The CCP hopes for a propaganda victory

But an Olympic Boycott threatens everything

Welcome to China Uncensored, I'm Chris Chappell.

The 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics are fast approaching.

Back in 2008, the first Beijing Olympics was an enormous propaganda victory for the Chinese

Communist Party.

The entire world was fixated on the vibrant, colorful opening ceremony.

And a little less focused on the genocide of Tibetans.

Falun Gong.

And Uyghur Muslims.

The Olympics changed how people around the world thought about China and the Chinese

Communist Party.

It was no longer the country of this.

But the country of this.

And right now, there's a lot of things the CCP would like people to forget.

The coronavirus.

Economic espionage.

And of course more genocide.

Maybe another Olympics will make everyone forget about that stuff!

But there's a growing, international push to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

And it has the CCP terrified.

Joining me to talk about what an Olympic boycott could do is Chris Fenton.

He's the former president of DMG Entertainment Motion Picture Group, and he worked in Hollywood

for two decades on some of the biggest blockbuster movies.

He's also the author of the new book “FEEDING THE DRAGON: Inside the Trillion Dollar Dilemma

Facing Hollywood, the NBA, & American Business.”

Thanks for joining us again, Chris.

Yeah.

Thanks for having me, always honored.

Yeah.

So as somebody who worked in Hollywood you got a sense for what China wants and doesn't

want.

And you've been arguing that a boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics is a serious

threat to the Chinese Regime.

Why is that?

Well it's interesting.

I lecture quite often at the National War College for a soft power specialist who's

actually an active captain in the US Military.

His name's Captain [Corey Ray 00:00:35].

And he actually argues that boycotts themselves aren't the most effective use of getting change

between the dynamics of multiple countries or in a bilateral relationship.

So we actually came up with the idea of using a threat of a boycott to create the leverage

that would constructively disrupt the US China relationship and allow us to push for certain

changes that can get done in the next 300 days.

And I actually did an op-ed recently where I cited some of his theory and historical

perspective on boycotts, but then also talked about the effectiveness of actually saying,

hey look, if you don't give us these handful of things, these check the box type of achievements,

then we're not showing up.

And there's a lot of reasons why I think that will create the leverage we need to get the

change done.

But for a threat of a boycott to be effective there has to be the actual threat of a boycott.

100%.

So what do you think the boycott should look like?

Well I think what needs to happen is, well first of all you have to look at the perspective

of China, right?

In the 2008 days, that huge summer Olympics was sort of their coming of age party, right?

They were in this preteen adolescent state as far as a developed nation, as far as a

capitalistic economic powerhouse.

That 2008 stage was, on a global platform it was allowing them to say, here we are,

right?

Since then, in the next 13 years, they have developed from preteen into adolescence and

into an adulthood stage.

So this upcoming Beijing Olympics in 2022 is really like this fancy adult dinner party

that they want to throw in a perfect manner.

It needs to be meticulous to detail and it needs to have perfect attendance.

And if people don't show, if countries do not show up it will be a major face issue,

not only for them on a global stage, but also for them inside their own country.

And remember that our number one priority is to keep 1.4 billion people just happy enough

that they don't revolt.

So by putting a line in the sand and saying, hey, we have serious things we want to achieve

in the next 300 days.

If you do not do that we will not show up.

That is going to wake them up to the fact that we are serious and that their fancy dinner

party is in jeopardy if they don't abide by some of the ideas that we present to them.

So for instance, the Olympic athletes might still go to the games, but President Biden

might not show.

No.

I think actually the threat needs to be followed through if they don't.

For instance, all this provocation, all of these pushes into Taiwan airspace, into Taiwan

maritime territory by the PLA, by these military exercises, those need to stop.

If any more of those occur between now and Beijing 2022 we simply will not show up and

we will try to find and get behind us others of our Western allies to also agree to not

to show up.

Now if you look at who's out there that I think can provide that strength in numbers,

united we stand type of discipline, I would argue Australia would definitely be one of

them.

Canada would be another.

And the UK would probably be another.

So between those four that's a pretty good start.

I would also argue there's lots of European nations that might back us too.

And on behalf of the actual athletes involved, which by the way, none of us want to penalize

over this geopolitical issue, I would argue that we could actually throw our own, whether

it's in Park City, Utah, whether it's in Vancouver at one of the former Olympic sites in one

of our allies or within our own nation so there is a way to allow them to still compete

yet also uphold the threat and the red line that we put in the sand.

But we need to give them what those things are so that we use the leverage that we have

over the next 300 days to actually get this done.

The checklist you mentioned, what would some of those things be?

You mentioned Taiwan, which if a threat of a Olympic boycott could actually affect how

the Chinese Communist Party treats Taiwan, that would be a pretty powerful thing.

Well think about it.

It's actually a bit of a baby step.

I mean obviously the big North Star we would like to say is that Taiwan is no longer China,

we are not abiding by the One-China policy anymore, you guys cannot touch Taiwan even

though you believe it's part of the PRC.

That would be the North Star.

I would say over the next 300 days there's probably a baby step approach we can achieve,

which is no more provocation, no more threats, no more thumping the chest, no more military

exercises.

You do that, the red line will be crossed, we will not come.

There's other things like that that we should do too.

Obviously the human rights issue is something that's a big situation right now that's creating

lots of controversy.

We should have access to the Jinjiang Province without huge prescheduled visits too.

And open access to everything we need to see.

Because quite frankly, if there are propaganda about how they're not doing anything wrong

or inhibiting human rights issues when it comes to the Uighurs, if that's actually true

we will see it and we'll drop that argument.

But the fact is, we know that's not the case.

When you look at the WTO designation that we gave them back in 2001 as a developing

nation, I think right now we have the leverage to say you're no longer developing nation,

you should be developed.

That right away, that little baby step, that change in terminology will rebalance the trade

dynamic drastically because they will have to abide by developed nation principles rather

than developing nation.

Those are just three examples.

And obviously my examples are just ideas that I want to throw out there and get the discussion

going because we have 300 days left and we're going to lose this point of leverage if we

don't act on it soon.

So why are the Olympics such an important battle?

It's interesting.

The Olympics by itself is just a sporting event.

I mean what's the big deal honestly?

But when you think about the way the Chinese Communist Party operates in that 1.4 billion

people just having enough that they don't revolt, a lot of that has to do with providing

them all of what they need and some of what they want, but it also has to do with giving

them the aspirational idea that they can achieve more if they work harder and keep moving in

the right direction.

And then on top of it, it's about promoting the leadership that works for them, that 1.4

billion people as something that's respected on a global stage as well as internally inside

of China.

So that respect on a global stage is completely symbolic by the people that show up to see

what this Olympics is going to be, to see what the communist party was able to put together

infrastructure wise and the kind of party and dinner party atmosphere it's going to

be overall, and to be impressed with what China has built over such a short amount of

time since they've really opened up over the last 40 years.

And the eyes of the Chinese populace are going to be watching every one of those moves.

So if anything doesn't go exactly according to plan there's going to be doubt in the eyes

of the people that they rule and that is not good for them if they want to keep everybody

content.

And you mentioned earlier the idea that if Beijing does cross whatever the red line is

we could hold our own quote unquote games somewhere else in the world.

And this is something that I've always wondered about.

Why does the international Olympic committee, they've just been so willing to turn a blind

eye to China's human rights abuses.

Well it's an unfortunate thing that goes back to why lots of companies, lots of industries

are turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and all the other things that we have issues

with when it comes to China or various other countries around the world.

If there's money to be made, capitalism and that reckless form of capitalism tends to

trump things that are maybe morally and ethically correct or the values and principles that

we hold dearly.

When you look at the IOC, they not only are looking to provide the revenues that they're

looking for from the given Olympics every two years, but on top of it they need major