably not politically correct to point out that the recent Tibetan "uprising" was in fact a violent riot and pogrom targeting the Chinese residents there, burning down shops and homes and killing many civilian men, women and children. Ironically, any images of the dead and injured Chinese were dismissed as "propaganda", only images of dead or injured Tibetans are kosher. The Economist had a first-hand account of the events there, the perpetrators of this unprovoked violence were Tibatans, yet there is definitely perception manipulation, Tibetans cannot be anything but good and the Chinese cannot be anything but evil. The struggle is actually as complicated as other historic struggles, and there is definitely the "Great Game" afoot as the world contends with a rising power:
Uri Avnery sums it best here:
http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery04072008.html
April 9, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Reagan and Thatcher's coddling for Botha and South Africa was what broke apartheid's back.
Whatever.
April 9, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now on this thread we have the inevitable, "if we cannot stop all human rights abuses, we have no right to protest any."
April 9, 2008 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your strawman.
Would you boycott Indian products because of Kashmir? If you wouldn't and are ONLY selective about the causes you personally prefer to support, it may be worthwhile to ask yourself WHY.
That is the least any progressive would do.
April 9, 2008 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you truly care about the causes you support, you should at least make the effort to understand how and why the historic dispute started, whom are the "big players" behind them, what are their agenda, which governments and NGOs are involved and why. It's "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" for most of us most of the time, which is how we were manipulated into invading Iraq and form "politically correct" opinions. Why is it that the world cares more for one people over another, that is a valid question, and that is why the Palestinian "problem" will continue to fester indefinitely with DAILY deaths and casualties.
April 9, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink