"I instinctively empathize with the impulses of the protesters."

I don't instinctively empathize with the impulses of any murderer or arsonist.

I do empathize with those who believe in the freedom of any religion to choose its own leaders and decide its own fate. I empathize with those who tirelessly work to free people from the tyranny of oppression, censorship and violence be it facilitated by state, or church regimes.

I no longer know what "fully-developed civil society" means in terms of moral or social mandates or good by a host country: I don't see a single eastern or western country that can raise a flag on humanitarian high ground. Everest, Sagarmath, Chomolungma or Qomolangma is no Iwo Jima where the world can celebrate a common victory. It is an ongoing war of words, cultures, ideologies and the strategic posturing by misguided leaders in comfortable far-away palaces.

While I abhor totalitarian ideals I am equally incensed by the manipulation of the media by governments as well as ethnocentric torch bearers who shed light on little more than their own short paths to print.

I instinctively empathize with the innocent girls burned to death in the riot.

What pissed me off most is not the democracy cliche in the article from western media, but its neglect of all badly-harmed innocent ordinary people.

There is not much to add to Lonnie’s well written comment, except, perhaps, that Tom Doctoroff and his likes helped – readily and knowingly – to paint over the ugly parts of China’s society in return for his privileged courtside seat.

Instead, Tom Doctoroff and his fellow ad man should have made his clients from abroad and from within China fully aware of what it means to host and sponsor the Olympics for a global audience that is as diverse and interconnected as never before.

In Tom Doctoroff’s full text version, I profoundly disagree with his view that it is alright to sponsor a totalitarian regime for the greater good. With the worst case scenario approaching, and this wishful greater good disappearing by the minute, the benchmark for corporate social responsibility of Multinational Corporations will certainly be elevated to the next level. It will, without doubt, take far more than “meritocratic corporate diplomacy” to avert more damage to the Olympic sponsors. Ultimately, when it comes to human rights, there is no middle way.

"[A]s someone who has lived in China for almost a decade, sometimes frustrated by the lack of a fully developed civil society but often inspired by the ambition and heart of the Chinese nation and people, I believe that both governments and corporate sponsors should -- no, must -- continue to support the Games."

what does that even mean? what's the point?

the author makes no attempt to persuade the reader of anything, but rather states ad hominem that, because he's lived in Shanghai for the last decade, he believes that others must support China.

hard questions are not so easily elided, Mr. Executive.

to be fair, in his post linked to by Danwei above, Doctoroff goes on to make several potentially important statements, namely that:

(1) "Westerners have a responsibility to express their displeasure, even anger, regarding the PRC's frequent failure to live up to its responsibilities as a member of the international community of nations";

(2) "[t]he rise of an Olympics-worthy China validates the Middle Kingdom's entire worldview and confirms, in no particular order, the ebb and flow of history, the cyclical essence of yin and yang, as well as a renewed Mandate of Heaven" (emphasis added); and

(3) "the Chinese are making progress in their way and by their own standards" as per the usual measures of Western criticism.

these are potentially important points, but Doctoroff fails to either synthesize or address them in any meaningful way.

by contrast, Doctoroff tells us simply that the Olympics are, in essence, reallyreallyreally important to the Chinese state and people, and that a boycott would do more harm than those in the West realize.

"weak," you say. but no!

this argument, upon closer inspection, packs a hidden wallop, because it forces the respondent to either (a) walk down the garden path of cultural relativism by countering that these undefined issues of importance to the West are REALLYreallyreallyreally important (note the extra "really", that means the rebuttal wins!), OR (b) accept China's definition of "good" and "harm" as the normative measure for Western values (the latter of which Doctoroff neglects to define).

either position is inflammatory, and neither advances the substantive dialogue between China and the West--ergo the hidden wallop.

the glaringly important questions left unaddressed by Doctoroff are two:

(1) having acknowledged that "Westerners have a responsibility" to express their anger over certain of China's failures, which failures justify what quantum of anger, and how should that anger be expressed--that is, if not now, then when if ever should Westerners boycott the Olympics; AND

(2) isn't it precisely because the Olympics stand to validate China's radically different "worldview" both domestically and internationally that Westerners--whose "worldview" currently predominates the global body politic--heightened their criticisms of China, and doesn't the cost of validating a "worldview" so offensive to quorum of certain nations outweigh the cost of an ad hoc boycott of the Games by some, not all, of these nations?

also, i agree with Lonnie.

This is getting too complicated. I know the Olymoics are more than just the Olympics, but still they are just a 15-day long sporting event that comes and goes. The Chinese should simply adopt what they call "ping chang xin" attitude and do not set the expecatations too high. If they boycott the games, so what?

I agree with Doctoroff. Politicizing the Olympics does not help anybody. In fact it shuts down dialogue and misplays important leverage.

I just think it is a huge mistake. If we genuinely care about changing the failed policies of Tibet, histrionics don't help the dialogue on ANY side. An Olympic boycott will, in the case of America, only serve to inflame anti-Chinese sentiments that are on the rise there. And in China it will only close hearts and minds -- making it even easier for Chinese officials (who are politicians, after all) to reflexively deflect criticism from the West.

It is only because we have their attentions that the Chinese listen to us. Insult them out of hand in exchange for no possible concrete gain, and they stop listening.

Personally, I cannot think of anything scarier than a China, like another superpower with which I am familiar, that stubbornly refuses to listen.

in the full article, he talks about real progress.

more journalists are in jail today, then when china was awarded the olympics. not to mention the massive crackdown on "dissidents"-in actuality, people just expressing their first amendment rights guaranteed under the chinese constitution (see hu jia among others)

it seems this guy is just protecting his economic self interest.

Ying writes:
"What pissed me off most is not the democracy cliche in the article from western media, but its neglect of all badly-harmed innocent ordinary people".

And the last 50 years of badly-harmed innocent ordinary tibetans doesn't piss you off?

The West has to come down from its moral high horse. When American and British troops have killed (and are still killing) tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq, it is hard to believe that so many people in these countries can still feel so self-righteous. It is hypocrisy and arrogance in an extreme form. I want to ask: where are the human rights for those killed in Iraq? All the western do-gooders should be busy to correct their own governments first (so to save more innocent lives around the world) before pointing figures at anybody else. Criticism without integrity is only counter – productive.

If Beijing Olympics should be boycotted due to the government's action over the Tibet unrest, there is even more reasons to boycott the London Olympics. While Chinese government's action is to protect the innocents from the violence and defend the sovereignty of the country, invasion of Iraq is just very opposite, it is an action that destroys an independent country and kills innocent people on a very large scale.

The West likes to talk about a "China threat", but do you realise that your own bias and hostile attitudes towards China is creating an enemy for yourself that didn't exist in the first place? If you read the history (only need to go back to just over a 100 years), you should know that many Western countries were the invaders of China, not the other way around, so Chinese people have a much better reason to worry about the West. Your apparent hostility will just reinforce the memory of the history in many Chinese minds. However George Bush has been foolish or incompetent in many decisions he made in the past, he has acted very responsibly in not boycotting the Beijing Olympics. Because the result of a boycotting will be far reaching, and its impact will definitely be negative towards building a democratic China.