Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Kenya Dig It? President Obama Talks Africa, Chastises Politics in Late Father's Homeland
- US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
- Asked What He Doesn’t Like About Himself, President Obama Cites His Golf Game
- Today's Q's For O's White House
- Afghanistan Offensive and Iraq Withdrawal: Obama's National Security Advisor Discusses Both with ABC News
- Who Makes the Big Bucks at the White House?
- Obama Quizzed at Health Care Town Hall: On Taxing Benefits, Single Payer System, and Costs
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- Spotlight on Non-Profit Work, Obama Calls on “Deep Pockets”
- Obama says Iraqi People Right to Celebrate
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Hillary Clinton Calls for Bush to Boycott Olympic Opening Games; Bill Clinton Gave Spielberg Opposite Advice
April 08, 2008 3:46 PM
On Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, called for President George W. Bush to refrain from personally participating in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summer Olympics to protest China's record on human rights.
The circumstances are dramatically different. But the dilemma of whether or not a public figure should lend his credibility to the China Olympics occurred last year, when firm director Steven Spielberg sought the opinion of former President Bill Clinton (among dozens of others) as to whether he should remain an "Overseas Artistic Director" for the opening and closing ceremonies for Olympics despite his serious concerns about China's role in the genocide in Darfur.
In 2007, knowledgeable sources say, the former President advised Spielberg to participate, that he could be an effective agent for positive change by working with China. Spielberg wasn't sure. He didn't sign his contract with the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games.
Clinton's wife on Monday took the complete opposite approach.
"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership," Clinton said in a written statement. "These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."
Is this an example of the shifting landscape of these international politics? The crackdown in Tibet? A disagreement between the power-couple (one where Hillary Clinton is either more hawkish or more of a human rights activist than her husband, depending on your point of view)? The substantial difference between a boycott by President Bush and one by Steven Spielberg? Or the difference between being a president and trying to become one?
That's unclear, and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about the matter. But this possible contradiction illustrates the differing views on the best way to get China's cooperation when it comes to Darfur, Tibet, and human rights within its own country, and how for many in the foreign policy establishment there are no any easy answers on this issue.
**
Throughout 2007, Spielberg tried to work within the system, meeting with Chinese Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong and Special Envoy Liu Guijin, writing to President Hu Jintao to urge him to pressure the Sudanese government to let United Nations peacekeeping troops into the region.
It was not always easy. Actress and Darfur activist Mia Farrow wrote an op-ed in the March 28, 2007, Wall Street Journal, warning Spielberg that he might "go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games," a reference to the infamous Nazi propagandist.
On April 2, Spielberg wrote to President Hu Jintao, saying that "the government of Sudan is engaged in a policy which is best described as a genocide. I have only recently come to understand fully the extent of China’s involvement in the region and its strategic and supportive relationship with the Sudanese government. I share the concern of many around the world who believe that China should be a clear advocate for United Nations action to bring the genocide in Darfur to an end."
In July 2007, Spielberg was heartened with China's support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 creating a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force.
But the government of Sudan put up roadblocks to the deployment of that force. Humanitarian officials were expelled from the country and violence stepped up against the people of Darfur.
On November 15, Spielberg wrote to President Hu Jintao once again, noting that since the passage of Resolution 1769, "the situation in Darfur has deteriorated and while China's earlier efforts were encouraging, its silence in the wake of Sudan’s recent actions and the resulting chaos on the ground has been disturbing. ...This week the United Nations warned that unless Sudan quickly accepts the hybrid peacekeeping force and key countries contribute critical equipment needed for the peacekeeping efforts, the force will not be prepared for deployment in January 2008 - already two long months away. So I write to you now with a renewed sense of urgency in the hope that China will redouble its efforts to pressure Sudan to join in a fair peace agreement and, at last, bring an end to the genocide."
He ended his letter, saying, "The world needs China to lead here. So many lives are at stake."
Less than three months later, with no action by China, Spielberg resigned from the Olympics, writing in a statement that the Sudanese "government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these on-going crimes but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more to end the continuing human suffering there."
**
Kenneth Lieberthal, the senior director for Asia on the National Security Council for then-President Bill Clinton from 1998 through 2000, says that Sen. Hillary Clinton's call for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies would be counter-productive.
"I think that there is a question of whether you want to do this in a way that is more likely to lead to real progress rather than more likely to lead to the Chinese digging in their heels because they're losing face in very public fashion," Lieberthal told ABC News.
Lieberthal says the Chinese government feels it has worked really hard to make the Olympics successful and have met its obligations. Chinese officials are likely to look at the recent outbreak of violent between the Chinese and Tibetans and "see how the initial violence by Tibetans against the Chinese was downplayed in the western media…and see western governments jump on board the bandwagon, and they're likely to feel that no matter what they do the West will not think of them as major players."
His suggestion for President Bush would be to not boycott the Olympics, "not to publicly say, 'I'm not going unless…' which would make it very difficult for President Hu Jintao to bend," but to tell President Hu Jintao that, "the way the Chinese government is handling, say, the Tibet issue is eroding the ground from under him, and he'd like to see following take place, and get Hu working with him. It would be more effective to do it that way. As opposed to being very public and making a big media splash that's counterproductive. Like a lot of things in foreign policy, what you might want to do turns out not to be most effective thing to do."
Lieberthal said he has not talked to President Bill Clinton in the last year. Based on what he knows of the former President, I asked him what he thought the former president was likely to think about boycotting the Olympic games' opening ceremony.
"I'll put it this way," Lieberthal said. "If you look at the evolution his approach to China over the two terms of his presidency, his evolution was in the direction of what I indicated President Bush ought to do."
- jpt
April 8, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (119)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
WoW! GW feels that he should be allowed to represent the USA in China - after admonishing china for their anti-democratic policies. GW has been trying to abolish democratic policies in the USA and throughout the WORLD for the past 7 years. We Americans (well many of us that are in the know)realize GW's and his partners in crime against all citizens of the world-their intentions.
Posted by: Margie | Aug 11, 2008 8:45:51 PM
The Chinese did probably the best Olympic opening ceremony ever. I doubt Steven Spielberg would top that. Steve, why don't you serve the "oversee director" role for Brits olympic opening ceremony in 2012? Let's see if you can do a better job. Maybe the CHinese shouldn't invite you in the first place.
Posted by: alex | Aug 10, 2008 6:02:56 PM
"...a handful of mistreated Tibetans..." ??? How about the entire country of Tibet was conquered by the Chinese Communists in 1950 and since then monks have been slaughtered, thousands of temples have been destroyed and the entire country has been oppressed and brutalized? The Tibetan Buddhists are suffering religious persecution as well as the Christians in China. They can escape persecution if they renounce their religion - sound familiar? If the Dalai Lama had not gone into exile he would be in prison or dead. As Christians, we have a special obligation to get our facts straight, understand history and appreciate the suffering of others even if they aren't Christians. I am not denigrating the plight of Christians in China - it's terrible. What I am doing is protesting the ignorant dismissive tone of Tony's letter. Come on, Tony, I expect more from you.
Posted by: Ken Whiton | Apr 11, 2008 8:26:56 PM
Posted by: sabine | Apr 10, 2008 10:37:04 PM
Compare recent China’s crackdown of criminals in Tibet with American’s crackdown of rebels of its puppet Iraqi government killing thourands of thourands Iraqis, destroying Infrastructure of a country leaving their people living in death and horror conditions, who should be pointed by fingers for human rights? American, of course. Saddam and Bush are killers, now Hillary is calling them to joint her - to change regimes again perhaps…
Posted by: Arthur | Apr 10, 2008 4:05:07 AM
Bill Clinton was right about "an effective agent for positive change by working with China".
Effective leaders/leading countries demonstrate/prove a right way to success, to better life, to a better society. Other people/countries/societies will follow willingly sooner or later without the use of forces in any ways by any parties.
Murderers, arsons, and vadals should always be punished by law in any lawful countries, no excuses. Any medias in EU and US showed the minimum synpathy to the Chinese (including Muslin Chinese) who were murdered, vandalized, burnt down in Tibet. Hardly!
Are the medias in EU countries and US successful in convincing Chinese people on the issues of Tibet and the need to boycott Olympic Games? I mean ordinary Chinese people and please leave the Chinese government aside for the moment. I will say hardly. The current events, especially the roles some media agencies in the free world are playing, are convincing the ordinal Chinese worldwide in just the opposite way. This is already causing the negative effects.
Confrontations, especially bloody confrontations, usually lead to even worse confrontations. It does not solve problems.
There are better and smarter ways.
Posted by: AATB | Apr 9, 2008 9:03:10 PM
For those saying Hilary is right on saying to Boycott, why is it fine for Her and under Bill to give our rocket technology to China, for her to receive campaign donations from China, She is a hypocrit.
And to the question below does Obama think the same as his wife, YES, read his book he is not proud of the country thats why he wants change to Socialism.
We should not Boycott the Olympics nor should the President, the Olympics were created to bring peace. We are not in any type of war with China (ie cold war or such) We should make it clear as Pres. bush has that we do not support their actions against the Dali Lama.
But what I find disheartening is the people who say we should pull out of Iraq and not get involved any place are the first to be calling for Pres. bush to Boycott! because of an internal strife in China.
but then again they are Hypocrites that let millions die because of their inaction!
Posted by: spock | Apr 9, 2008 3:56:57 PM
I don't give much time to the Olympics,because so much $$ is spent on the set up in the cities/countries that participate. All these $$ are poured out like water, while people are starving.
I stand on my take, which is for the betterment of the morals and life of mankind.
Everything else will pass away anyway. I'm just a nobody trying to tell everybody about somebody who can save anybody.
Posted by: Concerned for America | Apr 9, 2008 2:51:57 PM
Need I remind everyone that the purpose of the olympics is not to show which country has the best athletes, or criticize other nations, it's to sit next to our foreign brothers and sisters for a game of tennis... I think we should impose more economic restrictions with China, but can't we put aside our differences for 2 weeks, like these games were made to do?
Posted by: Brendan | Apr 9, 2008 2:17:00 PM
Need I remind everyone that the purpose of the olympics is not to show which country has the best athletes, or criticize other nations, it's to sit next to our foreign brothers and sisters for a game of tennis... I think we should impose more economic restrictions with China, but can't we put aside our differences for 2 weeks, like these games were made to do?
Posted by: Brendan | Apr 9, 2008 2:16:53 PM
It matters not what Clinton does or does not say or do. Her lack of ethics and morals has been cast! She's a liar, shady, un-ethical. Bill is also a proven liar! I've got to believe we can do much better than this for a President! You get them both if she wins!Sure would like to see the donor list for the library!
Posted by: TJ | Apr 9, 2008 12:07:33 PM
It matters not what Clinton does or does not say or do. Her lack of ethics and morals has been cast! She's a liar, shady, un-ethical. Bill is also a proven liar! I've got to believe we can do much better than this for a President! You get them both if she wins!Sure would like to see the donor list for the library!
Posted by: TJ | Apr 9, 2008 12:07:28 PM
After all these info. The Solutions Express should be called the Double Speak Express, end of story. Read the extracts from the ABC news website.
If only Penn were the end of the story. Guess who else supports the Colombia pact? Politico's Ben Smith scares up the quote (translated from Spanish) from June 2005: "I am in favor of the free trade agreement," said former President Bill Clinton (the one strategist who cannot be demoted).
This is where the (thick) rubber of the Clintons' financial entanglements hits the (icy) road of presidential politics. Huffington Post reports that Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 in 2005 by a group "tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia's business opportunities."
The Clinton campaign confirms the former president's support for the trade deal. "The acknowledgment adds new hurdles to the New York senator's bid to woo Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who believe free trade agreements have eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs," the AP's Charles Babington writes.
And it's not the only area where Bill Clinton, again, has his wife's campaign off-message. ABC's Jake Tapper reports that Clinton last year advised Steven Spielberg not to sever ties with the Beijing Olympics; Sen. Clinton this week made headlines by calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies.
Clinton's = Deceit.
Posted by: Owen | Apr 9, 2008 12:02:13 PM
It all depends on the audience I guess.
Posted by: LongT | Apr 9, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Hypocrites. As usual. When a Clinton's mouth is moving, you know they are lying.
Posted by: AG | Apr 9, 2008 10:27:40 AM
Bill Clinton is wrong on NAFTA and this China Olympic's thing. Hillary Clinton is correct in her position. As Chelsea said, Hillary will make a better president than Bill was. Hillary is right and a seperate person from Bill. What 2 married people are in agreement on everything? What 2 married people are merged into one mind? I am a staunch democrat and my husband is a stubborn Republican - many fights occurred over our differences. We are 2 independent free thinking individuals. So are Hillary & Bill. This is Hillary's presidency.
Posted by: this election counts | Apr 9, 2008 10:12:21 AM
To sarnorton, Hillary was always pro nafta.
In 2004 she said to a business group that nafta on balance had been good for america.
The Clintons lie so much that people don't even notice it.
Hillary sat on the walmart board. She never spoke up about their anti work practices.
Hillary helped pass nafta, she had meetings on it in the white house. To say she was just for it after it was passed is wrong.
Hillary in her book called nafta a great success.
The Clintons lie and take the public for idiots and they are right the public are idiots to believe the clintons.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 9, 2008 8:13:48 AM
Clinton two weeks ago said she didn't have an opinion about the boycott issue.
Then she jumps on bandwagon and takes credit for it herself when pelosi was the one pushing it.
This shows Hillary at her worst making an issue of someone else her own when two weeks ago she had no opinion of it. She did this to change the subject.
And the media played along. ABC isn't showing how two weeks ago Clinton said she didn't have an opinion on it.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 9, 2008 8:09:40 AM
People need to stop saying how bias the media is when it comes to Hillary. If she would just stop her lying about everything maybe the media would leave her alone. When you are running for president, anything you say or do is scutinized by the media. So stop your whining and let her (Hillary) know that when you lie you will be talked about.
Posted by: Iva | Apr 9, 2008 7:54:58 AM
Like Spielberg didn't know about how the Chinese treated Tibet when he first signed up for the gig. Come on. And since when is B. Clinton the moral compass of the nation that Spielberg should seek his wisdom on the matter? What a joke.
Posted by: stop2think | Apr 9, 2008 7:39:26 AM
Post a comment
