You’ve been invited to a big party, the biggest the neighborhood has seen in four years. It’s being thrown by the Huang family, way down at the other end of the block. They used to struggle financially, but have recently come into money. They’re spending big on the bash to show everyone they’ve arrived.

 

But there’s a fly in the ointment. The Huangs have a young cousin who lives with them. It’s common knowledge the cousin is abused, and that the Huangs have discouraged all attempts for the cousin’s father to reclaim him – they claim his dad’s a troublemaker who ran away to India. Nevertheless, neighborhood sentiment is against the Huangs. Nobody likes to admit it, but some of the resentment derives from the Huangs’ newfound status that their wealth has brought them. Other neighbors complain about the street parking the Huangs’ new cars are taking up, although several more wealthy neighbors are guilty of the same public resource-hogging.

 

The neighborhood gossip network effects a call to boycott the party, as a potent means of protesting the Huang cousin’s treatment. There are no such calls to protest the Smiths, by the way, who have been squatting in the Hussein’s house for over five years, to protect themselves and the neighborhood from Saudi Arabian vandals. In any event, all the high profile residents refuse to attend, and the Huang party is a flop, not to mention a huge loss of face for a family who thought that, by getting rich and putting on a big show, it could finally get some respect from its white neighbors.

 

What about the cousin? Do the Huangs decide to take their blackballing as an object lesson, and follow the wishes of a neighborhood which has spurned and humiliated them? Or do they lock the kid in the basement so he won’t cause any more trouble?

 

If this very extended analogy seems belabored and facile, keep in mind that basic human emotions like pride play a huge role in international politics. Better yet, remember Jimmy Carter’s boycott of the 1980 Olympics. The only benefit it provided Afghanistan was a Soviet army temporarily bleary-eyed from staying up late, celebrating Russia’s sweep of the games. 

 

Economic boycotts can be effective. The only idea that can dissuade someone committed to an untenable stance is that he may starve to death before seeing the day the other side backs down. But an Olympic boycott is the political equivalent of  party-ditching. China will respond accordingly. A pity, too, if the boycott transpires, because in the land of face-for-favors, showing up at the party now would be the best shot at prompting compromise.