There has been much excitement in
the media in anticipation of the 2008 Olympics in China, much of it based on
two factors: First, U.S. nationalist pride in support of our athletes competing
internationally, as happens every Olympic year; and also the public relations
campaign by China promoting itself and the "coming out party" we have heard so
much about in the media.
The boycott calls over the
Olympics stem from a few reasons, mainly freedom for Tibet, a nation China
invaded in 1949 for its natural resources. The subjugation of the Buddhist
monks in Tibet has been a leading topic of human rights activists for decades.
There is also issue of general human rights under communist rule, yet China is
slowly become more capitalist despite its communist leadership, thus hope for
more change.
Separately, the rapid industrialization
of China has resulted in a major pollution problems, thus many Olympic athletes
are worried air pollution from Chinese factories will degrade their performance
capabilities, and as such many Olympic athletes are not planning to arrive in
China until the last possible moment, meaning many will forgo the opening
ceremonies, as opposed to traditionally arriving early to acclimating
themselves to the venue.
The U.S. State Department
has now weighed in, saying that tourists should limit themselves to official
Olympic areas for safety concerns. This stems from a change in attitude among
the traditionally pacifistic Tibetans who have physically clashed with Chinese
soldiers recently, presumably knowing television cameras were nearby. The State
Department fears that these clashes may spread beyond Tibet.
All in all, while the media was excited about the
Olympics in China, the reality of what will potentially be the most troubled
Olympics in history is sinking in for many Americans. At the same time,
businesses which have invested in the Beijing Olympics are publicly discounting
such fears in order to protect their financial interests.
Stephen Spielberg, for example, has been a Free
Tibet activist for many years, yet he engaged in a PR contract with China, and
then suddenly backed out of his dealings with China, which makes Boycott Watch
suspect his pullout was a planned PR move all along.
Internationally, Prince Charles of England came under fire for being the first
world leader, or at least figurehead in his case, to announce he was not going
to attend the opening ceremonies, a virtual who's who of world leaders. Global
politics is playing a role in these decisions, as the leaders of some countries
have to weigh the cost of a no-show snub for their economy, as China has became
a global financial and manufacturing superpower that may not be beyond revenge
games.
President Bush, for one, is going to the
opening ceremonies for the economic fear reasons, as the U.S. cannot afford the
chance that China may pull back its part in financing of the U.S. national debt
- the U.S. economy is simply held hostage not just by the foreign dictators who
control the U.S. economy via oil, but also those who control the U.S. economy
via the mounting national debt which is resulting in the declining dollar on
the world currency exchanges. More significantly, the US relies on China for
the manufacturing and distribution of consumer goods - while China relies on
the US as a market for its goods, the US economy relies on Chinese goods far
more for its economic stability and growth, as low priced goods have played a
significant role in the growth of the buying power in the U.S.
The concern of Boycott Watch, in this case, is how
such a boycott would affect the US. When analyzing this, it is important to
remember that many business people who are claiming there will be no effect in
the U.S. may in fact have a vested interest in the failure of such a boycott.
Billions and billions of dollars have already been invested in the Olympics in
the form of sponsorships and broadcast / reporting rights, which is also why
the U.S. simply cannot afford to boycott the China Olympics, especially
considering the failure of the total Olympics boycott by the Carter
administration.
If, for example, there was a U.S.
consumer boycott of the Olympics, a 10% drop in anticipated television
viewership could have a devastating effect on the return on investment of some
advertisers, and a 20% drop would not just mean that television broadcasters
may lose significant revenue, but also that advertisers and sponsors may not
see the return on their investment either. In the case of television, there is
a significant upfront investment to broadcast the Olympics which must be met
just to break even, and the same applies to official sponsors.
In essence, China has been very concerned about its
image and is doing everything in its power to put on a dog and pony show, while
at the same time the U.S. businesses, thus the US economy, can not afford a
sluggish return on investment in the China Olympics, despite geopolitical
concerns, especially for the Republicans before just before the presidential
elections.
President Bush will, therefore, have to
promote the Olympics for several reasons despite the Presidents personal
objections considering his human rights stance. This is primarily because the
U.S. economy can not afford a fight with China right now, making the November
presidential elections a minor consideration in comparison, but part of the
overall concern for both Republicans and Democrats, where Democrats are likely
to question President Bush his China policy once the Democrats have their
nominee.
The US put itself into a position where a
boycott of the Olympics in China can be harmful to its own economy, but
considering the growth of Olympics boycott activity over human rights issues,
American consumers may not see the national economic impact at all. It is still
too early to determine who will ultimately boycott the Olympics and of that
boycott will amount to much, but consumer boycotts have been known to be very
successful, thus explaining the fear by sponsoring businesses, media
accountants and even politicians. |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
