Bush Deserves the Gold

[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

My editors inform me that they are having e-mail server issues, so Stumped didn't receive any actual questions for today. I'd like to think it's because all those angry Hillary Clinton supporters crashed the server in response to my last column. In any event, today is like the day the substitute teacher shows up and class can do whatever it wants. Here are a couple of timely questions I'd like to see asked myself, and one from a friend.

Dear Stumped:

Do you think President Bush should attend the Olympic Games in light of the protests surrounding China's Tibet policies?

-- Stumped

Dear Stumped,

An excellent question. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, I will say this: The Bush administration has smartly created some leverage for itself to deal with China in advance of the Olympics.

What do I mean by that?

It's fairly unusual for an American president to attend a foreign Olympics. (Herbert Hoover didn't even go to Los Angeles for the 1932 Olympics.) By announcing almost eight months ago that he would attend the opening ceremony in Beijing, Bush now has more leverage than he otherwise would have with Beijing. I am under no illusion that he can alter China's human rights record, but at the very least, if a crackdown against dissenters in Tibet or elsewhere intensifies, along with international outrage, Bush could then embarrass the Chinese government by deciding not to attend the opening ceremony. If things got really bad, he could even stay away from China altogether.

The point is, he now has a menu of options available to him to express American disapproval or displeasure -- without the focus being on an athlete boycott, which would be utterly unproductive. There was a reasonable debate to be had as to whether China deserved to host the Olympics. But once the Games were awarded, it is in no one's interest to hold a boycott.

So I actually think they are being very clever about this at the White House. Then again, maybe it's all wishful thinking on my part and Bush is just really into sports and spending a lot of time on Air Force One.

Now, a word about Tibet: Enough already! It is absurd for the fate of Tibet to be the primary concern of those protesting China's Olympics. I realize that we in the West have a weakness for peaceful-seeming Buddhist monks, and Hollywood loves the 14th Dalai Lama, but this Tibet obsession is not only disproportionate, it is counterproductive in terms of advancing the cause of human rights in China.

Imagine if all Americans were denied political freedom, including the freedom to choose their own government, and that the first U.S. Olympics triggered protests around the world and calls for a boycott from foreign leaders. Imagine, however, that these protests focused not on Americans' lack of freedom, but almost exclusively on the status of our neo-colonial territories of Guam and Puerto Rico. That's how bizarre the focus on Tibet is.

To understand why making Tibet the main issue backfires in China, you have to keep in mind that as recently as the 1950s, CIA types were still crawling all over the place. The Chinese people still harbor plenty of resentment of Western efforts to dismember their country. I was struck last month on a visit to Beijing by how progressive, cosmopolitan young Chinese (who might otherwise resent their government's authoritarian ways) feel the government isn't being tough enough on Tibetan monks obstructing modernity -- and by how much they resent Western lectures on human rights.

We don't need to cater to their jingoism. But we do need to understand their aggrieved nationalism and the appearance of a double standard. (China's claim over Tibet seems stronger than U.S. claims to Puerto Rico, if not California.) Moreover, it would be nice if, once in a while, those voicing reservations about celebrating China's Olympics would express more concern for the political freedoms being denied more than a billion Chinese within their own country.

As it is, Beijing couldn't have scripted this better. The West's focus on Tibet actually rallies the Chinese people in support of their government.

Dear Stumped,

What do you think is Rev. Jeremiah Wright's price for shutting up?

-- Michael McGough

Dear Michael,

I'm guessing Rev. Wright could be up for a nice ambassadorship. Maybe he could "liaise" with one of the bad guys the U.S. is supposedly going to engage under the why-can't-we-all-just-get-along Obama administration. Maybe Obama could get him to shut up by promising to unleash him, once elected, on Caracas or Damascus.

Or maybe it's not so simple. Maybe Rev. Wright, in addition to feeling mistreated by the media, is actually trying to undermine Obama's candidacy. Maybe he resists the prospect of an African-American president because it contradicts his own preachings about the nature of our society. Maybe that is why he is out there causing such damage to Obama's campaign. Just a thought.

Dear Stumped,

Were you surprised by the results of the Pennsylvania primary?

-- Stumped Again

Dear Again,

Always nice to hear from you. I hear you have been having some e-mail server problems -- I hope you get those cleared up.

To answer your question, neither the Pennsylvania primary results nor the eternity that preceded them cast any new light on the Democratic battle, which now resembles World War I trench warfare. On another front, though, yesterday's top financial news was a real shocker. Who knew that a bubble gum company could be worth $23 billion?! As I never tire of saying: What a country!

By Andres Martinez | April 29, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: Hillary Clinton, GOP Heroine | Next: I'm for Obama -- in 2012

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.

Posted by: julio romero | April 30, 2008 9:07 AM

while this is true it does not address the claim the US has on Puerto Rico.it was snatched from Spain, like much of the US was snatched from others.

while the PRs are citizens they do not get to vote in presidential elections.no, of course we are not an, gasp, EMPIRE.

Posted by: johannesrolf | May 9, 2008 10:57 AM

Take America back from white racist republican bible thumping angry folk.

Posted by: Rick | May 2, 2008 10:34 AM

mr martinez please look up the definition of media bias. as for puerto ricans they are u.s. american citizens the minute they are born. get out your books and read.

Posted by: julio romero | April 30, 2008 9:07 AM

Well you are a disappointment. Just another hacker trying to push buttons.

Posted by: Mary | April 30, 2008 8:57 AM

Bush deserves the gold? Would that be for utter incompetence? Arrogance? Stupidity? Al of the above?

Posted by: | April 29, 2008 3:18 PM

I usually don't participate in this forum, but it seems that no one read Mr. Martinez's Guam/Puerto Rico statement. His statement is a hypothetical in which the United States is an autocratic country that holds the Olympic Games, and instead of the world raging about the United States' denying its citizens fundamental rights and freedoms, it fixates on Guam or Puerto Rico's political status as a reason to boycott the games due to a charismatic leader that gains the favor of influential Hollywood types.

However, and this is more on the nitpick level, I would have have used DC's own political status. Both Guam and Puerto Rico have their separate teams and technically could hold the Olympics in their own territory. In fact, Puerto Rico, once aspired to hold the games in 2004.

Posted by: Kruhn | April 29, 2008 2:46 PM

fhgerlach - Thank you for pointing that out.
I cannot think of an more inane comparison. Way to get stumped Mr. Martinez.
A more appropriate comparison would be the plight of the residents of DC, but that is still no where near as bad as what is happening in Tibet. If people in Guam, Puerto Rico, or other US colonies were rioting to get separation, then yes, there would be a comparison, but they are not, so there isn't.
As far as your Wright comments... they again, are too stupid to respond to.
While I rarely agree with your answers, they are usually better thought out than these.

Posted by: Dupont | April 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Is there some reason the Post has hired this GOP hack? Get off your knees man!

Posted by: Jon Doh! | April 29, 2008 1:44 PM

I used to think you were too partisan to write this column.

Now I see you simply have a weak mind.

I don't mean that as an insult, although it is unavoidably insulting to point it out, particularly in public; I simply mean that you draw perpendicular parallels to support your points of view, blithely equating the unequal and comparing the dissimilar.

No wonder you support Bush.

Posted by: Mobedda | April 29, 2008 1:19 PM

The difference between Tibet and Puerto Rico is that the Puerto Ricans for decades have been free to vote for independence. They have preferred their current commonwealth status, not least because it confers American citizenship on them.

Posted by: fhgerlach | April 29, 2008 11:57 AM

Bush Deserves the Gold

Comments

Post a Comment