Hillary Calls for a Boycott of Olympics Opening Ceremony
| Mon Apr. 7, 2008 2:26 PM PDT
In what might be perceived as a duck for political cover after the Mark Penn controversy, Hillary Clinton today called for Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. She cited China's crackdown on Tibetans and failure to speak out against genocide in Darfur. "These events underscore why I believe the Bush Administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China," she said.
Though her qualms with Bush are valid, why didn't Clinton say the same thing about her husband ten years ago? In 1997, Sen. Russ Feingold (but not Hillary) criticized Bill Clinton for failing to press China to end the repression in Tibet. Soon afterwards, the Clintons, with the support of Republicans, pushed to end the policy of reviewing China's human rights record when making decisions about trade relations.
Given that the Penn fiasco also involves an international trade deal, Clinton's new position on the Olympics--however well-justified--looks like an effort to reassure her blue collar base. Will she go so far as to say liberalizing trade relations with China without any major human rights conditions was a mistake? It's certainly a more important question than whether to boycott a sporting event.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Its obvious that all Clinton cares about is giving lip service to a cause thats popular among democrats. If either her or bill gave a damn about human rights they wouldn't be free traders. Of course they and their friends in Bentonville Arkansas are all in the pocket of the all mighty dollar and the bottom line is that the Waltons make more money off sweat shop labor. Its also a lot easier suppress workers in a police state, so if she and bill and other wal-mart stock holders and current/former board members and their friends can make money off repression while not feeling so bad about or having political difficulties because they pay it lip service, then why wouldn't she make a few half assed remarks?
This anti China "human rights" program is getting lots money the workers in the US are not getting to feed their kids. Is Hillary aware of who is financing this "campain".
What "human rights" do the 18 civilans killed,
382 civiland wounded,
242 police and armed police officers woulded or killed on dity,
120 residential houses burned,
908 shops burned, smashed or looted,
the people who owned the 250 million yuan damage to property? Is Hillary aware of these damages to the Chinese people. If so, does she give a damn?
Wallace, you do realize that most of the shops attacked were shops that belong to ethnic Chinese who by the very act of moving to Tibet are playing a part in attempting to wipe out the Tibetan culture don't you? I have to say there is an ugly pattern through out history of those with power illegibly immigrating to foreign lands and trying to eliminate local cultures. Its not only part of the foundation of America but also what has caused generations of suffering on all sides in Northern Ireland, and has played significant roles in countries throughout Africa and much of the rest of the world. If people were decent to each other this sort of thing would never happen, and I have to say I actually admire the restraint of the Tibetans in this situation. When one country invades another and tries the kind of nasty repressive BS the Chinese government is pulling someone usually goes jihad on their ass, and stats bombing, shooting, and murdering invaders in their sleep. Its a nasty world out there and the Tibetans really aren't repaying those invading them with half of what most other people would.
"...when one country invades another..."
The Chinese ambassador to France appeared on French television recently and reminded the French that Tibet is part of China, not because of a recent annexation but from way back in history.
Various chunks of France have also had tendencies toward independence: Corsica, Brittany, Savoy. The central government in France has never looked on these movements with a favorable eye.
Who decides who the land belongs to in the end? Seems to be an initial "might makes right" with a setting in of habit as time moves on.
We spend lots of time writing about presidential candidates none of whom are Amerindian and there was a tremendous amount of violence toward Indians to set up the current American government. Nobody contributing to Mother Jones seems eager to give away a chunk of the States to Indian tribes.
I am not personally for a boycott although I admire two statessomen who support that idea: Hillary Clinton and Ségolène Royale. But I do think that it's good to focus public attention on the plight of Tibet and to coax China toward the CULTURAL latitude requested by the Dalai Lama for his country. All of the banners and flag-waving and peaceful protestation can only be positive.
The other problem is the MASSES of people in China.
