There's been a lot in the news lately regarding the 2008 China Olympics. Here's a couple of news links in case you missed it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7334545.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/07/paris-torch.html?ref=rss
My understanding of the purpose of the Olympics was an opportunity for nation's to lay down their differences and participate in the "brotherhood of sport" (not my term). With that being said, my question to all is, is it right (morally justifiable?) to protest human rights violations (suppression of Tibet, etc.) when the whole purpose of the Olympics is for nations to at lease temporarily lay down it's differences? Perhaps my base assumption is incorrect or perhaps the protests are in error. Maybe my base assumption is correct and still the protests are within the spirit of the games.
Let me take this a step further and it does to some extent follow the underlying philosophy. Look at the effect of Nixon's open trade policy with China, China is opening itself up a little more everyday to a market-based economy and the personal freedoms necessary to have a free market economy (Nixon's goal?), a policy followed by subsequent GOP&Dem. presidents ever since. China has a long way to go but progress is progress.
Isn't the benefits that come from these kind of cooperative, transparent and open events/trade agreements more beneficial in the long run. After all, isn't the goal of what we do as Americans, in particular, to bring freedom and human rights to others. I find it unlikely that punishing a nation is unlikely to cause change, in fact, there are lots of examples of economic embargoes doing neither, whereas, there are a number of examples of open trade causing the latter.
Just to play devil's advocate
wouldn't an open trade agreement
with Cuba cause a major shift in the political atmosphere there? After all, who in their right mind would turn away tourist dollars but at the same time Cubans
themselves would begin to get a taste of what freedom and an "American" lifestyle would be like.
I'm not sure who said it (F. Bastiat/A. Smith?) "when trade does not cross frontiers, armies will".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7334545.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/07/paris-torch.html?ref=rss
My understanding of the purpose of the Olympics was an opportunity for nation's to lay down their differences and participate in the "brotherhood of sport" (not my term). With that being said, my question to all is, is it right (morally justifiable?) to protest human rights violations (suppression of Tibet, etc.) when the whole purpose of the Olympics is for nations to at lease temporarily lay down it's differences? Perhaps my base assumption is incorrect or perhaps the protests are in error. Maybe my base assumption is correct and still the protests are within the spirit of the games.
Let me take this a step further and it does to some extent follow the underlying philosophy. Look at the effect of Nixon's open trade policy with China, China is opening itself up a little more everyday to a market-based economy and the personal freedoms necessary to have a free market economy (Nixon's goal?), a policy followed by subsequent GOP&Dem. presidents ever since. China has a long way to go but progress is progress.
Isn't the benefits that come from these kind of cooperative, transparent and open events/trade agreements more beneficial in the long run. After all, isn't the goal of what we do as Americans, in particular, to bring freedom and human rights to others. I find it unlikely that punishing a nation is unlikely to cause change, in fact, there are lots of examples of economic embargoes doing neither, whereas, there are a number of examples of open trade causing the latter.
Just to play devil's advocate
wouldn't an open trade agreement
with Cuba cause a major shift in the political atmosphere there? After all, who in their right mind would turn away tourist dollars but at the same time Cubans
themselves would begin to get a taste of what freedom and an "American" lifestyle would be like.
I'm not sure who said it (F. Bastiat/A. Smith?) "when trade does not cross frontiers, armies will".
