It seems like just yesterday we were watching Emma McKeon breaking records at the Summer Olympics, and yet it’s already time for the Winter Olympics (China’s Version). However, these games have a more serious air around them – in December 2021, the United States, Australia and the U.K. all announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics… but what does that actually mean? We explain everything you need to know about why so many countries are implementing a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics, and whether or not it actually matters.
What’s happening in Beijing?
Many countries, including the US, Canada and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghur population. The Uyghurs are mostly Muslim, and are the largest minority ethnic group in China’s north-western province of Xinjiang. Chinese authorities have allegedly forced up to 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities into detention centres across Xinjiang. People who have escaped the camps have reported physical, mental and sexual torture, and mass sterilisation of Uyghur women to suppress the population. China denies all allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, calling them a “smear campaign”.
Fast forward to this year, the 23rd Winter Olympic Games are being held in Beijing, China from 4-20 February. One week before the event is due to begin, 243 human rights organisations and nongovernmental organisations submitted a petition calling for a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games in protest over “grave human rights violations by the Chinese government.” The petition included signatures from the likes of Human Rights Watch, Frontline Defenders, and Women’s Rights Without Frontiers.
In response, many countries said they would join the diplomatic boycott. Out of the 90 countries participating in the Games, at the time of writing, countries include: Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Lithuania, Denmark, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
What is a diplomatic boycott?
Historically, Olympic boycotts have involved countries not sending anyone to the games – including athletes. Think the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. But a diplomatic boycott means only government officials will not be attending. Usually, high-ranking officials (i.e. diplomats) from many countries attend the Olympics, which are among the biggest international gatherings outside of the United Nations and major summits.
So, the games are still going ahead, athletes will still compete, and sponsors will still get their air time – but some of the ‘VIPs’ aren’t going to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics.
The Chinese Olympics will start soon
I will not watch or follow it, and I hope all Muslims with common sense boycott it as well pic.twitter.com/rSVPqO0Aj0
— ADNAN🕋 (@IslamicRevival_) February 1, 2022
Responses to the Beijing Diplomatic Boycott
Countries Participating In The Games:
To be honest, the majority of the countries participating in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics have opted not to join the diplomatic boycott. Most have viewed this as a US-centric campaign, as they were the first to announce it. But when it comes to the Winter Games, Europe’s stance is more important as they represent 48 out 90 countries competing… and the European Union is not aligned on what to do. While Germany and the Netherlands said they were seeking a “common EU stance”, France and Italy have refused to join the boycott. French President Macron described the diplomatic boycotts as “symbolic and insignificant”.
International Olympics Committee:
The IOC have continued their pattern of “quiet diplomacy” (see also: speaking with tennis star Peng Shuai), saying they respect the United States’ decision to diplomatically boycott the Games. However, the president of the IOC, Thomas Bach did point out that: “Expecting that Olympic Games can fundamentally change a country, its political system or its laws, is a completely exaggerated expectation… The Olympics cannot solve problems that generations of politicians have not solved.” Bach also warned that the politicization of the Olympics may end the games altogether.
The IOC have also made it clear that, according to the Olympic charter, athletes are banned from any kind of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” at any venue during the Games.
China:
China has made it very clear that they are “unbothered” by the diplomatic boycotts. When asked about Australia’s announcement, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said Australia was “blindly following” the US, adding “whether they come or not, nobody cares.” Chinese officials also pointed out that “Australia’s decision not to send officials to the Beijing Winter Olympics runs counter to its public statements of so-called hopes that China-Australia relations could improve.”
As for the US, China’s embassy in Washington called the boycott “political manipulation” that would have no impact on the Games… as no invitations had been extended to U.S. politicians in the first place. Savage. Chinese representatives also threatened unspecified “resolute countermeasures” against any countries participating in a boycott when rumours of this all started.
At the games itself China has warned it may punish athletes whose words and actions go against Chinese laws. This has caused many activist groups to encourage athletes to stay silent in case of punishment.
Do diplomatic boycott’s actually have any impact?
Well it depends. Susan Brownell, an anthropology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis with expertise in Chinese sports and the Olympic Games, told VOA Mandarin that “if a large number of countries jump on board immediately, it really will have much more impact. If it’s only what the Chinese sometimes call the ‘Anglo-Saxon clique,’ if the vast majority of the nearly 100 countries participating don’t follow at all or take a long time to follow, then that will have less impact.” Given the games are starting this week, it’s unlikely enough countries will join to create that impact.
Diplomatic boycotts of the Olympics aim to snub host nations while keeping athletes free to compete. So yes, China’s pride will be hurt. But it is more likely that the impact will affect future relationships and trade deals between nations, rather than actually help the Uyghur people.
Some critics say that staging a ‘proper’ boycott (not sending athletes to compete) of the Beijing Winter Olympics would have had a greater effect. But looking to history, the boycott of the Moscow Games in 1980 did not appear to have any effect on Soviet foreign policy – troops from the country remained in Afghanistan until 1989. In the end, complete boycotts just seem to penalise athletes who have spent years preparing for such an opportunity.
But that doesn’t mean that we should just give up on the Uyghur people. If momentum continues, you could expect to see economic sanctions, formation of an international coalition and further efforts between countries to help Uyghurs in China. Only time will tell if we see real change and justice for the Uyghur people in China.
Comments are closed.