Pelosi urges Bush to boycott Olympic opening ceremony

Wednesday 02nd April, 05:49 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 16 Total Comments Show All

some14some at 08:20 AM JST - 2nd April

Good for China too, less trouble in making security arrangements.
SuperLib at 09:41 AM JST - 2nd April

"the administration has repeatedly maintained that the Olympics should not be regarded as an opportunity to make political statements."

This is going to be one of the few times that I agree with Bush.

I thought the Olympics were supposed to transcend politics? It was supposed to be a time where countries put politics aside and come together. Now politicians are falling over themselves to whore out the Olympics for politics like they do everything else. If there's any goodwill to be had, rest assured politicians will destroy it.
Betzee at 10:18 AM JST - 2nd April

US policy toward China is one of the few things unaffected by partisan politics. Whoever is elected president the relationship will remain pretty much what it is, regardless of campaign promises. Given that the Chinese view the Olympics as their coming out party, some sort of snub is in order, however.

When Bill Clinton visited in 1998 the itinerary took him first to Xian, the ancient capital, and then to Beijing where there was much debate over whether he should set foot in Tiananmen Square (in the end he stood outside it).

This was a way of snubbing the Chinese leadership since American Presidents typically meet the top leaders first on official visits to other countries. Still, it didn't appease his critics who didn't want him to make the visit at all:

The square, which has room for a million people, remains the focus point for discussions on China's record on human rights and freedom of speech.

A diverse group of organisations has urged that he should not visit Tiananmen, contending that his presence would dishonour the hundreds of people killed by army tanks and guns.

Despite announcing that he intended to raise human rights issues during the visit...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/specialreport/1998/06/98/clintonin_china/121026.stm

GWB, too, has promised to raise the issue of human rights in private meetings. But Beijing didn't listen then and they are certainly not going to listen now, particularly given Washington's reliance on their purchase of US treasury bonds to run deficits.
supporter at 10:53 AM JST - 2nd April

Boycotting the full Olympics will not have any effect on China, let alone the opening ceremony. The US speaker is only interested in maintaining her image in the eyes of the US public. She goof recently when she spoke on US politics. Her knowledge on political diplomacy is too shallow. She does not even support the American Chinese social cause from the place she represented - San Francisco. Her one-sided view encouraging Tibetan violence and neglecting the many Han Chinese residents lives lost in the riots did not demonstrate much on her moral authority. I would ignore her.
jambon at 11:07 AM JST - 2nd April

With the Left it's all politics all the time.
shibumi at 01:31 PM JST - 2nd April

I've had my differences with Nancy Pelosi but dang, she is dead on when it comes to Chinese and Tibetan human rights issues. If only the American Democrats could have more Pelosi and a lot less Dianne Feinstein I might be able to share a beer with them once in a while.

the administration has repeatedly maintained that the Olympics should not be regarded as an opportunity to make political statements. Yes, this is one of several instances where the Left is quite correct on Mr. Bush's stupidity. Anyways: No wonder, then, that everyone who hates or fears China, whether in Burma, Darfur, Tibet, or Beijing, is calling for a boycott. And the Chinese government and the IOC are terrified that they will succeed. No one involved in the preparations for this year's Olympics really believes that this is "only about the athletes," or that the Beijing Games will be an innocent display of sporting prowess, or that they bear no relation to Chinese politics. I don't see why the rest of us should believe it, either. Anne Applebaum in Slate http://www.slate.com/id/2187280/
SuperLib at 01:34 PM JST - 2nd April

"But Beijing didn't listen then and they are certainly not going to listen now, particularly given Washington's reliance on their purchase of US treasury bonds to run deficits."

So you're saying that Beijing's purchase of treasure bonds has put them in a position where they can ignore the US on certain issues? I've mostly heard it on internet message boards before, mostly from people blowing off steam, but now it seems to be creeping in to legitimate analysis as fact. So, I thought I'd ask if you had any sources for your statement or if it's just your opinion/assumption. The statement is getting to the point where it should probably be scrutinized since it's popping up so frequently.

My assumption is that the US and China work together on a wide range of issues and it's never as simple as "we don't have to listen to them anymore" on either side.
sukebeoyagi at 01:37 PM JST - 2nd April

Tibert human rights is a vote winner, it's a cuddly cause like saving whales and because of the Dalai Lama it's turned all that more fluffy. Why is has the US not taking a stance on Burma or on Zimbabwe. Why is their so many tyrannies out there that are not on the radar for the US? I'll tell you why, because there's no economic reason (usually oil in the case of US) or there's no votes in sticking up for the poor people of those countries. The US needs to get involved where the oil is, or where the votes are, let's be honest about that...
sukebeoyagi at 01:40 PM JST - 2nd April

Can someone get Bush to spell, Dalai Lama?
shibumi at 01:53 PM JST - 2nd April

sukebeoyagi, have you yourself gotten involved with Burma or Zimbabwe-related issues? If so, more power to you.
I myself am involved with the Tibetan cause 110% and am determined not to let the world forget it like they did Burma. "The US needs to get involved where the oil is" -if you mean Sudan, I am totally on board with you and it's another reason to boycott these genocide Olympics. (another one is that Beijing won't allow live coverage of the games- the IOC officials are such weenies...)
sukebeoyagi at 02:29 PM JST - 2nd April

The world didn't forget Burma, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Congo or Uganda. They just didn't pop up on the US' intervention-menu as there's either no money it it for them or no vote.

Bush siding with Tibet gets him some votes from both the patriotic pool of voters who would like to see Bush smash up China/Australia/Anywhere [delete where applicable], but then also votes from the more centre-left types, those people with a conscious and some intelligence.

What would Bush have got from liberating the people of Zimbabwe or Burma, apart from a Nobel Peace Prize? I'm sure he's not looking to get himself one of those as there's no $$$ in it..
northlondon at 03:10 PM JST - 2nd April

Oh dear.

Seeing as there are no human rights or freedom of expression for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip now, does that mean that Pelosi will recommend that George boycotts future arms negotiations with Israel ?

Oh no that's right, Israel doesn't have the Olympics this year.

As for political and military promotions at the Games, I suppose the Jetpack NASA promotion at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics in front of a television audience of 2.5 billion people was connected to sport then was it ?
Betzee at 08:00 PM JST - 2nd April

My assumption is that the US and China work together on a wide range of issues and it's never as simple as "we don't have to listen to them anymore" on either side.

Your assumption is based on ignorance. In fact we work with the Chinese on very few issues. Our seemingly chummy relationship with the PRC has been sold to the American public as the means to foster political liberalization there. The fallacy of such a view was evident in 1989. What also changed that year was the collapse of the other pillar of Nixon's strategic opening to China; simply put, we no longer needed their cooperation to counterbalance the USSR.

We held economic leverage over the Chinese in the wake of Tiananmen in 1989. The World Bank and the Japanese government, among others, suspended interest-free and low-interest loans that a much poorer China needed. Old George paved the way for a resumption of normal bilateral relations. Clinton and GWB simply picked up the "engagement" baton.

As the Chinese market grew, "engagement" became the catchword. Logically it's a flawed policy because if Chinese repression becomes more severe, then the policy prescribes "have more contact with them." It says nothing about results and has, incidentally, achieved none. The reality is that "the engager" will not let the behavior of Beijing, however rehensible, get in the way of continued business with China.

That business now includes about 1.4 billion USD reserves in the Bank of China coffers. As such, the PRC is a stake-holder in not allowing the dollar to slide any further since the lower it goes, the more they stand to lose. That would be a legitmate topic of discussion between the top CCP brass and GWB.

Bottom line: continuing this type of relationship with China, which includes ever expanding trade deficits, will only serve to hollow out our economy more and, in the process, transfer our national wealth to China (as reflected in the deficits). While trade has not promoted political liberalization in China, it can be economically beneficial to them and to us. But not this way. The EU has pursued much more far-sighted policies.
RomeoRamenII at 09:33 PM JST - 2nd April

Damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't!

How much you wanna bet that if President Bush had decided to boycott the Games, pelosi would be the first one to criticize him for not giving peace a chance, being too heavy-handed, too fast on the draw, yada-yada-yada, bada-bing-bada-bang, blah, blah, blah.

RR
Betzee at 04:03 AM JST - 3rd April

Since I supported continued engagement with China after the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989 I don't mean to criticize George HW Bush for going down that road. It's certainly the one the Chinese people wanted us to take. There were real fears after the crackdown about the future direction of the country. Specifically, the prospect of a resurgence in radical leftism which resulted in a lot of violence as groups were pitted against each other. Continued engagement with the West was seen as the best hedge against that.

Those turbulent Cultural Revolution years also made stability all the more important to the Chinese. Foreign investors have found the strong, union-intolerant government to their liking as well. These days Chinese are very proud of the transformation economic development has delivered. But Han chauvinism prevents them from appreciating it's not something Tibetans can take pride in.