Sports and Suitability Posted by Heather Hurlburt

A few weeks ago, we hosted a series of posts by Frank Jannuzi, Michael Schiffer, and David Ohrenstein commenting -- unfavorably, in line with every China hand I know -- on the idea of US and other world leaders skipping the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics to protest Chinese human rights violations.

I've been meaning to post another perspective on it, and I was finally nudged to put fingers to keyboard by Marian Tupy and James Kirchick, two writers at the Weekly Standard (May 12 issue, but not available on line), who propose "a public debate about the suitability of South Africa as a host for the World Cup" (scheduled there in 2010) because of South Africa's unwillingness to do more to speed President Mugabe's exit and safeguard the rights of democracy campaigners and oppressed citizens in its neighbor, Zimbabwe.

Though it pains me to say this about anything that appears in the Standard, I think that is a perfect turn of phrase, and it's applicable to the China debate as well. 

Yes, sports should be able to transcend politics.  But we use sports so much to hold a mirror up to ourselves -- what are we made of, how do we appear on the world scene -- that we can't and shouldn't expect them to transcend the profound questions that underlie our politics:  who are we, how do we appear on the world scene, and what are our relationships to each other?

Countries that want to host major sporting events -- and get all the global publicity that comes from them -- should expect a "public debate about their suitability."  And that should be true whether you are big China or middling South Africa, or the US, for that matter.

Now, as to the actual criteria for such a debate, may I suggest three:

1.  efficacy:  does boycotting or downgrading participation actually help anybody, or, in cases where no immediate help is available, convey something truly important.

2.  extremity:  is this a case where few other means to signal disapproval exist, or where those means have already been tried?  Or are there in fact other means available that are more obviously connected to the rights violations than is a sporting event?

3.  proportionality (if you'll forgive my borrowing of a term from just war theory):  how extreme, actually, is the sanction under discussion.

Point three is where I think both of these debates get very interesting.  I part company with the China community because, frankly, a Democratic presidential candidate who won't get to make the decision saying that a President shouldn't attend an opening ceremony is just not that big a deal.  If the Chinese can't perceive that as the domestic politics it is, then we have much bigger problems (as, in fact, we do).  The statement by the Clinton (and then the Obama) campaign is almost as cost-free as you can get in international politics -- and if it wards off nastier, more pointless China-bashing, I'm all for it.

On the other hand, actually not holding the World Cup in South Africa would be an enormous sanction, with political, economic, national pride and cultural implications.  And it's not going to happen.  But saying a discussion should start seems to me like a good way of remarking that the world expects more leadership out of South Africa than it's been getting -- and that world wants the party expected to surround the World Cup there in 2010 to be a celebration that includes South Africa's status as a beacon, not a place that has turned its back on its neighbors.

(And speaking of sports holding a mirror up to ourselves, I'm still feeling nauseous from seeing Eight Belles go down yesterday -- though I quickly turned off the tv so my little boy wouldn't see what I knew surely had to come.  Not just from seeing a filly literally die trying at the top of a stallion's game, but thinking about the conditions we expect two- and three-year old horses to race under, the meds we give them, and the spindly way we breed and train them, for our own amusement, including mine, since I watched it.) 

Comments

[Don Bacon]

I suggest a fourth criterion: hypocrisy: should the proponents of boycotts be allowed to take part in debates when they come from countries which have received the world's popular condemnation for their own dastardly behavior, which might include reprehensible acts like military aggression and torture?

[Mike M.]

Don, hypocrisy? In foreign affairs? Usually a feature, not a bug.

[Dan Kervick]

The statement by the Clinton (and then the Obama) campaign is almost as cost-free as you can get in international politics -- and if it wards off nastier, more pointless China-bashing, I'm all for it.

There is in fact no reason at all to think the statements by the Democratic candidates do "ward off" nastier China-bashing. Instead these statements stoke the fires of nationalism and moral chauvinism, and make future demagoguery even more likely, not less likely. They also promote other forms of racist, populist China-bashing, including the economically obtuse idea that the only effect of the rise of China on the American people has been to suck jobs and wages out of the American labor market.

As far as the World Cup goes, there is a large difference, to my mind, between a debate about the suitability of a country to host some sporting event when that debate occurs before the decision is made to award that event to the country, and a late, post-decision movement to boycott the event after that country, and its people, have sunk billions of dollars into preparing their country to host the event and receive guests from around the world.

The issue here is not just our relationship with the Chinese leadership. My impression is that hundreds of millions of Chinese, who don't know Darfur from Denmark, are extremely proud of the fact that they are hosting the Olympics, and are quite justifiably proud of the incredible economic progress they have made in recent years, which they want to show off. Now in their moment of symbolically stepping up on the world stage to take a well-deserved bow, they are being treated to insults from US and European politicians. This is grossly insulting.

Yes, China is shielding the Sudanese government, and is involved elsewhere in Africa, because as a huge country with over a billion people, and and net petroleum importer, they need to be concerned about oil. And yes, the US is at war in Iraq and is engaged elsewhere in the Middle East because as another very populous country and net oil importer, we need to be concerned about oil. So let's get at the root causes of this problem, rather than hypocritically singling China out for playing a game we are all forced to play. At least China didn't "shock and awe" the Sudanese directly.

What irks me the most about a lot of this discussion is the narrowness and one-sidedness of moral vision, the wholly unjustified moral superiority, and the utter, high-handed contempt shown by some affluent western neoliberals for the spectacular and very much morally creditable achievements of China, its government and its people over the past several decades, as they have worked to lift millions of their countrymen out of poverty and dramatically raise the standard of living of the most populous country in the world. The amount of sheer human effort involved in this project has been astounding, and the whole world has benefited from that effort. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the industry and dedication of this historic generation of Chinese, and reward them with international recognition.

The US and the Europeans have been top dogs for a long time. The Chinese are coming on strong now, and it irks us. A lot of recent anti-China activity is nothing but a mean-spirited, selfish and arrogant backlash of snooty old money against the new nouveau riche neighbors. "Yes, they may work very hard, and their material achievements are great," we admit. "But their manners are very poor, and their ways are backward, rough and uncouth. They are most unsuitable hosts for such an august event."

[peace]

To Dan Kervick

The truth is that China is behind its neighbors, Japan and India, in the field of human rights. Also Japan, India, and South Korea have an open society and in the Japanese case are trying to improve the enviroment by implementing the Kyoto accords. So to suggest that somehow criticizing the Chinese government is racist is a lame arguement. I do not know how a progressive could support the unlawful Chinese occupation of Tibet that has occurred since 1949, its poor enviromental record, and the very unprogressive way that Chinese factories treat their workforce. I think that you are letting China off the hook because you have grudge against what you percieve to be the West and America in particular. You remind one of those intellectuals in the thirties, who looked the other way, when Stalin committed crimes agianst his own people, because they thought that Stalin was somehow anti-Western or anti-capitalist and thereby should be supported.

[Don Bacon]

As is often the case, Dan says it best. I have lived in China (Taiwan) and visited the mainland, met the people and learned some of their ways. They are a justifiably proud people, which is not unusual in the world but in their case it has been earned. Let's give them their day in the sun and not be so petty ESPECIALLY given our POOR bona fides.

The Obama and Clinton statements were similarly overlaid with American Exceptionalism and the disrespect toward China which has been a characteristic of the USA since the Chinese Exclusion Act and before.

South Africa isn't doing enough to support democracy campaigners and oppressed citizens in its neighbor, Zimbabwe? Hogwash and baloney. That's like: What is the USA doing for oppressed Mexicans?

Peace -- there you go again. Tibet is part of China, accepted by the USA and the international community, so you'd do well to accept it and move on. Stop spouting untruths. Human rights, workers rights and the environment (none of them something the USA excels in) in China, India, South Korea and Japan are none of our business, especially when it comes to sports. And remember, the USA is the leading avowed torture country in the world AND has half a million more people in prison than China does, with one-fourth China's population.

[Mike]

At a high level of competition, the horses have chosen to be there, at least to some extent. They know they're competing and they like it, or they wouldn't be that good. Given that they're never going to be able to make life decisions on their own, I don't think it's a cruel life. I'm pretty sure I'd be happy to go out in a blaze of glory like that, especially if the rest of my life only involved being a horse.

Of course, they don't actually get to make decisions, so there's that element to it.

[peace]

To Don Bacon

If you accept the Chinese occupation of Tibet, which was forced into the PRC by bayonets, than if you have to accept the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Do you also support the occupation of Nambia by South Africa in the seventies and eighties. My guess is that you probably did not, so why you legitimizing the illegal Chinese occupation of Tibet? Also Dan Kervick explanation that the Tibetans somehow voluntarily went into the PRC in 1951 is really lame since that was done under the barrels of Chinese guns. Have you ever talked to any Tibetans about how they were treated by the Chinese? Plus when you were in China, did you ask any Chinese citizens about how they feel about their own government? Also it was a very immature statement to say that China's environmental problems are none of our business since their pollution problems affect global warming and that harms the whole world.

[Zathras]

At the rate things are going, most of Zimbabwe's population will have moved to South Africa by 2010, making the question of World Cup sanctions something of a moot point. In any event, a debate on where the soccer tournament should be held had best be conducted in Europe, where people actually care about the sport.

As far as China is concerned, I'm afraid I take the rather old-fashioned view that Presidential candidates should at least try to talk as if they saw themselves as Presidents, rather than merely as candidates. Campaign politics does not trump everything in the real world, though a vast industry has grown up in this country that is dedicated to the proposition than it does.

Sen. Clinton, with her vast sense of personal entitlement, may well take a view similar to the one Heather Hurlburt expresses here: by God, she is Bill Clinton's wife and this is her campaign, and foreign audiences should just get used to her saying anything out on the stump, because she is who she is and she doesn't mean it anyway. One might have thought recent American history would have made people with this attitude universally suspect in public life, but we may have a ways to go before that happens.

[Dan Kervick]

Also Dan Kervick explanation that the Tibetans somehow voluntarily went into the PRC in 1951 is really lame since that was done under the barrels of Chinese guns.

Where did I say that?