Penn-o-rama and the hospital story overshadowed Sen. Clinton’s call on President Bush yesterday to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. At this point Sen. Obama has not truly clarified his previous coolness to the idea of any boycott of the Beijing Games. His latest statement expresses concern and implicitly keeps some type of boycott on the table.

It’s too bad this hasn’t gotten more coverage because our relationship with China is the sort of like the dentist appointment of American presidential-level geopolitics. And sooner or later, we’ve got to go there.

Clinton’s boycott proposal implicitly has twin policy goals. First, she wants to change the Chinese government’s behavior. Second, she wants to augment American prestige and power to enhance our competitive stature as we wage a (so far) friendly-competition with China for influence amongst the world’s nations.

I think there is little chance of Clinton’s proposal achieving the first goal. The second looks more likely. Unfortunately, the extremely low global political capital President Bush has makes it unlikely that his actions would have much impact.

On the first goal…I agree with Steve Clemons that this type of ultra-symbolic measure is unlikely to lead to any type of behavior change. The bottom line is that we would never win the internal Chinese spin war over such a trivial action. We’ve got to remember that the information the citizenry in urban China receives still flows from the Communist Party and serves its objectives. It’s unclear if Chinese citizens are truly utterly unaware of the outside world’s perception of their government’s actions in Tibet, Sudan, and Burma but it seems wildly optimistic that they have the same information or even share our worldview. If the American President didn’t show up the ruling regime gets to spin it however they want.

I also think it is important to remember that adult urban Chinese remember that not too long ago the United States bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and saw an American spy-planes damaged while snooping in/very near Chinese airspace. Sure, most of the time the American government, as well as its NGOs and commercial enterprises try to find a way to get along with the Chinese government and be constructive. I just think it is important to remember that how the Chinese people perceive their government or Western nations does not resemble how those of us in America might think they do. James Fallows offered a very helpful set of observations along these lines in refuting the hawks’ call for a full-blown boycott. Ultimately, the proposed symbolic act would not be amplified by grassroots pressure.

On the second goal…that’s slightly more promising in theory. Clinton’s proposed action could help the U.S. burnish its global credibility on human rights. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already announced she will not be at the opening ceremony and other European Union members are considering following-suit. A collective, targeted act would help American participation seem multilateral and proportionate both to other nations and the Chinese regime. There are risks of Chinese retaliation of course, but the country isn’t governed by amateurs. When the Dalai Lama visited the United States in the fall, the Chinese not-so-subtly jabbed back by refusing Hong Kong port access to the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier group. No shooting war, but each side shored up the “median voter” they are playing for. Unfortunately, this example shows the practical problem with Clinton’s suggestion. The vessel for the symbolic boycott would be our current President. It makes it less likely to be absorbed in the same way by our allies and “median voter” nations that are looking for constructive leadership by the U.S. If it was President Hillary Clinton (or Obama or maybe even McCain) doing it the result would be different.

To conclude, I don’t see this as a hawkish move by Sen. Clinton. But in the best case scenario our national interest will only be slightly served by getting a little soft power gain that compensates for whatever way the Chinese government chooses to retaliate. Perhaps that little soft power eventually translates into the ability to put real pressure for change on the Chinese government, but the path there is very uncertain. So this proposal by Sen. Clinton isn’t bad. It’s just inefficient.