27 Comments Add your own

• 1. Simeon Trieu  |  April 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am

  Why shouldn’t Bush go to China?

  Is it because of human rights issues? The statistics on human rights violations are never based on percentages, only on numbers which are hyped by the massive population size. How are these statistics normalized to other countries?

  Is it because of Tibet? The Tibetans are the ones causing the violence. China is on the defensive. The US wouldn’t allow Texas to secede, so why should China allow Tibet to secede? It’s absurd.

  Is it because we don’t want China’s friendship? Are we not tied economically to them? Why would we want to cause a rift in our relationship? Are we so bitter at them for providing us with cheap labor? Wouldn’t a good relationship with China be better for us, Americans?

  Most of all, isn’t the spirit of the Olympics about dropping your differences and participating peacefully and joyfully in games that the world will watch together?

  The official Olympic Motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius”, a Latin phrase meaning “Swifter, Higher, Stronger”. Coubertin’s ideals are probably best illustrated by the Olympic Creed: “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

  Let’s not participate in this worldwide boycotting hypocrisy coming from the West. It is unfounded, dispiriting, and anti-Olympian.

• 2. Steve Munio  |  April 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  China represents the polar opposite of the democracy that the United States was founded on. Even the people of Iraq have more rights under the government today than the Chinese. If any country in the world should be called anti-Olympian, they are it. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they want to become a respected World power, they will have to face the MANY skeletons in their closet.
  These incredibly biased takes on every issue only encourage more negative sentiment.

• 3. Steve Munio  |  April 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Rather than being bitter about the opinions against China, you should appreciate where they come from. People are only standing for human rights, be it American humans, Chinese humans or whoever. Would you prefer people just happily and quietly continue to exploit the Chinese people for as long as possible?

• 4. Chris Carr  |  April 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  @ Simeon,

  Is your vote a “yes, he should go”?

  You seem to be using a utilitarian model of ethical decision making to get to what I think you are arguing… true or false?

  Please clarify.

  @ Steve,

  Is your vote that Bush should stay home, or go to the Opening Ceremony?

  You seem to be advocating the natural law model of ethical decision making in your comments … true or false?

  Why is it pro-China or biased to advocate using China (geopolitically) to get what we want or need in the same way she will undoubtedly use our Pres going or not going to said Ceremony to her advantage? I am not following your logic on this point and/or can’t tell if your comments were addressing the original post or Simeon.

  Please clarify.

  @ Both Simeon and Steve,

  How do we know which ethical model of reasoning of the three listed in the original post should rule the day, which one is “right” and which one leads to “truth”, and why? Who determines?

  Please go the next step and take a cut at this.

  @ All in the course:

  To keep this on track, please make sure you answer the questions posed by the post:

  1. Should Bush go?
  2. Why/your reasoning?
  3. Which ethical model are you using to get to your result? (We can’t make or force a person to be “ethical” at Cal Poly, as that is better left to you, your parents and/or the church you may have been raised in; but we do control and have the obligation to teach you how to spot an ethical issue and reason through that issue to make a decision using traditionally recognized ethical theories that began formation even before Plato existed).

• 5. Simeon Trieu  |  April 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  Steve: I am not bitter, and I’m sorry if the tone seemed that way. In fact, I am optimistic for China’s human rights improvements. For sure, we are not sitting idly by while violence breaks out in Lhasa, nor did we sit idly by while Chinese students were massacred by their own government in Tiananmen Square. I have read modern Chinese history and know it intimately from my relationships with my friends in China. I can tell you both sides of the story as an observer from both sides of the world. China has had 2 major upheavals in the past half century. Is China expected to have a perfectly stable government after all that? What about India? How long did it take them to form a stable democracy? 20 or 30 years? Even still, aren’t they battling similar factional disputes in Kashmir and Pakistan? How may bombings have we seen in the past month? And what about the US? How long did it take the US to shed the sin of slavery? Was that not a human rights violation as well? The United States, home of the free, has had slaves since 1619 until 1865. That’s over two hundred years. And are we even still, today, free from racial tensions resulting from that? We must ask the difficult questions and let those answers be the guide in how we approach solving world issues. Those answers will help us know more about ourselves and other cultures. Who knows the Chinese better than the Chinese themselves? How can the US claim to solve their problems when we so little understand them? From history, China has every right to be suspicious of the West for exploiting them in the past. That’s not to say, “just happily and quietly continue” to let China exploit their citizens, but it does call us to be more understanding in that these changes take time and are more complex than they appear on the outside.

  But anyways, that is not the question being asked. The question being asked here is “Should Bush attend the opening ceremonies?” And invariably, my answer is, yes, he should. Should the Olympics be used as a stage for politics? Not to the extent that we threaten boycotts if they don’t meet our demands.

• 6. Simeon Trieu  |  April 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  Prof. Carr: Yes, President Bush should go.

  After reading through the different schools of thought, originally, I wasn’t sure which one would fit best. Maybe utilitarianism. I do think that China’s issues should be met head-on, as the Olympics is not necessarily political, but naturally causes the country to put more effort into improving their own country. (Utilitarianism) However, I don’t think that we should be basing our decision to go based upon China’s progress in human rights or any other measure. We are going to participate, as the Olympic creed states. (Legal Positivism) So, in my perspective, I want China’s human rights to improve, since we feel for them as human beings. However, I don’t agree that we should be using the Olympics as a political vehicle. In reference to the Olympics, I suppose I would be in the legal positivism camp. Correct me if I’m wrong. I haven’t had the opportunity to take law yet.

• 7. Chris Carr  |  April 13th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

  @ Simeon,

  Yes, it is not unusual to see an amalgamation of theories in a response and decision making. For example, listen to the State of the Union address by any president, Dem or Repub — you will hear him (or her in the future?) jump back and forth between theories to justify the decision they made or what they propose the country do. The import of this is more toward recognizing this when it happens and identifying which road you are going down/the model you are using to reach your own decisions. Said awareness can in turn take you to a higher level of ethical and moral awareness than applying some arbitrary standard that cannot be measured or defined.

  Also, don’t feel like you have to take a law class to come up to speed on this stuff. Even though profs like Dr. Anderson and myself do incorporate it into our classes, one can master at an adequate level these ethical models by reading what they are (see post) which only takes a few minutes, and, then applying them to a few real life examples or problems such as the one in this post. Economic theory in turn hypothesizes that most people will pick the ethical model, and do so consciously or unconsciously, that maximized utility and gets them to the result they want and/or has the best chance of persuading the person or audience they wish to persuade. Sit back and watch it happen in any organization you are involved in — happens every day, all the time.

• 8. Nic Marlin  |  April 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  President Bush should attend the Olympics in China. I also tend to take a utilitarian approach when thinking about issues like this. There would be more benefits from him attending than if he canceled. Not attending would send a strong message that does not benefit anyone and would not be good for the athlete’s moral. As a former Olympic level athlete, I know that many of the athletes participating in the Olympics believe in the traditional good-natured spirit of the event to celebrate our shared humanity. I hate the fact that it is used as a forum for geopolitical issues and I know that the athletes share this viewpoint as well. I would love it if Bush could just go there in support of our athletes and to express his commitment to peace and the unity of human beings (not that he has that commitment).

• 9. Billy Jencks  |  April 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am

  I’ve got to agree with Simeon’s first comment, siting the Olympic Spirit. The Olympics began as a worldwide festival, when all fighting was halted so as to promote healthy competition and friendly relationships between all nations of the world (which of course was much smaller at that time.) The world community has always striven to uphold this Olympic Ideal, and I don’t see why this one should be any different.

  I understand the protests in San Francisco, and why so many people are upset, but if we are going to go to the lengths of publicly boycotting the Olympics in China as a Nation we should also be prepared to cut ties with them economically! What is really more influential - Sending our president to the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, or sending billions of US dollars to China every year?

  If this is such a huge problem, how did the Olympic committee agree to China hosting an Olympics in the first place?

  I think he should absolutely go, just as every other leader should.

• 10. Chris Carr  |  April 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am

  @ Billy - are you relying on utilitarianism in your analysis?

  Sounds so, and if so, please make the direct link and express.

  I want people to stay away from the routine “I think” answers with no tie in to a recognized moral/ethical theoretical model.

  Recognizing and applying these models is not just an academic exercise — it will also help you better understand the employees you hire, manage and even fire, in terms of how they are wired, the philosophy that drives their decision making, etc. Same goes for your clients who hire you and have expectations — you need to understand how they are wired and think, and why, and how that drives their expectations of your firm.

  For example, it is probably best not to put your most zealous utilitarian thinker in charge of your legal compliance work in your firm and all the forms that go with it (e.g., taxes!). If said employee determines or believes that the cons of complying with the legal rules outweigh the pros, well, get ready have to some government people and/or the press in your office asking for an explanation of your firm conduct and decision making that went south.

• 11. Brandi Eng-Rohrbach  |  April 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  同一个世界同一个梦想
  This means One World, One Dream.
  That is the motto of this Olympics. It was meant to represent the opening of China to the rest of the world. I think the Olympics transcends national boundaries. It is not just about one nation, it is about all nations. I think Bush should go to the Olympics.
  I think the ends justifies the means in this case. I take the utilitarian approach to this situation. I think that his appearance at the Olympics is not an endorsement of China’s human rights policies. I think it is an endorsement of international human rights.

  The Wall Street Journal has some excellent discussion on this which can be found here.

• 12. gc  |  April 14th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  I am still bitter about China from watching the Tank Man video. (You may refer to my comment on that post.) I believe I will oppose anything China for a long long time until it becomes democratic.

• 13. mob  |  April 15th, 2008 at 8:53 am

  The question asked should be:
  Should war criminal George Bush be allowed to the opening ceremonies?

• 14. Chris White  |  April 15th, 2008 at 9:41 am

  I agree with the earlier posts of my peers and my argument follows from a utilitarian ethical model. I do not believe a boycott of the opening ceremonies by President Bush is the optimal solution to solving China’s human rights issues. President Bush, as a representative of the United States, should attend the opening ceremonies in order to let the world know that America supports global unity. Although a boycott would certainly please some groups, the bottom line is that Bush is not well liked around the world and no matter what he does he cannot please everyone. A boycott will send the wrong message to the world, showing again that the U.S. thinks it is “above” every other country and does not have to follow any rules. Bush should also attend to show his support of the American athletes who have worked very hard to represent our country. The Olympics are not about China, they are about the many nations of the world coming together for friendly competition outside of politics, economics, etc.

  In addition, I believe that the chaos surrounding the Olympic torch’s tour around the globe has helped, not only inform many people around the world of China’s human rights problems, but also send a message to China’s government that the world is watching you. As China continues to grow into a global superpower, it must change some of its ways or it will lose favor in the global economy. The protests of the Olympic torch tour were a very powerful message because they represented the beliefs of many people around the world, not just a single country represented by a single person.

  Professor Carr, are you suggesting that China may be a potential military ally? Or can China use their economic power to, in essence, shun these problem countries?

• 15. Chris Carr  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:40 am

  @ mob,

  No, that is not the question that should be asked, nor is it asked here.

  If you contend bush is a war criminal, take it up with UN and/or the Hague, but for purposes of this post please stick to the issue at hand and answer the questions posed. Let’s keep this on track.

• 16. Chris Carr  |  April 15th, 2008 at 10:49 am

  @ Chris White,

  Re: military alliances, sure, why not, and why not particularly for fighting terrorism? To have China apply military pressure to the countries on their western border (again, see map for the various threats or potential extremists threats that exist there) and us/the US applying said pressure on on the other side of these countries, could make for a powerful one-two punch.

  There is already historical precedent for military cooperation with those “bad boy, evil, they will brain wash you communists” — e.g., we aligned with the Chinese CCP to fight the Japanese, we then later worked with China to play off the Soviets when the Soviets were over-reaching, we currently work together (politically at least, but I would bet we even share military intel with the Chinese and them with us) re: keeping the North Koreans in check (if Kim Jong Il gets even crazier that is bad for both of us), etc.

• 17. Chris Carr  |  April 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am

  @ gc,

  And the above ethical model/theory you are using to support your result and decision is _________?

• 18. Sovrevmny  |  April 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

  I’m afraid this issue is not about Tibet. Tibet is merely the platform for the larger problem at hand, a problem the west simply does not realize - China’s growing nationalism.

  America cannot fathom how much anger there is over the last few days. Across China, and even amongst immigrant Chinese, the hatred for “Western bias”, “hypocritical whites” and “jealous americans” has been widespread and unanimous.

  Americans fail to realize that this is the voice of 250 million internet-capable people. The sheer size of the Chinese population dwarfs, and drowns out any opposition. The same people inundate the internet with their nationalist agendas and even form cliques within our universities, protesting on our soil, against our policies.

  This is the true face of the Tibet issue, one that Westerners are going to have to deal with sooner or later.

• 19. Lonnie  |  April 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

  “I agree with Dan Harris at the China Law Blog — we need friends and support to fight the Al Queda’s of the world…”
  We may not have much cred’ with China. We have kidnapped and locked up admitted Chinese terrorists training in Afghan camps, but refused to turn them over to China. Instead, we found them asylum from China’s harsh prisons in foreign countries.
  “The Olympics have ALWAYS, like the Nobel Prize in Literature, been political by nature: raised black power salutes, draping selves in flags, organized doping of athletes for propaganda etc… But, for the US to take some moral stance when she is the world’s war and oil monger right now is unfathomable. I don’t think @mob is so off-track Chris, as that is now the prevailing rhetoric here. The screw-ups by a poorly trained and sensationalist western press have given Chinese all the ammo they need to deflect any viable critical looks at violations here(take the recent 3 1/2 year lock-up of dissident/aids activist Hu Jia) and they are not in a mood to cooperate with America. For the first time since living here I now feel less welcome than a Japanese businessman. The documentaries on CCTV9 are all slamming Britain and the US for using Tibet as a staging ground for militarism and Bush’s ill-advised incursions into Iraq and other sovereign areas.

  http://onemanbandwidth.com/wordpress/2008/02/11/beijing-oympic-boycott/
  YES, Bush should go, Any spotlight on China will force less censorship or a criticism of restraints if implemented.
  I believe that the chaos surrounding the Olympic torch’s tour around the globe has helped, not only inform many people around the world of China’s human rights problems, but also send a message to China’s government that the world is watching you.”
  I agree, but the damage being done to bi-lateral relations due to this mess is going to take years to repair.

• 20. Jesse Dundon  |  April 16th, 2008 at 1:10 am

  First, Steve Munio you should relax a bit. Getting all up in arms is going to get you nowhere. I hope you aren’t going to unfurl a free Tibet flag in China and get your roommate thrown in jail with you… (re: the previous post)

  I agree with Dr. Carr on this one. We have nothing really to gain if we were to shun China, and a lot to loose. The time to make a stand would have been back before China was awarded the right to have the Olympics in Beijing. The fact is, the Olympics are in China and we need to have good relations with that country. We will not be able to create a lasting change in China without developing a strong positive political relationship (war in this case is probably not a bright idea).

  So my vote it that he goes, for the reasons above, and according to the utilitarian model.

• 21. Chris Carr  |  April 16th, 2008 at 5:54 am

  Lonnie,

  Good to hear from you. Thanks for the check in.

  You raise some good points, but I can’t buy the Bush is a “war criminal” argument. The problem I have with said term is that it is thrown around so loosely by folks without a deep understanding of what it means, at least to us lawyers who have to prove this stuff to convict.

  For example, if I was the prosecuting attorney tasked with convicting Bush of a war crimes charge, I would be required to offer credible evidence that showed he has what in the law we call the “specific intent” to commit the alleged crime.

  That is, the evidence must show that he was fully informed, intended the act AND the result that occurred from said act. Gotta have all of this. If you don’t, the charge won’t stick. I have seen no evidence to support such a conclusion and I am skeptical that it exists, even behind any conspiracy theory of the closed doors of power and government.

  Now, if we were prosecuting Bush on the charge that he is not the sharpest tool in the shed or that he was not a serious student at Harvard, well, that’s a different case. But a “war criminal”? I don’t think so. When people say this it’s just hand waving and inflammatory accusations by some really pissed off people.

  You are right about the Western press handling a lot of this poorly, as the public attack, versus the private/behind the scenes give and take that allows for the saving of face, stokes the fires of their over the top nationalists. But I am optimistic and hopeful that reasonable, more moderate heads in both countries will prevail.

  So in the meantime, keep your head down in Guangzhou. Let your lovely wife do all the talking and you will be just fine.

• 22. Lonnie  |  April 16th, 2008 at 7:49 am

  Professor Carr,

  I feel a long trial (at the Starbucks municipal court in GZ) upcoming AFTER a showing of Fahrenheit 911…

  Ms Yue just tsks about Tibet these days…

  L

  P.S.

  Bush went to Yale

• 23. Chris Carr  |  April 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am

  Lonnie,

  I was referring to his MBA days at Harvard Business School. Do Yalies even go to class?

• 24. Lonnie  |  April 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am

  When they are not Attending Skull and Crossbones meetings…:-)

• 25. KYC  |  April 17th, 2008 at 9:24 am

  Bush should not attend the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing this summer. He is not welcomed. He is the worst political leader in the developed world in the modern history. He works for the oil and gas industry; he lied to the people of America, the Congress regarding the reason to invade Iraq; he fired the judges who are Democrats; he suppressed scientific findings about global warming; he displays no leadership in the combat of carbon emission; he permits the illegal imprisonment of middle eastern people in Guantanamo Bay and torturing of them. Such a disgraceful figure should not be allowed to be at the Opening

• 26. Chris Carr  |  April 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am

  KYC,

  Wow. Bad day at the office? Sounds like you are not a Bush fan. Ok, to each his own, but what ethical theory are you using/relying to get to your result? I want to keep this post more academic than people just cyberspace ranting on either side of the issue. Thanks!

• 27. Matthew Sprecher  |  April 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm

  My Vote: Bush shouldn’t JUST attend the opening ceremonies, he MUST!

  To begin this statement I would like to say I am not a Bush fan. I was during his first term, but as time has gone on my favor towards him has begun to fade. Despite my lack of support for our president though, it is vital for him to attend the Olmypics. In an age when the US is already looked down upon by a lot of countries, this is our time to join all of the other countries in the unifying Olympic games. That doesnt mean just performing in the games, but participating in all the events.

  Envision the opening ceremonies. Every country is present, the fireworks are going off, and each countries head representative is being shown on the teleprompter. Sure, when Bush gets shown he will be booed…heavily. But how poorly would it look on us if he did not show up? Instead of just being the “war hungry country” in their minds, they could put the word “stuck-up” in front of it. I’m not saying that Bush needs to give a speech or give a hug to all the children of the Olympic committee, but these are supposed to be the games when the world unites. And being the power that we are, our president owes it to unite with the world as well.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The posts, comments and/or views expressed on this trip blog, whether by a Cal Poly student or faculty or an outside guest to the blog, do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of Cal Poly, the Orfalea College of Business (OCOB), any of the OCOB's graduate programs and/or other students who participate in the trip.