China

Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of “wagging the dog” and claims,

“U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict [and] were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.”

The “leader”, of course, is President Bush. Furthermore, Putin also claims the motivation behind the U.S. instigation of conflict was the political positioning of a presidential candidate (John McCain, I suppose). Of course, the PM didn’t offer any evidence whatsoever to back up his ludicrous assertions.

The truth is, Putin is backpedaling in light of concerns expressed by China and other Asian nations over tension in the region. Unable to shore-up any international support for its actions, the PM is pointing fingers, attempting to shift blame to the U.S.

You’re ridiculous, Mr. Putin, and the U.S. is laughing at you!

President Bush’s arrival in China to attend the Olympics opening ceremony comes on the heals of some pretty harsh words concerning the country’s dismal human rights record. Speaking to a group of students and business leaders in Bangkok, Thailand, Bush said that cooperation with China on economic ties, negotiations with North Korea and relations with Taiwan put the U.S. in “a better position to be honest and direct on other issues,” like human rights.

“We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly and labor rights, not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential.”

Of course, many are criticizing the President for politicizing the Olympic games, while others are saying he could have sent a stronger message by foregoing the opening ceremonies altogether.

Of course, a presidential boycott of the olympics is simply ridiculous. I believe President Bush is absolutely doing the right thing by bringing attention to China’s restrictions on individual liberty.

So, what is China’s reaction?

Qin Gang, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry said that China has

“consistently advocated dialogue and exchange on the basis of mutual respect and equality [and] We firmly oppose any use of human rights or religious issues to interfere in internal affairs.”

Right! I’m sure the Tibetans would argue otherwise!

There have been numerous calls, recently from Senator Hillary Clinton, for the United States and/or its elected officials to boycott the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. Bad move! Although I decry the Tibetan human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese, to boycott the Olympic games as a form of national protest will not accomplish anything. In fact, I believe it will only serve to marginalize our influence. After all, did our boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow have any influence or impact on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Nope. Nada. Not at all. It was the U.S. and its allies supporting, training and supplying the Mojahedin, that ultimately (after 10 years of fighting) led to the Soviet withdrawal. Boycotting the Olympic games only served to deprive American athletes of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete and test their mettle.

The Olympic games are supposed to be apolitical and rightfully so! However, a nation-state can allow its athletes to compete while simultaneously denouncing the actions of the host government. For example, President Bush can and should attend the opening ceremonies, but he should not pay his respects to the Games’ oppressive hosts. In 1980, several countries joining the U.S. in the boycott, allowed their athletes to compete, but they marched under the Olympic flag instead of the flag of their home country. Never! Our athletes will compete proudly and fiercely under the U.S. colors! Winning athletes can achieve political victories. Remember Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics?

The reality: Considering China has financed the majority of U.S. debt, how likely is the U.S. government to make a political statement at these Olympic games?

(not very)

MORE:

Mike Tippitt at Wake up America provides an interesting perspective and questions the inconsistency of a politician’s outrage. After all, was Saddam Hussein’s treatment of the Kurds really any different than China’s treatment of the Tibetans?