In 1980, the United States led the way in boycotting the Moscow Olympics to teach the “evil empire” of the USSR a lesson for invading Afghanistan the previous year. Now, in the face of unrest in Tibet, the possibility of Olympic boycotting has begun anew.
The protests in Tibet, led by monks, aim to bring attention to the many changes Tibet has experienced since it officially became part of the People’s Republic of China in 1951 by signing an agreement in the aftermath of China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet. The protests sought to bring attention to what the protesters view as the destruction of Tibetan culture. According to these protesters, the influx of Han Chinese migrants to Tibet as well as the restrictions on Tibetan autonomy are creating conditions where “Whether intentionally or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place,” according to the Dalai Lama.
The protests in Tibet have brought international condemnation of China’s actions as well as raising the possibility of using this summer’s Olympic Games in Beijing as an opportunity to embarrass China — either by boycotting the games or conducting some sort of protest. Various leaders, including the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have said they are considering boycotting the opening ceremonies. President Bush has also spoken to Chinese President Hu Jintao to convey his concerns about the Tibetan situation.
But what will be the final result of this uproar? Will it result in Tibetan independence, as many of the protesters have called for? Will it result in greater autonomy for Tibet? Will nations around the world boycott the entire Olympics?
Despite the international outcry, the one thing that is clear to me is that the current situation in Tibet will not result in any sort of change in Chinese policy. Neither will it result in substantial changes in Chinese relations with the United States or the rest of the world.
The first and foremost reason the U.S. will not participate in any boycott or diplomatic censuring of China is that China is our second most valuable trade partner. Each year the U.S. buys and sells hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods with China. The economic cost of even a minor disruption is immense. For many other countries around the world, the possible reduction in relations with China would also weigh heavily on the minds of any leaders seeking to aid Tibet.
Furthermore, China holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Should the U.S. seek to boycott the opening ceremony or the entire Olympics, the PRC can make it impossible for the U.S. to move any resolutions through the Security Council. For that matter, China’s presence on the Security Council creates a deterrent to acting for many other nations.
Several other large nations, including Japan, Germany and Brazil have expressed an interest in obtaining a permanent seat on the council. Unless they can get the approval of all five current permanent members, no new nation will be able to get a permanent seat. Thus, any country looking to become a permanent member must tread lightly in matters concerning China.
Other nations have their own separatist problems. Criticizing China’s occupation of Tibet makes dealing with their own internal problems that much more difficult. This problem has already been seen with the refusal of many nations to recognize Kosovo’s independence from Serbia.
Clearly there are significant costs and barriers to any nation that is willing to take substantive action on behalf of the Tibetans. Yet even if some countries were willing to take action, China would likely continue its policy with Tibet. For decades, the central government has been working to diminish the power of the minorities on the frontiers of China. In some ways, these protests seem to indicate the extent to which this policy is working. Thus, any diplomatic or Olympic uprisings are likely to fall on deaf ears.
There is no doubt that the actions of the Chinese security forces in Tibet and surrounding regions should be condemned. But should the U.S. and other countries around the world boycott the Olympics, as some have demanded? I think not. Simply put, there is too much to lose and too little to gain.
Whatever actions are taken would likely be ineffective. It’s an unpleasant feeling to realize that there is no program to pursue that would be successful in righting the wrong that has been done to the Tibetan people. Unfortunately, this incident shows exactly who gets hurt the most in the world of “great power” politics: those least able to defend themselves.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in computer science and political science.
