With Republican demagogues — especially Mike Pompeo, Tom Cotton and Nikki Haley — screaming for a U.S. boycott of Beijing's Winter Olympic Games because of the Chinese government's mistreatment of tennis star Peng Shuai, American sentiment may be swinging in that direction. I can't really say, since the last polling on the general issue of boycotting came way back in April.
Then, 36% of U.S. adults were in support of a boycott (for, obviously, a Peng-unrelated reason). That number has surely risen, though, given so much domestic media coverage of Peng's Nov. 2, sexual assault allegations against a high-ranking Chinese official, her subsequent disappearance, and China's censorship of any online discussion of her absence and possible fate.
With appropriate adjustments, the old aphorism about one death as tragedy and millions as a statistic still holds. A Georgetown law professor who specializes in Chinese jurisprudence put it best: "Kind of weird that disappearing one Peng Shuai is more likely to lead to an Olympic boycott than committing crimes against humanity (and arguably genocide) against an entire population of Uyghurs. They must be scratching their heads in [Beijing]."
I can say what Beijing's chief propaganda arm — the fascinating Global Times, always a must-read — is saying. Two days ago it scoffed at talk of a boycott: "It's not worthy for China to spend energy and resources to care about [the West's] emotions and attitudes and ... negative thoughts.... Why should China care about their noises?"
It's safe to further say that rumors of a boycott are not greatly exaggerated. But I'd be shocked, as the world would be, if the Biden administration exercised any more than a diplomatic boycott. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if barking Republican demagogues pressured at least a few, weak-minded U.S. athletes into staying home. (Incidentally, a presidential prohibition of U.S. athletes traveling to Beijing — would that even be legal? — would represent nearly the same governmental oppressiveness that Republicans accuse China of.)
The question, though, stands: Should gross humanitarian injustices or violations of an individual athlete's human rights be necessary cause for boycotting China's or any others' Olympic Games? My guess is that most Americans would, by now, agree.
And though I sympathize with that sentiment, I simply cannot see its materialization being a practicable instrument of U.S. policy — for the same reason the U.S. does not and cannot police mass injustices everywhere in the world.
To interventionist hotheads who would send American troops back into Afghanistan to protect indigenous innocents, one must ask: What about the millions of innocents in, say, North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and the insultingly named Democratic Republic of Congo? Along those same lines, if we slapped down China on the Olympics vis-a-vis its humanitarian injustices — again, a fantastically unlikely event — what of other dehumanizing nations down the road?
Indeed the list might include the United States, where chronic racism results in the police or vigilante murder of so many young Black men, not to mention the daily injustices experienced by all Americans of color. I'd love to hear Sen. Cotton fume his way out of a Chinese, racism-justified boycott of a U.S. Olympics. Yet such is the reciprocity that America would face.
Nevertheless, Republican boycotting howls are sure to persuasively heighten in volume and heat. But what the hell, werewolfian howling is what they do.