Ethically, it is not even a complex issue. Diplomatically, economically, politically…yes, there are a lot of factors to balance. Not ethically. The right thing for the U.S. to do is to boycott this year's Olympics.

The reasons for this are too many to list here, nor is such a listing necessary for anyone with a television, access to a newspaper, a computer, or a memory. The human rights violations routinely committed by China have been on display for decades. When the International Olympic Committee foolishly chose China, on July 13^th, 2001, to host the 2008 Olympics, it did so based upon promises that the nation would take steps to address its most egregious human rights failings. As powerfully described by Chinese dissident Hu Jia in an open letter to the world in September 2007, China has ignored that promise. An excerpt:

Labor camps are still retained as a convenient Chinese system which allows the police to lock up citizens without trial for up to four years. The detention system is another practice that the police favor, freeing them to detain citizens for six months to two years. Dissidents and human rights activists are particularly vulnerable targets and are often sent to labor camps, detention centers or even mental hospitals by authorities who want to simplify legal procedures and mislead the media… Chinese citizens have no right to elect state leaders, local government officials or representatives. In fact, there has never been free exercise of election rights in township-level elections. The Chinese government has been selling arms and weapons to Darfur and other African regions to support ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The Chinese authorities have forcibly repatriated North Korean refugees, knowing that they would be sent to labor camps or executed once back home…

Please be aware that the Olympic Games will be held in a country where there are no elections, no freedom of religion, no independent courts, no independent trade unions; where demonstrations and strikes are prohibited; where torture and discrimination are supported by a sophisticated system of secret police; where the government encourages the violation of human rights and dignity, and is not willing to undertake any of its international obligations. Please consider whether the Olympic Games should coexist with religious persecution[,] labor camps, modern slavery, identity discrimination, secret police and crimes against humanity.

There has been more disturbing news since Hu Jia, now imprisoned in part for authoring the letter, issued his warning. The Chinese government has been forcibly evicting thousands of citizens from their homes in order to build Olympic facilities. And when political protests erupted in Tibet over religious and political oppression there, authorities responded with brutal force. It is the latter controversy that has sparked international protests and threatened the world-wide journey of the Olympic torch, but the Tibet situation simply puts an exclamation point on an already declarative sentence. This is an oppressive nation determined to use the Olympics to achieve the international prestige and legitimacy it craves. It has gambled that it can renege on promises of reform while holding on to the Olympics, because Olympics authorities are craven, myopic and naïve, and because America and its corporations are driven by profit and pragmatism rather than principle.

It is important that the United States take action to make that gamble a bad one.

The International Olympics Committee will not be of any help, unfortunately. It is wedded to the same "the Games must go on!" mentality that led Avery Brundidge to resume the Munich Olympics after the Israeli team had been slaughtered by terrorists. The mantra, which relies on being old and familiar rather than anything approaching reality, is that the Olympics are "about international athletic competition, not politics". And Christmas is about Peace on Earth, not buying and giving merchandise, and Major League Baseball is about the green of the grass and the crack of the bat, not money, and the race for the U.S. Presidency is about serving the citizenry and not about gaining power. Saying something over and over for years and years will not make it so. Countries have used the Olympics for nationalistic and political purposes from their inception. Our nation's children are stronger, healthier, faster and better disciplined than your children, because our system is the best, and our nation's medal count proves it!. Hosting an Olympics gives a nation an opportunity to show off its culture and assets on the world stage: it is a weeks-long infomercial. Adolf Hitler figured that out in 1936, and he only had newsreels and film maker Leni Riefenstahl to make his point. China has satellite TV and the internet. It is the opportunity of the century.

If the United States doesn't show up, that opportunity is gone. Only U.S. companies and U.S. media can guarantee China the exposure and prestige it wants and needs. Critics and bloggers can make fools of themselves arguing that America is second, third or twelfth in exports, education, quality of living or cotton candy production, but the truth is that no country's absence would diminish interest in the Chinese Olympics as much as America's, and that includes China. This is why America's ethical obligation is greater than that of other countries. Like Barack Obama sitting in the pew as his minister calls for racial hate and spreads divisive lies, the United States has an ethical obligation not to lend credibility, weight or support to China while it persists in persecuting its citizens and supporting state violence outside its borders. It has an obligation to object, protest, and act.

Boycotting the opening ceremonies, as a chorus of Democrats and others advocate, is not enough. It is, in fact, next to nothing, a symbolic and cynical protest that will barely make a dent in Chinese prestige. When Stephen Spielberg withdrew from the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Games, that was meaningful: he was in charge of staging them, and his protest hurt. President Bush and other heads of state are responsible for sitting in the stadium and watching. Not attending is less than a slap on the wrist, especially if it is seen as merely a concession to political pressures rather than a statement of principle.

The ethical arguments against a U.S. boycott are not persuasive. The claim that pulling out now would be unfair to the Chinese, who have been planning on the Games for seven years, ignores the fact that the Chinese obtained the 2008 Olympics under false pretenses. It is true that the current international culture holds that breaking commitments should draw only verbal, rather than substantive, consequences, but that warped ethic does not repeal principles of contract. Had the Chinese not promised human rights reform, they would not have bee awarded the Games. China broke its promise, and it could not have been more material. The United States government, which, it must be emphasized, did not give the Olympics to China, has no obligation to compete.

The other argument, a vintage one from 1980, focuses on the plight of American athletes, most of whom have trained for these Olympics for years, and many of whom may never get another chance at Olympic gold. Is it right and fair that their dreams should be sacrificed? In short, yes. America sends young men and women to foreign lands to die for human rights and national principles. Causing its young athletes to lose their chance at laurel wreaths, medals, and endorsement contracts is unfortunate, but hardly an unreasonable trade-off, given what is at stake. Would a U.S. boycott of the Olympics in 1936, calling world attention to the true nature of Hitler's regime, have been worth the loss of Jesse Owens' stirring victories? Of course.

There are plenty of international competitions, ones that do not require bolstering a oppressive state power. If, as the mantra goes, the Olympics were truly just about competition, the undeserved fate of the athletes would have greater weight. But it is not. History proved President Jimmy Carter correct when he pulled the United States out of the Moscow Olympics. His much-derided move, combined with Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" rhetoric later, undermined both the international standing of the Soviet Union and its own self-image. Eight years later, the entire Soviet façade came crashing down. Carter's boycott may have lit the fuse. If there is even a chance that it did, it was worth it.

Since Nixon opened China to Western diplomacy and President George Bush the First aggressively pursued China trade, the argument has been that China would change faster if it were actively involved in world trade and affairs. China has changed all right; its standards of living, for large portions of the population, have soared, and government-controlled capitalism has made the nation an emerging force in commerce. But the government remains a facilitator or practitioner of slavery, torture, child labor, forced abortions, political imprisonment and more. American countries that do business with the Chinese too often find their own values being influenced by China's will, rather than the other way around. China's conduct leading up to the 2008 Olympics demonstrates that mere contact with the West is not going to be enough to change that country's priorities.

Someone needs to say, loudly and unequivocally, that wrong is wrong, and we won't be a part of it. The someone has to be the United States. Despite the years-long blather about the U.S. losing its moral authority and international respect, this is the only country that can make China pay attention. Sure: threaten to walk out first, unless China starts taking its human rights pledge seriously. But when it fails to act, as it almost certainly will, President Bush, the presidential candidates, the Congress and the athletes should speak as one, and boycott the 2008 Olympics.

It is, beyond question, the right thing to do.