Hong Kong media article: The Olympics cannot be reduced to a tool of political calculation

On December 11, the website of the Asian Times of Hong Kong published an article entitled "Boycotting the Beijing Olympics is a Mistake", written by Vasil Gilginov, senior lecturer at Brunel University in the United Kingdom, and Christian Weisdomini, associate researcher at Green templeton college at Oxford University, the full text of which is excerpted as follows:

The United States announced that it would not send officials to the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. As a member of the newly formed Anglo-British-American alliance aimed at countering China, Australia and the United Kingdom followed suit, and Canada expressed the same position.

Boycott is a diplomatic practice in which States express opposition to various issues. This time, the countries refused to send officials to the Olympics, but they did not prevent athletes from competing. This explains why resistance of this nature is not only difficult to succeed, but in fact undermines the value that sport brings to international relations.

The members of the International Olympic Committee work on behalf of the IOC in their host countries and regions, rather than in the opposite way, as the United Nations does. Over the years, this model has helped the IOC remain politically neutral. IOC President Thomas Bach said allowing political participation would mark the end of the Olympics.

The White House has made it clear that the administration will not treat American athletes unfairly by banning them from competing. The White House said: "We fully support the athletes of the American team. "It shows that the United States is clear about the importance of excluding politics from sports, so why resist on earth?"

The decision is an example of "constructive ambiguity", a negotiating tactic that is widely believed to have been first used by Henry Kissinger, one of america's prominent diplomats. It refers to the deliberate use of vague language to advance political ends, not honesty, but a form of self-preservation.

A few days before the U.S. boycott was announced, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to "build a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal." The resolution was co-sponsored by 173 Member States, which does not include the United States. Luis Moreno, Permanent Observer of the International Olympic Committee to the United Nations, said: "This will only be possible if the Olympic Games remain politically neutral and do not become instruments for achieving political objectives." ”

Both The President of the World Athletics Federation, Sebastian Coe, and the International Olympic Committee condemned the politically motivated boycott. Ko said the decision was "a meaningless gesture."

These developments reinforce the constructive ambiguity of U.S. policy. By supporting American athletes to participate in the Beijing Olympics, the Biden administration has unequivocally recognized the primacy of Olympic values and the Olympic Charter.

At the same time, by announcing that it would not send officials to the Winter Olympics, the United States clearly undermined the political neutrality of sports and put its own Olympic authorities and athletes in a very awkward position.

Past boycotts of the Olympics have failed for a number of legal, political and moral reasons. The Olympic Movement includes 206 countries and territories, and for the boycott to succeed, it needs the support of the vast majority of countries and regions. This is highly unlikely — all countries have strong bilateral relations with other countries, and they don't jeopardize that relationship because of a sporting event.

Source: Reference News Network