The shadow of the boycott once again hangs over the Olympic Games

The possibility of Russian and Belarusian athletes being readmitted to international competitions and attending the 2024 Paris Olympics has once again put on the table the most feared concept of Olympism, the boycott, a proposal that never worked in favor of the purpose for which it was summoned. History proves it.

The boycott of Melbourne’56 (seconded by Spain) did not end the Soviet occupation of Hungary, nor did the boycott of Montreal’76 end apartheid in South Africa, nor did the boycott of Moscow’80 end the presence of the USSR in Afghanistan. Given this background, it is unrealistic to think that a boycott of Paris 2024 will hasten the end of the war in Ukraine.

The only ones hurt in the great Olympic boycotts of the 20th century were thousands of athletes that they have to put their dreams on hold, and sometimes end their careers, to follow the political goals of their governments.

A VIOLATION OF THE OLYMPIC CHARTER

The boycott is a clear violation of the Olympic Charter, the ‘constitution’ of sport, which in its article 27.3 states that all national committees of the world “have the obligation to participate in the Games of the Olympiad, sending their athlete”.

The consequences of not doing so are immediate. North Korea, which did not attend the last Tokyo 2020 Games, is well aware of thisnot even because of a boycott admitted as such, but for the reason of “protecting athletes from the coronavirus”, and suspended until December 31, 2022. Without funds, without help, without an international presence.

The effects of boycotting a Games go far beyond those Games and can weigh on the country involved in the sport for years.

“The goal of Olympism has always been to place sport at the service of harmonious human developmentto favor the establishment of a peaceful society committed to the maintenance of human dignity”, says the Olympic Charter in its introduction.

“As sport is an activity that is part of society, sports organizations within the Olympic Movement must apply the principle of political neutrality,” he added.

AN OPTION UKRAINE WILL NOT DISCARD

The only opening for athletes from the invading country, Russia, and its ally Belarus to attend the Paris Gameseven without its national symbols and with a neutral status, was met with anger by the Ukrainian government and its sports authorities.

The President of the Ukrainian Olympic Committee, Vadym Guttsait, He said it was too early to formalize a position, but admitted that Ukraine could boycott as a “last resort”. The Olympic fencing champion in Barcelona’92 could not imagine his athletes sharing the field with a Russian rival in Paris.

Volodimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, does not believe that there is “such neutrality when there is a war going on.”

“We already know how tyrannies use sport for their ideological interests. It is clear that any neutral flag of Russian athletes will be stained with blood. I invite Mr. Thomas Bach (President of the IOC) to Bakhmut to see with his own eyes that Neutrality does not exist,” he added, referring to the enclave in the Donestk region where Russian and Ukrainian armies are engaged in heavy fighting.

The allusion to the boycott raised alarms in the International Olympic Committee, whose response was clear: “It is very unfortunate that the discussion has been ignited by a threat of boycott at this premature stage. The participation of individual neutral athletes with Russian or Belarusian passports to the Olympic Games in Paris 2024 have not been discussed.”

“The threat to boycott the Olympic Games, currently being considered by Ukraine’s NOC, goes against the foundations of the Olympic Movement and the principles it upholds. The boycott is a violation of the Olympic Charter,” the IOC said in a statement. a statement, in which he also recalled that “at this time there are no United Nations sanctions in force against Russia and Belarus.”

MAXIMUM PRUDENCE

The decision to explore ways to allow the return to competition of the Russians and Belarusians and the reaction to the Ukrainian position was disseminated by the IOC in a long statement, with many words and data to support its position, including the resolutions of United Nations.

Prudence is maximum: no more public statements by IOC members, no one leaves the official channel. There was no word from Sergey Bubka, IOC member for Ukraine and in charge of the Solidarity Fund created to distribute aid to his fellow athletes.

The positions are more evident in the political field. The governments of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, countries close to war, are leading a movement against the participation of Russians and Belarusians in international competitions. But even they believe that boycott is an option with little chance of success.

On February 10, a meeting of European Sports Ministers will be held, to be convened by the United Kingdom, to study the joint opening position proposed by the IOC.

The United States and Canada were reluctant to allow Russians and Belarusians to participate under a neutral flag. In the case of the United States, which will organize the Games in Los Angeles in 2028 and seeks to host the Winter Games in Salt Lake City in 2030 or 2034, its alignment with the IOC’s position is logical.

THE FEDERATIONS, IN FAVOR OF READMISSION

The final word on the readmission of Russian and Belarusian athletes is held by the international federations, which initially sided with the IOC.

Federations must authorize the registration of athletes and organize their participation in pre-Olympic tournaments, which are already underway in most sports.

On March 3, a meeting of the Association of Summer Olympic Federations (ASOIF) was convened to adopt a resolution. The Ukrainian Olympic Committee admitted that they would try to convince them to rule against reinstatement. And the Russian Sports Minister, Oleg Matitsin, pointed out that this was “interference” and an attempt to take the federations “as hostages” to impose “political conditions” on them.

As for the national committees, even those against the return of Russians and Belarusians, in the case of the Danes, recognize that their position is the minority.

A DECLARATION AGAINST WAR

One of the conditions imposed by the IOC to accept Russian and Belarusian athletes was “that they do not actively support the war.”

Various groups have criticized the ambiguity of this premise, considering the close ties between Russian President Vladimir Putin and sports in his country. Is going to a reception with Putin actively supporting the war?

The Olympic body had to acknowledge that the concept has not yet been determined: “No decision has been made. It will be necessary to explain and decide how the details are. It is premature to answer this question at this time.”

A group of Belarusian athletes critical of their government has turned the issue back and forth, suggesting that the athletes must sign an anti-war declaration to gain “neutral” status.

But it will be forced to indicate the athletes who will be selected and, even if they do not live or train in Russia, have their families or businesses there. There is no solution that does not introduce new problems.

FIVE BIG BOYCOTS

The shadow of the boycott seems to have been forgotten because the complete unification of the Olympic Movement was achieved in Barcelona’92.

The first boycott, at the Melbourne’56 Games, was actually three. One, because of the intervention in the Sinai peninsula after its nationalization by Egypt; another, led by Spain, because of the Soviet invasion of Hungary to suppress the democratic revolution; and the third, declared by China in protest against Taiwan’s presence in the Games.

China did not participate in Tokyo’64 -for the same reason-, Indonesia -sanctioned by the IOC-, or North Korea, in solidarity with Indonesia, but the next major veto was the Montreal’76 Games, ruled by 29 African countries as a protest against New Zealand’s entry. His rugby team violated anti-apartheid sanctions by playing a game in South Africa.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the reason given by the United States and its bloc for boycotting the Moscow’80 Games. Among those without, Federal Germany, Japan, Canada and Norway. Only 80 countries participated.

In response, and “out of fear for the safety of its athletes”, the Soviet bloc boycotted Los Angeles 1984.

Finally, in the Games of Seoul’88 the allied countries of North Korea (Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Albania…) did not register.

At the Winter Games in Beijing in February 2022, the United States and some of its partners called for a “diplomatic boycott” to highlight China’s human rights violations, although this would have no sporting consequences. .