Third Way: No Human Rights, No Legitimacy

China News Service

With the 2022 Winter Olympics quickly approaching within a few days, relations between the U.S. and China are growing just as icy as the Cold War and the snow powder covering the Chinese slopes. Attention over the past few weeks has shifted away from upcoming events and athletes to diplomats and human rights issues. In a rare and public rebuke, the U.S., the UK, and Australia have opted to forego the symbolic ballet that takes place alongside the Olympic games in the form of deepening diplomatic relations between the host nation—China—and others at the games.

Background

Since the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, the Chinese government adopted a more aggressive posture economically, militarily, diplomatically, and within its own borders. In the years since China symbolically opened itself up to the world in their last Olympics, their role in the world dramatically altered. Once touting itself as an open beacon of modernization and a liberalizing nation that could be a valued and reliable ally for developing nations, this posturing soon exposed itself to be merely a façade.

In the years following China’s symbolic entrance on the world stage, China has undertaken a far more expansionist role across the globe, and internally has tightened its grip over any facet of society that the Chinese Communist Party views as non-conforming to a strict set of values.

China and the West’s relationship has strained under the weight of this expansion and questionable-at-best human rights record. However, in the face of expanding its influence into the South China Sea, threats to invade Taiwan, continued failure to recognize Tibet, forcibly stifling dissent in Hong Kong, committing acts of genocide in the Xinjiang province against the Uyghur population, aggressive economic tactics, and most recently the Peng detainment and arguably forced retraction of her sexual assault claims, the diplomatic relationship at times seems unlikely to remain secure.

In the past weeks the confluence of all these aforementioned high-profile controversies made a common call amongst activists to boycott and not “reward” China’s behavior. Announced on Dec. 6th, the U.S. State Department instituted a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic games. It is important to distinguish the difference between a full boycott and a diplomatic one. A full boycott of the games would include all members of a nation—athletes and diplomats—however, in this instance, only diplomats and non-athletes will be boycotting the winter games. This may appear as frivolous and futile gesture, however, the symbolism and attention this measure attracts is nothing to scoff at—especially given how much of the Olympics is not about sports, but rather an exercise in soft power.

This is not the first time the U.S. implemented a boycott of the Olympics over objections to international behavior. Famously—at the time infamously—the Jimmy Carter administration boycotted the 1980 Olympics over the USSR invading Afghanistan. At the time the boycott, which included both diplomats and athletes, became regarded as unwise and not popular with the American public.

Argument

However, in this instance, the diplomatic boycott that the U.S. is engaging in for the upcoming Winter Games is popular amongst the broader American populace and Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Seemingly, the only pushback on the Biden administration is that the move is not severe enough—a dramatically different sentiment than the U.S.’ last Olympic boycott.

A common, but fraught, response to this method of exuding international, diplomatic, and domestic pressure usually follows something along the lines of, “So are we just going to boycott any nation’s high-profile international event when that nation violates human rights?” Our answer should be “Yes, why not?” After all, the diplomatic boycott that is taking place does not punish any party other than the Chinese government. Athletes are permitted to participate in the games, but the honor of hosting an Olympic game will now come with an indelible stain that the Chinese government will not be able to wash away. Certainly, the athletic events and athletes themselves will take center stage in news coverage; however, no commentary regarding the games will be able to overlook the symbolism of withholding diplomatic support.

The international community—and the U.S.—should not hesitate to utilize the diplomatic soft power of boycotts for events such as the Olympics, especially given the behavior of China over the past decade. Stifling dissent and nonconformity in the case of Hong Kong and the Xinjiang province produced horrendous human rights violations. Hong Kong’s desire to maintain freedom of expression and democratic mechanisms was forcibly stripped away by the Chinese-installed government and by mainland China’s military. In the case of Xinjiang, one of the worst current human rights violations is taking place, with the destruction of their culture—which is too vast and heartbreaking to list here, but can be found at—is tantamount to genocide, with the UN to soon release a report accusing the Chinese government of perpetrating acts of genocide.

Conclusion

The choice to implement a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Olympics in China was not only correct but necessary given the external and internal behavior of China. Giving the seal of approval by granting a diplomatic presence would reward China for its transgressions. Underwriting these games would be a mistake, and only encourage China to undertake further aggressive actions. However, this boycott should not be the sole action the U.S. and the West takes. Severe sanctions—leveled at those in CCP leadership, particularly in charge of Xinjiang—, naming and shaming at the UN and in every speech surrounding China, making an effort to meet with Uyghur activists, the creation of a special envoy within the State Dept. to address this issue, and a whole host of other actions that both take on risk and repercussions on behalf of protecting human rights is what the West and the U.S. should engage in regularly.

Actions of high symbolism and utilizing soft-power effectively cannot be a one-off and must be reaffirmed constantly with posture and policy as a foundational approach to bad actors throughout the world. Currently, the UK and Australia are also participating in this boycott—whether in name or all but name—and while this is a vital first step and deals a larger symbolic blow, this symbolic act must also translate into substantive, real action.