Boycott the "Genocide Olympics"
Bumped by Brendan
I'm not going to watch the China Olympics. I'm boycotting because of Darfur, Tibet and lack of democracy, liberty and human rights in China. And I think only liberal democracies (and I mean "liberal" in a classic sense, meaning human rights and rule of law) should be considered as hosts. No more Olympics like 1936 or 1980. The world should not boost the prestige of dictatorships that oppress their own people and support or practice genocide.
How's this for starters: If someone can be arrested (or worse) in a country for simply saying "I like democracy", that country doesn't get the Olympics. Is that too much to ask the world to agree on? I realize that how a nation treats its own citizens/residents can differ substantially from its actions abroad, and I realize there could be gray areas and charges of hypocrisy (we support repressive regimes such as the Saudis), but (1) there ARE matters of degree (e.g., genocide in Darfur) and (2) we should be able to establish at least some minimal, objective standards of domestic liberty & democracy (e.g., free, fair, multi-party elections; free speech defined in some reasonable manner).
- B Rational's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Extend those criteria to participation?
Who decides whether these objective standards have been met, the (at least previously corrupt) IOC?
I basically like this idea and would like to flesh it out a bit...
To play devil's advocate, isn't there a chance that hosting the Olympics will convince China to moderate its oppression of political dissent? Granted that hasn't happened here (so far, anyway) but maybe if it had been clear from the beginning that the hosting was conditioned on increased democracy they would have responded.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Re: "Extend those criteria
Re: "Extend those criteria to participation?"
Could be a lower standard for participation, but yes, I'd like to see some standard re: democracy and human rights. And hosting is a much bigger boost to prestige than participating, hence the higher standard.
Re: "Who decides whether these objective standards have been met, the (at least previously corrupt) IOC?"
I don't know. I guess it would have to be the IOC, unless a group of liberal democracies outside of the IOC decided that a given nation could NOT host and committed to boycott if the IOC chose them, which could preempt that choice. Hopefully some objective criteria could be established, even if assessment/measurement might still involve some subjectivity.
Re: "isn't there a chance that hosting the Olympics will convince China to moderate its oppression of political dissent? Granted that hasn't happened here (so far, anyway) but maybe if it had been clear from the beginning that the hosting was conditioned on increased democracy they would have responded."
Yes. And there have been some signs of them putting some pressure on Sudan re: Darfur, although I don't know if it's really been siginificant or just tokenism. Per this week's Economist, "when it competed for the right to play host to the games, China used a political argument: that this would help China's “reform and opening”. " The Economist also says that government boycotts "would not only be counterproductive, encouraging a more intense frenzy of the xenophobic Chinese nationalism foreign reporting of events in Tibet has already provoked (see, for example, some of the comments on our own website). It would also mean relinquishing one of the best levers the outside world has had in recent years over China's government: its obsession with making a success of the Beijing Olympics." http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10924179
I understand and respect that argument. And I'm old enough to remember the intense debate in the mid-1980s (my college years) over sanctions vs. "constructive engagement" with South Africa, with plausible arguments on both sides.
But when I weigh the arguments on each side, I come down on the side of denying a nation the opportunity to host the Olympics -- and to boost its prestige abroad and glorify its system and leaders at home -- UNLESS and UNTIL it improves on democracy and human rights FIRST. That's plenty of leverage, too, and I would argue, more so than granting the privaledge of hosting and hoping it has a positive influence. After all, if we could go back to 1936, would anyone think it appropriate to let Nazi Germany host? (ok, the decision may have been made prior to the Nazi takeover, but you get the point)
Now that China Is hosting, should the U.S. boycott? I'm not sure. There are greater repercussions of such a move than of a consumer boycott. I'd be glad to see Bush boycott the opening ceremonies as a compromise, as Sarkozy may do. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/world/europe/26france.html?ref=world
Thanks for the thoughtful response
I come down on the side of denying a nation the opportunity to host the Olympics -- and to boost its prestige abroad and glorify its system and leaders at home -- UNLESS and UNTIL it improves on democracy and human rights FIRST.
I think the only way to do this without opening up the potential for significant abuse of the process due to IOC subjectivity (or worse) is to have a set of defined criteria (e.g., freedom of press, democracy, fair courts, etc), have an outside and reasonably impartial group evaluate each nation ahead of the hosting deliberations, and publish a list of approved nations and a list of nations that are disqualified, and for what reason. That could be constructive in a small way towards reforming repressive regimes.
Now that China Is hosting, should the U.S. boycott? I'm not sure. There are greater repercussions of such a move than of a consumer boycott. I'd be glad to see Bush boycott the opening ceremonies as a compromise, as Sarkozy may do.
It's tough to ask the competitors to miss out on their chance for glory because of matters over which they have no control. An individual boycott (turn off the TV) like you mentioned might or might not have any real impact, I don't know how the financial and PR benefits actually occur or how much is related to American viewing. I suppose it would be a symbolic gesture. Certainly Bush boycotting the opening ceremony would send a strong message -- I wonder if he'd consider it. Or in line with some of our earlier conversations about carrots and sticks, I wonder if he'd try to influence China's behavior by using the threat of such an action, even if he ultimately ends up attending.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The only part of your
The only part of your comment I have a problem with is this: "It's tough to ask the competitors to miss out on their chance for glory because of matters over which they have no control."
If you're just saying that it would really suck for those athletes, then yeah, sure. But if you're suggesting that concern for the athletes should be a major consideration even if, arguendo, boycotting would significantly reduce the likelihood or severity of large-scale human rights abuses by the host country, I think we are talking about a huge mismatch of scale in the moral calculation if we weigh the great disappointment of those athletes vs. the unjustifiable deaths of, say, tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Just as an illustration, assuming, arguendo, the impact of a boycott in my hypothetical, which would you rather do, explain to the athletes that the boycott will make genocide much less likely, or explain to the people of Darfur that many thousands more of them will be raped and murdered because it was the lesser of two evils vs. disappointing our athletes? I think anyone would feel ridiculous doing the latter, for good reason.
Sure
Can't argue with that. Two further thoughts: first, as your arguendo acknowledges, it's tough to conclusively establish that those positive consequences would follow, so basically you're in the position of asking the athletes to trust your judgment. Which is fine, most of them probably would, but it's a concrete sacrifice they'd make for what can't, in this case anyway, be more than a vague hope. Still potentially worth it, absolutely.
Second, what I mostly meant by "out of their control" was the selection of China in the first place. Assuming we're not advocating that the IOC deliberately select repressive countries to host so that we can then bring them into line via boycotts =P this appears to have been the initial mistake, and we're now picking from least-bad options.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
True. That's why I advocate
True. That's why I advocate restricting hosting to liberal democracies (by some standard), hopefully with metrics that are as well-defined and objective as possible. And I like your idea regarding an independent, hopefully reasonably impartial group making the assessments, and yes, it should be done a priori (providing a list of acceptable host nations to the IOC).
Relevant post on Tibet from RS
Another topical piece, from Salon
:
Could the US present a united front to China on this issue? What are we willing to do, and what measures would be productive while avoiding inciting a backlash? If the nation as a whole boycotted the Olympics it would certainly get noticed.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
your money talks
do you also research where you buy your, food/clothes/etc.?
where does the line get drawn, do you feel ethically good about everything you partake in?
Legitimate question.
Legitimate question. Actually, the night I posted my diary, my girlfriend, who is a Chinese-American (left China at age 11) and who is often defensive of China, challenged me (rhetorically) with the same question, asking why I don't boycott all Chinese-made products.
The convenient answer is the "constructive engagement" argument, which is plausible, but also a bit of a rationalization. As an imperfect person, I don't always sacrifice for my ideals. I weigh the level of sacrifice vs. the good it would do, and sometimes or at certain points I act selfishly. I think the treatment of animals on factory farms is inhumane and awful, and I'd think highly of a politician who pushed for regulations mandating better treatment, but I eat meat. Yeah, I only buy free-range eggs and I don't eat veal or foie gras (and I've boycotted the attractive new restaurant across the street from me simply because they serve foie gras and I told the owner so). But I'm no saint. I'm not willing to avoid all -- or even most -- Chinese-made products, and I probably wouldn't even if I assumed the "constructive engagement" argument were bogus, although perhaps I'd cut back some, opting for other comparable products if available and reasonably close on price.
I wonder if you even could
I'm not so sure you could even if you wanted to. I mean, yeah, you *could* but there is so much that is almost exclusively made in China that you'd have a hard time finding substitute goods.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I heard, I think on NPR or
I heard, I think on NPR or an affiliate, about someone who spent a year avoiding Chinese made products. I assume the person wrote a book or article about it. Yes, it was apparently quite difficult.
I agree
it's difficult, and I sympathize with atheletes... but less so now that it's got pros. Like we need a professional athelete showcase in a place like China. When it was amateurs, sport for the sake of sport, there was a different character, and there was an element of diplomacy... you didn't boycott the olympics because hitler would be there, you just tried to embarrass him with defeat (well done!).
But as a pro-thing... it's almost disgusting to take part in promoting China this way.
I'm not xenophobic about china, but I hate the idea of collaborating with them on what is just a huge commercial venture now.
Don't use atheletic competition as leverage
to highlight the pitfalls of China. Use some other means of leverage like economics.
It is the economy, stupid.
Hitler hosted the 1936
Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics, using it as an opportunity to boost his prestige and power image at home and abroad, as host countries typically do. If Nazi Germany existed today and were going to host the Olympics, would you want to boycott it on some level, at least personally not watching on TV or perhaps having our president skip the opening ceremonies, or is there something sacred about "athletic competition" that trumps all moral and practical calculus?
Are you comparing China to Nazi Germany?
If so why would ANY US company relocate to China if it is like Nazi Germany?
Is the US willing to overlook crimes against humanity in China just for a buck? (self interest)
The point of the Olympics in the first place was to give rise to rewarding strength through athletics as an alternative to (war) combat, allegedly to promote a peaceful outlet for physical competition.
If the Olympics were held in Kenya, or Afganistan, don't you think it would give folks a constructive outlet to focus their energies on?
I don't know who picked China as the site for the competition, and I don't know why? It certainly turns up the heat on what China is really up to. Is that a bad thing?
The Chinese are all about 'saving face'. Hopefully they will strive to get rid of some of their authoritarian practices, like murdering people in Nepal, and asking workers to spray toys with lead paint in a room with no windows, to save face, since their country and it's practices will be in the international spotlight with the coming Olympics.
It is the economy, stupid.
Re: "Are you comparing China
Re: "Are you comparing China to Nazi Germany?"
No, I'm not equating the two. That wasn't the point. The point was to test your apparent contention that human rights abuses should not be a reason to not participate fully in a host country's olympics. I was using Nazi Germany as an extreme to see if you would stick with that principle, if that is indeed your point. Well, what's your answer to my question?
If your answer is "no" to participating in Olympics hosted by Nazi Germany, but "yes" to full participation in China, then you don't really believe in the principle that athletics and issues of human rights should always be kept separate. We're just talking about a matter of degree and/or anticipated practical effect.
There are those that
see detaining people at Guatanamo indefinitely as a violation
of human rights. Would they protest if the Olympics were held in the US? Likely.
I think since we have already committed to the games we should stick it through......! Why punish the atheletes for something they have no control over?
Though I appreciate the protests as a way to shaming China into a different course of action re the way they treat their people.
Besides we are too dependent on China to keep our economy afloat to insult them, at this point in time. They have bought millions of US treasuries. If they cashed them all in it would sink our economy. And their Sovereign Wealth Funds are bailing out our banks. These are deals the US has made with China that I protest, but it does me little good.
It is the economy, stupid.
I'll ask you one more time,
I'll ask you one more time, then I'll give up if you don't answer: What if instead of China it were Nazi Germany seeking to grow its prestige and image of power by hosting the Olympics? What would you want us to do? Boycott? At least the President not attend the opening ceremonies? Or would you say we should attend fully because it's not the athletes' fault and/or for the other reasons you've given?
IN 1936
a black man, Jesse Owens, humiliated Germany and it's notion of Ayrian Supremacy by winning 3 gold medals, and was considered the fastest man in the world.
The Olympics was not the cause of Hitlers crimes against humanity.
(And what's with this........ grilling? Answer the question or else. Am I a POW. Draw a line in the sand. Plant your flag and defend it.......? Sheesh)
It is the economy, stupid.
It's appropriate etiquette
It's appropriate etiquette to give a direct answer to an obviously relevant, straight-forward question (the first time, let alone after asking three times). For whatever reason, you don't want to answer. Poor etiquette. If you want to have a proper discussion of an issue, you shouldn't repeatedly skirt such questions. It wastes people's time, and it comes across as your wanting to speak your opinion, but not engage in substantive discussion.
BR,
LOL. Good one. ;)
It is appropriate ettiquette
to respect a person's opinion.
As stated in my first reply, I don't think it is relevant to compare Nazi Germany with today's China. If the gentle subtlety of my explanation is lost on you, then I will say to me the issue you are using as the theatre of some ghostly battle ground is not cut and dry.
But this false equivalency test is a bit too much drama over a hypothetical.
Should we have held the Olympics in Rome three years before Christ was crucified, because China and Rome are breeding grounds for barbarism.
The whole point of the Olympics was to replace barbarism with competition, thereby giving a sporting outlet to vent men's war like tendencies to avoid conflict.
It is the economy, stupid.
I did not indicate any
I did not indicate any disrespect whatsoever for your opinion. In fact, I was trying to gain a better understanding of your opinion, but, as has become obvious, it's hard to do that without your cooperation.
You are missing my point, and more generally misunderstanding the role and usefulness of hypothetical questions to discuss philisophical principles. Whether or not China is as bad as Nazi Germany (it isn't) is irrelevant to the question I was asking. I was just questioning if you regarded the arguments you made against boycotting the Olympics (or any other type of protest) as pure, absolute principle, or situational, depending on circumstances, matters of degree, practical considerations, etc. An extreme hypothetical is often useful for establishing such a distinction.
I have just seen this game
played to many times.
The usefullness of the hypothetical situation is similar to the usefulness painting folks who opposed going to war in Iraq as siding with the terrorists, so I am wary of that trap, and see it as a set up.
I don't know why they chose China for the Olympics.
It is obvious that China is misbehaving.
I despise how the Chinese are terrorizing the monks.
But I still don't feel like it is fair to punish the atheletes because some stupid committee voted for China.
I don't see an absolute here.
The good news China is in the spotlight for being a bully.
Maybe bringing the Olympics to China will help China have a new self awareness.
It is the economy, stupid.
I thought
that the US companies were perfectly happy to work with Nazi Germany, some even after the US went into the war against it....
Sic semper tyrannis
I don't like the summer Olympics
I'd not have any problem with our athletes competing in Nazi Germany or China or North Korea. The spirit of the Olympics is partially about putting aside political differences for a few weeks and focusing on athletics.
That being said, I think the Olympics (at least the summer ones) are quite boring. The only sports I like watching are American Football, Hockey, and Curling -- none of which are in the summer Olympics. And I don't think our President needs to be at the opening ceremonies anyway. He's got much more important things to do.
This allows me to veer off into my position that the president and head of state need to be different people. Our president spends way too much time at state dinners and engaging in other formalities that are not related to his elective office.
So to answer your question directly, there is something sacred about this specific athletic competition that trumps all moral and practical calculus.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Regarding curling, there
Regarding curling, there must be something special that I'm missing about an Olympic sport that seems to be a combination of shuffleboard and janitorial skills.
It's a nerd thing
It's about precision and strategy. It's more of a mind game than a physical one (says the high school football player and wrestler). The stones are of slightly different weights and have different weight distribution, depending on what kind of shot the thrower wants. I've read that the highest quality throwing stones -- those that have nearly perfect weight distribution -- can cost up to $1,500.
I'm not going to say it's not a funny sport, but once I saw it in the 2002 Olympics, I was immediately hooked.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
On a more serious note, it
On a more serious note, it may be that you're not really saying that athletic competition trumps all moral and political calculus, but rather that the world is BETTER OFF (i.e, a moral and practical argument) if we put aside immediate humanitarian goals and allow athletic competition to proceed without interference. In other words, that the world benefits from the global athletic events themselves and/or from some goodwill or that develops or from other positive effects that global athletic events have on people.
Whether that's (deep down) what you're really saying or not, I would suggest that moral and practical considerations must be considered. You say you would not want us to boycott Olympics hosted by Nazi Germany or North Korea. Well, let's think this through: If, just hypothetically, the effect of our participating in the games (along with other liberal democracies) had the effect of boosting the internal power and external prestige of a genocidal and expansionist regime, and in turn, made genocide more likely (or a larger scale of genocide more likely) and made that regime invading another country unjustifiably more likely. In other words, what if you had to choose between whatever benefits you see in participating vs. making it substantially less likely that millions of innocent people will get killed over the next few years. What then? Would you still say that such considerations either don't matter or are necessarily trumped by the benefits of global athletic competition?
How long have you been
holding that second paragraph in. :)
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm not a utilitarian
You're right, the world probably wouldn't be better off if we attended Olympics hosted by a totalitarian dictatorship. In fact, that doesn't factor into the decision at all.
The Olympics, for better or for worse, are about casting aside political differences.
Taking your point more seriously, if you could prove to me beyond all reasonable doubt that having the USA go to the Olympics in a totalitarian country would result in a substantial amount of innocent people dieing due only to the fact that we were there, then I'd be against it. If it was simply a good chance or less or if there were any other factors contributing to the deaths, I'd stand on my previous position.
I understand your position, and it is a rational one, but I don't share it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Re: "I'm not a
Re: "I'm not a utilitarian"
It sounds like you don't really hold a deonotlogical view either, since you do factor in consequences in your view of morality, albeit with a very high burden of proof (you say "In fact, that doesn't factor into the decision at all" but later imply the opposite, at least for a hypothetical extreme, saying that you'd favor a boycott if the consequences were certain to be grave). I think deontological ethics make little to no sense, by the way, except as usually useful rules of thumb, as opposed to reflecting any sensible view of morality. No act is inherently moral or immoral independent of the likely (or possible) consequences (harm and/or benefit).
Re: "would result in a substantial amount of innocent people dieing due only to the fact that we were there"
We are talking about net effect of an act (our attending the Olympics) on the probabilities of various outcomes. I'm not sure what you mean by "only" or "other factors". Certainly such a government would not commit genocide BECAUSE we attended the Olympics in their nation. Obviously there would be other factors. But again, we are talking about the net impact of our act on the behavior of that government.
Re: "beyond all reasonable doubt"
Why such a high standard? Suppose the consensus expert opinion were that if we attended, there would be an 85% chance that that government would launch a brutal, unjustified war within the next three years, costing millions of innocent lives, but if we and many other nations boycotted, there would be only a 50% chance. Are you saying that such information would be irrelevant to your view of the morality of attending those Olympics, simply because 85% is not "beyond all reasonable doubt"?
Or does the "beyond all reasonable doubt" refer to the soundness of analysis of those experts and the validity of their conclusions regarding relative probabilities (the difference between 85% and 50% as an effect of our decision) rather than requiring a near 100% probability that our attending would result in that war (or genocide or other cause of millions dying) ?
Don't get in a land war inside Asia.
If genocide were to happen, I think it would happen irregardless. No one ever learned a lesson because someone else refused to play fast pitch soft ball against them.
I don't want to go on an esoteric rant here, but:
Boycotting the Olympics is like LeBron James intentionally waiting just barely too long to shoot half court 3's at the end of the 1st 3 quarters just to keep his Field Goal percentage where its at. It gives the appearance of one actually trying to do something without actually doing anyone any good.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
There are two questions
There are two questions involved:
1) The hypothetical: IF an act (boycotting the Olympics) would decrease the likelihood and/or severity of some net harm (deaths of innocents).
2) The practical: WOULD that act actually have the effect described in #1.
As for #2, I don't agree that boycotting the Olympics (or threatening to do so) can NEVER have an impact on human rights violations. Whether or not the impact on human rights and other consequences of boycotting these particular (China) Olympics would be a net positive is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. I don't claim certainty that it would be a net positive. I would have liked to see us boycott the China Olympics (although that's not an easy call), but short of that, I think the president should skip the opening ceremonies (still not an easy call, but easier than boycotting the games) and people should not watch on TV.
I think one of the few points of leverage we have with China is that their leaders care about their image/prestige abroad, and this is a good opportunity to use that leverage, although it would have been better to have used it as an incentive (e.g., a threat to boycott the games or the opening ceremonies) rather than as punishment (which is still worth something, since it sends a signal and denies them the full prestige boost at home and abroad).
Deontologist with a utilitarian override
A friend described his philosophy that way, and I tend to label mine that way as well. I'm a deontologist (but not a follower of Kant; he got A LOT wrong) in most respects, but when the consequences of following that philosophy end up leading to indefensible conclusions or actions, I override them with utilitarianism.
I guess I'd agree that they are useful rules of thumb, but I tend to carry them out a bit further than the average person.
I'm not going to respond to the rest because I haven't really thought too carefully about where the line is regarding my override. Hypotheticals like this one which, I think, don't have any application in the real world, are not helpful to find one's morals. No country will launch a war in whole or in part based on our attendance at the Olympics.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My opinion re: Beijing Olympics....
I think all of this stuff should get factored into who gets to host the games. However, once the IOC has come up with a choice, I think the obligation is to compete. As a fan of the Olympics, I'll continue to watch. Moreover, I see opportunity in supporting the games. I'm of the mind that further integrating China into the global community will have positive benefits in the promotion of freedom and liberty.
Do I have a problems with a US president boycotting the games?
No.
Do I mind the protests or private boycotts?
.)
I don't, but I've always felt that free trade was a better carrot to promote liberty over the negative consequences of boycott. The parallel I'd draw is the failed approach to Cuba (Check out Jeff Flake's video at reason for the full discussion
FYI, seems that some on
FYI, seems that some on right and left agree that Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies. http://redstate.com/stories/foreign_affairs/the_president_of_the_united_...
Of course, in Hillary's case, I think it was just a campaign tactic, to appeal to the base and to change the subject from the Mark Penn stuff. But that's just my assumption based on my view of her.
China, Darfur, Olympics
Excerpt from an email I received today from the Save Darfur Coalition (I've participated in a few of their demonstrations and I send them $).
If you were invited to a party hosted by the enablers of the genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, would you go?
Today, as the Olympic torch passes through San Francisco for its only North American stop, join me in urging President Bush not to attend the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Tell President Bush to take a stand for human rights and skip the opening ceremony of the Olympics.
China has the power to convince the Sudanese government to accept deployment of the United Nations-African Union (UNAMID) peacekeeping forces for Darfur. But instead China remains Sudan's major weapons provider, largest foreign investor and trade partner, and diplomatic apologist.
President Bush must not sit quietly and watch the lighting of the Olympic torch—under the 'one world, one dream' banner—unless China has used its influence to pressure the Sudanese government to allow the effective deployment of the UNAMID peacekeeping force.
We can support the Olympic Games, but we cannot support China's tolerance for the atrocities being committed in Sudan.
Beijing should not be allowed to bask in the warm glow of peace and brotherhood associated with the opening games if China is still underwriting atrocities in Darfur.
Make sure President Bush gets the message: Stay home unless China uses its influence to get peacekeepers effectively deployed in Darfur.
See also: http://www.savedarfur.org/newsroom/releases/world_leaders_not_to_attend_olympic_opening_ceremonies/
Petition to be emailed to President Bush: http://action.savedarfur.org/campaign/skip_olympics
Burma and the Olympics
From email I received today from www.uscampaignforburma.org
(yes, I signed up with them, too). In case anyone is trying to keep track of China's human rights abuses, off the top of my head there's support of regimes in Sudan (genocide, mind you), Burma, and North Korea (and arguably Iran), ongoing threat to Taiwan (which has a right to declare itself an independent nation without facing physical destruction for doing so) and repression in Tibet and of democracy advocates and Falun Gong.
Don't Watch the Olympics: Spread the Word
More people around the world are realizing that the China's human rights record should not shame the Olympics. John McCain today came out stating that President Bush should strongly consider not going to the Bejijng Olympics. Also recently, Hillary Clinton has also came out in support of boycotting the opening ceremonies. Read more here.
During the San Francisco marches, Archbishop Desmond Tutu also released a statement concerning China's involvement with Burma, saying "I urge the government of China to end their arms trade with Burma's generals. It is still possible for China to realize the Olympic principles of 'respect for universal fundamental ethical principles' by 'promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.' The world is watching and expects no less."
Now is the time to take the Olympics campaign to another level.
Here are some more things you can do:
Watch and share the 8.8.08 video
: A new video which gives an overview of Burma and China's involvement with the country. Watch it and share it with your friends.
Email Corporate Sponsors
: Now you can in just a few minutes send an email to the Olympic corporate sponsors urging them to use their leverage to bring peace to Burma.
Be a part of the Street Team
: Be a part of the team that is taking to the streets and getting the word out. Win prizes as well as the knowledge that your chapter is the strongest. The month of April we are having a competition to see who can collect the most amount of names of people who are pledging to not watch the Olympic Games. There will be updates on our website and the winners at the end of the month will be given prizes (t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc). Join the movement. 
Keep the momentum going! Don't let people forget about Burma!
Support 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi and the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma.
Become a member of the United States Campaign for Burma today.
To be clear, the first
To be clear, the first paragraph in comment above is mine. Content from their email begins with the headline "Don't Watch the Olympics: Spread the Word"
Video I tried to imbed (from
Video I tried to imbed (from that email) didn't work, I guess because of rich text mode.
I'll try here: