What are the Pros and Cons of a Diplomatic Boycott of the Beijing Olympics, and What is the Real "Response" That Should Be Taken?

(Japanese original version is posted to Diamond Online on December 14, 2021)

Abstract

There have been a number of "diplomatic boycotts" of the Beijing Olympics next February, which China has strongly opposed. However, the fact that the United States and other Anglo-Saxon liberal democracies are laying siege to China contradicts the stance of "respect for fundamental human rights", doesn't it? Fundamental human rights are universal, irrespective of ideology. Is the current form of boycott really the right one?

Anglo-Saxon led 'liberal democracy' and China-centred 'authoritarianism'

The United States has announced a "diplomatic boycott" of the Winter Olympics in Beijing, scheduled for next February, as a protest against human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, and the suppression of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.

In response, Australia, the UK and Canada announced a diplomatic boycott. Meanwhile, France, which is due to host the 2012 Olympics in Paris, has stated that it will not boycott diplomacy.

China has strongly opposed the "diplomatic boycott", calling it a "misguided move to use the Olympics for political purposes". As for the "forced labour" in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China dismissed it as a "total falsehood". It warned that it would "take decisive action", claiming that it was "trying to destroy the prosperity, stability and unity of the nation and suppress China's development".

I don't think this "diplomatic boycott" is a good way to protest against China's human rights abuses.

At the moment, only the Anglo-Saxon countries are in agreement with the diplomatic boycott. The US has also organised a "Democracy Summit", attended by about 100 countries. But it did not invite "authoritarian states" such as China and Russia.

In this way, the issue of human rights abuses has become a battle between different political systems and ideologies - "liberal democracy versus authoritarianism" (Article No. 263). Respect for fundamental human rights, however, is essentially a different matter from political systems and ideologies.

This is because respect for fundamental human rights means mutual acceptance of the race, language, religion, culture and ideology of all individuals around the world. In other words, the acceptance of differences in political systems and ideologies is part of respect for fundamental human rights.

In other words, the fundamental human rights of individuals should be respected in any country, no matter what the political system or ideology. So it is a different dimension　from competitions of political systems and ideologies. And only a thorough respect for fundamental human rights could make it possible to end the various conflicts and confrontations around the world.

A society based on one set of values excludes someone else.

For example, in the global era when the values of American liberal democracy spread around the world, people with beliefs, religions and cultures that did not conform to them were excluded from society as minorities.

However, even if a society in which authoritarian values predominate emerges instead, those who cannot obey authority will be excluded from society. After all, a society based on a certain set of values is built on the exclusion of others, making them minorities. There will always be conflicts and confrontations.

In other words, no matter what value system dominates the world, there will always be conflicts and confrontations. It means that the world will never change.

However, if we mutually recognise and accept all the races, languages, religions, cultures and ideological beliefs of all the individuals in the world, then we will have a world where no one is excluded.

In this sense, respect for fundamental human rights is a "universal" principle that has a higher dimension than the "liberal democracy versus authoritarianism" conflict. In other words, it is not correct that the Anglo-Saxon centred composition of the liberal democratic camp laying siege to China, Russia and other authoritarian states.

Because respect for fundamental human rights is reserved for liberal democracies, authoritarian states may be reluctant to accept that liberal democracies have different values from their own.

Suppose a case of alleged human rights violation occurs in an authoritarian state. The state claims that this is to protect the political system and social stability from "terrorists". It suppresses the media that criticises it, and justifies it by saying that it is to protect the human rights of the many people who follow the regime. The logic of China's suppression of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement by the "Hong Kong Law on the Maintenance of National Security" (Article No. 261) makes this clear.

In this way, amount of criticism of authoritarian states will not improve the situation, but will only widen the division of the world.

The diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics means only that government officials will not attend. The athletes will be sent and the Olympics will go ahead. It is a "political performance" and means practically nothing. In this sense, French President Emmanuel Macron's decision not to carry out a diplomatic boycott is not wrong.

Why authoritarian countries cannot be trusted by liberal democracies

In this series of articles, we have argued that liberal democracy is "still a better" political system than authoritarianism. This is because it is the only political system in which the people can openly see the failings of their government and, through elections or other means, redress them without revolution or regime change wreaking havoc on their lives (Article No. 220).

Liberal democracies such as the UK, for example, are able to change their governments through elections. The British Prime Minister, who is supposed to be extremely powerful during his term of office, is frequently replaced by an election. British politics has been called a 'replaceable dictatorship' (Article No. 235, p. 5).

In a liberal democracy, even if power and money become concentrated during the term of a leader, the people have the ability to check this and replace the leader if necessary.

On the other hand, even in supposedly authoritarian states, respect for the basic human rights of the people should be at least a "prerequisite". For example, China's official name is the People's Republic of China and North Korea's official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Some countries, such as Russia, have a "democratic electoral system".

However, in authoritarian states, laws and institutions can be easily changed by the leader, such as the implementation of the "Hong Kong National Security Law" in China. In addition, the term limit for the President of the State, which was limited to two terms of ten years, has been abolished, allowing President Xi Jinping to serve a third term. In Russia, constitutional reforms meant that President Vladimir Putin's term of office, which currently runs until 2024, can now run until 2036.

Moreover, even in countries with democratic electoral systems, such as Myanmar, the results of the elections are easily overturned by the military and other forces, and the democratic majority is suppressed (Article No. 267).

It is important to note that these realities are not secret or anything, but are obtained through public information that is available to everyone. Because of this public information, China's claim that "human rights violations" are a "hoax" is not be trusted by the international community.

The international community regards it as a state with weak checks on the concentration of power and money by its leaders and the abuse of that power to cause human rights abuses. That is why China and other authoritarian states are not trusted.

We must take a firm action against states that fails to uphold fundamental human rights.

Fundamental human rights are universal and should be respected regardless of whether the political system is democratic or authoritarian.

Therefore, if there is a country where human rights are being violated, and the country is unable to correct it itself, it is permissible for the international community to step in and protect the fundamental human rights of the "individual" on behalf of the government of that country. This is not "foreign interference in internal affairs". Therefore, the human rights issue in China should not be treated as a "political issue" between nations.

Nor should "economic relations" or "national interests" determine how we should respond as a nation. In a country where basic human rights are not protected, the lives and safety of businessmen are at risk. We cannot have an "economic relationship" with such a country.

In dealing with human rights violations, we demand that China fully disclose the actual situation in each case. If human rights violations are found to exist, the only way is to demand improvements.

If China refuses to improve the human rights situation, or refuses to acknowledge the human rights violations themselves, we should take a firm, non-political response. That is to boycott the Beijing Olympics altogether, not to send any athletes, and to call on the IOC and China to cancel the Beijing Olympics themselves as a violation of the Olympic Charter.