In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria argues against a boycott of the Olympics:
At first glance, China’s recent crackdown in Tibet looks like a familiar storyline: a dictatorship represses its people. And of course that’s part of the reality—as it often is in China. But on this issue, the communist regime is not in opposition to its people. The vast majority of Chinese have little sympathy for the Tibetan cause. To the extent that we can gauge public opinion in China and among its diaspora, ordinary Chinese are, if anything, critical of the Beijing government for being too easy on the Tibetans. The real struggle here is between a nationalist majority and an ethnic and religious minority looking to secure its rights.
In these circumstances, a boycott of the Olympics would have precisely the opposite effect that is intended. The regime in Beijing would become only more defensive and stubborn. The Chinese people would rally around the flag and see the West as trying to humiliate China in its first international moment of glory. (There are many suspicions that the United States cannot abide the prospect of a rising China.) For most Chinese, the Games are about the world’s giving China respect, rather than bolstering the Communist Party’s legitimacy.
Read also Jonathan Alter’s “Boycott Opening Ceremonies” which argues the opposing viewpoint.
On Global Voices, John Kennedy looks at the Fallout from the Free Tibet Protests and the outpouring of nationalist sentiment. In the New York Times, Matthew Forney offers a profile of the Chinese youth behind the Tibet backlash. See also “Anger is growing in China over Olympics protests” from the Los Angeles Times.
