Today, Tuesday, April 8, 2008,
Senator Hillary Clinton called for President Bush to boycott the opening
ceremony of the Beijing Olympics because of human rights violations in China,
further stating she would boycott the opening ceremony if she were President.
This comes on the heels of the Olympic torch being extinguished three times in
France during its traditional parading throughout the world. The extinguishing
stunts, being a first, brought massive attention to the Beijing Olympics
boycott efforts over human rights issues in Tibet.
There has clearly been a growing movement to boycott the Olympics, and
especially the opening ceremonies which is a traditional whose-who of world
leadership. Now, however, it is becoming fashionable for politicians to join
this boycott bandwagon, a movement that started gaining momentum a few months
ago when Britain's Prince Charles announced he would not attend the opening
ceremony.
President Bush, on the other hand, said he
will be attending the opening ceremony. While President Bush has made
statements objecting to human rights violations in Tibet, he does not have much
of a choice but to attend, as the U.S. economy simply cannot afford a potential
backlash for a snubbing of China. One trip to a toy store can confirm this, as
the vast majority of toys on U.S. Shelves, 85% by some reports, are imports
from China, not to mention the fact that most products on the shelves of
Wal-Mart have at least some content, if not all, which is made in China. The
U.S. simply can not afford to lose its main supplier of consumer goods. (See
the previous Boycott Watch on the topic
here.)
First, China owns a considerable amount of U.S.
debt, and while it is not in China's best interests to call in that debt, even
the threat of it can have major repercussions. Then considering the current
U.S. inflation caused by the rise of oil prices and the shrinking dollar, not
to mention the current level of U.S. economic dependency on cheap Chinese
imports to stabilize the middle class, the U.S. must fear that a snubbing may
result in an economic retaliation from China, be it with tariffs or exchange
rate fluctuations, as either can dramatically affect the middle class, thus
further hurting the U.S. economy.
The fact is that
the U.S. economy has much at stake with the Olympics. Television broadcasting
rights and official sponsorships are expensive, requiring a massive cash outlay
and an even more massive television audience to ensure a positive return on
investment. Additionally, strong medal winnings can result in a boost in
national pride. Since happy consumers spend more, the Olympics can result in a
boost to consumer confidence and thus the entire economy. On the other hand, a
domestic U.S. boycott of the Olympics will only hurt the American Olympic
sponsors, but not hurt anyone in China or Tibet because the investments are all
paid for.
Senator Clinton knows this, so taking the
stance of boycotting the opening ceremony is a win-win for her. If President
Bush were to boycott the opening ceremony and Americans followed suit in any
appreciable way, Democrats can blame the resulting economic difficulties on
President Bush. If the economy picks up, however, it will be harder for
Democrats to win in November because consumers, in many cases, vote based on
what is in their wallet. Senator Clinton has nothing to lose and everything to
gain by calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony. If President
Bush boycotts, Senator Clinton can blame economic problems on President Bush,
and if President Bush does not boycott, Senator Clinton can claim President
Bush does not care about human rights. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator
Obama, on the other hand, will be President during the Beijing Olympics so the
neither have any worries about economic fallout. This created a perfect win-win
situation for the Democrats.
In the mean time, China
already has the investment dollars, yet the boycotters have not indicated they
understand the difference between Olympics sponsorship and Olympic team
sponsorship. Boycotts work, but they are not always helpful. If the goal is to
help the people of Tibet, pressure on China is good but at the same time it is
important to help the people of Tibet economically, as economic power buys
freedom, thus investment in Tibet may be in
order.
Regardless, the U.S. economy can use a boost
from consumer confidence and spending based on national pride from Olympics
victories. An Americans boycott at this point will only affect American
companies that are advertising to Americans in an effort to increase American
business and the U.S. economy. While bringing attention to human rights
violations is important to many, the fixed cost expenditures have already been
made, and now American businesses need Americans to respond and boost the
American economy, an action that will benefit everyone, including those in
Tibet as global investments benefit people globally. |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
