Discord of the Rings: Bans and boycotts threaten Olympics not Putin

To mark the first anniversary last month of the war in Ukraine, Australia joined more than 30 other countries in condemning the invasion, Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

They also petitioned the International Olympic Committee to ban all Russian and Belarusian athletes from Olympic competitions, for so long as the war continues.

It sounds reasonable enough, and there is precedent. Austria and Germany were banned from the 1920 Olympics due to their involvement in World War I. Germany was still banned four years later.

German and Japanese athletes were prohibited from the 1948 London Olympics, due to their nations’ genocidal actions during World War II. The IOC even banned Afghanistan from the 2000 Sydney Games because of the ruling Taliban’s discrimination against women, including the regime’s blanket ban on female athletes competing.

However, calls for banning Russian and Belarusian athletes from the Games demand closer scrutiny – because they are selective, dangerous, arguably illegal and definitely wrong.

Civil war and unrest has raged for years in places like Myanmar and Ethiopia, as well as within the borders of many other nations. Should the IOC exclude athletes from those places until they resolve their conflicts? The Olympic rings represent the competing continents. Should Ethiopia matter less to the IOC because it is in Africa?

Australia joined 30 other countries to voice their opposition to Russia’s participation in Olympic competitions.Credit: AP

And what about Afghanistan? It’s trite to say that life in 2023 is dreadful for women and girls, who are forced to suffer under the regressive and violent rule of the Taliban. Women and girls are denied anything better than a primary school education, and they’re banned from holding most jobs.

The right for women in Afghanistan to play sport has been effectively blocked by the Taliban since it took over again in 2021. Should the IOC ban Afghanistan, like it did nearly a quarter of a century ago? If not, why not?

In these terms, could it be the case that the Ukraine war matters more to the governments of Australia and the other co-signatories than the grim situations in Ethiopia and Afghanistan?

Yes, the violence in Ethiopia and Afghanistan is internal and does not involve a military invasion, but does that make the human rights abuses any less serious?

Credit:

Moreover, what does it mean when this collective of nations says it has strong concerns about Russian and Belarusian athletes competing as “neutral”, given sports and the state in both countries are intertwined?

What are the potential consequences for governments that refuse to agree that Russian and Belarusian athletes should compete at the Olympics until Putin ends the war? And what do the signatories propose to do if the IOC goes its own way?

According to the Olympic charter, specifically rule 44.2, it’s the national Olympic committees recognised by the IOC that submit entries for athletes to compete at the Games. Countries don’t select athletes then dispatch teams to the Games; that’s the function of the Australian Olympic Committee here, and corresponding NOCs elsewhere.

Putin doesn’t select athletes, nor does the Australian government. If governments interfere too greatly with the independence of a country’s NOC, that’s when the IOC steps in. Just ask the NOCs in Kuwait and India how that works.

This means that while powerful governments of the Western world can issue statements declaring their preferences, they don’t have the power to actually do anything if the IOC does not satisfactorily respond.

Sure, national governments can exert pressure for boycotts. It’s happened before, most notably for the 1980 Moscow Games, and Los Angeles four years later. But remember, roughly three-quarters of athletes who get an Olympic tracksuit never receive a second one. Every athlete who competes at the Olympics has devoted most of their lives to that moment. Do you want to take that away from them?

Moreover, what would be the value in a diplomatic boycott if Russian and Belarusian athletes do sail down the Seine in the opening ceremony next year? Does refusing to partake in the fanfare of the Olympics amount to a protest of purpose or have any meaningful consequence? Boycotts are actually a rather humdrum aspect of the Olympic Movement.

For every threatened African bloc boycott of the 1972 Munich Olympics, which resulted in the IOC banning the delegation from what was then Rhodesia, there are many more examples of Games boycotts achieving not a lot: the tit-for-tat efforts of Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984, for example.

It’s likely a boycott now would splinter the Olympics rather than damage Russia or stop the war.

The Olympic Movement survived the boycotts of four decades ago and the COVID-19 pandemic. That doesn’t guarantee the Olympics would survive state-orchestrated boycotts over the plight of Ukraine and the rights of Russian and Belarusian athletes, who can’t be held responsible for where they were born and developed as athletes.

And shouldn’t the governments of France, Italy, USA and Australia tread with a little more care? Each of those countries will host an Olympics within the next decade. I don’t believe it’s a well-thought strategy to take on the IOC in those circumstances.

Sports news, results and expert commentary. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.