There are less than seven weeks to go for the Winter Olympics in Beijing, and things are heating up, albeit diplomatically. In a press conference, American Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed that the United States of America would officially be the first country to diplomatically boycott the Olympics, stating, “US diplomatic or official representation would treat these games as business as usual in the face of the [People’s Republic of China] PRC’s egregious human rights abuses and atrocities in Xinjiang”. In the days that have followed, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada, have announced their own boycotts of the games.
The 1980 Moscow Olympics were boycotted by US President Jimmy Carter and 65 other countries in response to the invasion of Afghanistan by the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1979. In response to this, 14 countries of the Eastern Bloc—led by the Soviet Union—boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, choosing to organise their Friendship Games. Finally, the 1988 Seoul Olympics was boycotted by North Korea and five other countries. This legacy of boycotts came to an end in Barcelona in 1992—with the Olympics website proudly highlighting that it was the first edition to take place without a boycott since 1972.
14 countries of the Eastern Bloc—led by the Soviet Union—boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, choosing to organise their Friendship Games.
These were complete boycotts, where athletes from these countries were also absent. This is not the case for the Winter Olympics of 2022; it is a diplomatic boycott, allowing athletes to compete under their nation’s flag, but in the absence of senior leaders, officials, and diplomats from their countries, making this boycott not as harsh as the previous ones. In the same address, Press Secretary Saki suggested that a complete boycott had been avoided given the athletes’ investments into the games. Playing both cards could be a move by these countries to win PR points internally and make a point internationally, while avoiding a full scale of diplomatic and economic backlash that could be expected for a move like this.
It seems that the US has started what will be a slew of announcements regarding boycott of the Winter Olympics. While several Lithuanian political leaders and groups have announced that they will not be at the games—a state position is yet to come—it perhaps will follow the United States’ announcement. India is expected not to boycott the games diplomatically, despite a tough year in India-China relations, going by the support expressed by the Russian and Indian Foreign Ministers, Lavrov and Jaishankar respectively, at the 18th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India, and the People’s Republic of China.
China has picked many battles over the past year, including its silence over the COVID-19 pandemic. These has caused several nations to have had a frigid relationship with China with much to grouse over. But, the overarching focus of all the boycotts are China’s human rights abuses, which activists continue to call out ahead of the 2022 Olympics. This includes what the US and several other countries have termed a genocide in the Xinjiang province and crackdowns on democracy and freedom in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
While several Lithuanian political leaders and groups have announced that they will not be at the games—a state position is yet to come—it perhaps will follow the United States’ announcement.
The last straw is, perhaps, the lingering questions that surround the disappearance of Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, following her public accusation of sexual assault against Zhang Gaoli, China’s former Vice-Premier under Xi Jinping. While the World Tennis Association (WTA) called out China, demanded answers. and later suspended all tournaments in China and Hong Kong, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has come under scrutiny not just for its response but its complicity in the disappearance of the three-time Olympian, claiming that “quiet diplomacy” is the best opportunity for a solution.
China has long held the Olympics—and by extension, its sporting prowess—close to its building of a soft power identity. In this, China has learnt from the experiences of nations that have come before such as the infamous weaponisation of the 1936 Berlin Olympics to highlight Aryan racial superiority by Hitler, and that of Japan in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics where it dazzled the world with its technology and left the shadows of World War II behind. Contemporary China finishes at the top of the medals tally in every Olympics, and training athletes (like Peng Shuai) from a young age for Olympic glory has been a critical component of that success. It also hosted the 2008 summer Olympics, which opened with a ceremony showcasing Chinese history and culture and its desire to connect with the world. Several experts have asserted that if the 2008 Beijing Olympics were an announcement that China was open for business, China’s hosting of the Winter Olympics in the same city—a historical first—is an assertion that the country is here to stay. For China, the presence of over 80 Heads of State and additional senior leaders is an image that could be used both externally and internally to further the legitimacy of the Chinese state.
The Olympics is meant to be a period of peace even at the time of conflict, with a formal truce being called from a week before the opening ceremony to a week after the closing ceremony.
But how does this play out for the games and China’s image as a whole? The 2018 PyeongChang Olympics were marked by the diplomatic engagement between South Korea and its neighbour North Korea, with both nations walking under one flag (the Korean reunification flag) at the opening ceremony and playing as a country in one sport. The representation of senior North Korean officials in South Korea, including de-facto head and chairman of the Presidium Kim Yong-nam and Kim Yo-jong (sister to Kim Jong-un), marked a key event in the histories of the two nations. From a soft power perspective, the games become an indirect summit to engage in the spirit of sportsmanship. Given that there isn’t pressure for a solution, and the spotlight isn’t on the politicians, it often becomes a platform for dialogue and engagement. The Olympics is meant to be a period of peace even at the time of conflict, with a formal truce being called from a week before the opening ceremony to a week after the closing ceremony.
But is the announcement being taken in a sporting manner? Before the American announcement, Chinese Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Zhao Lijian stated, “Without being invited, American politicians keep hyping the so-called diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which is purely wishful thinking and grandstanding”, and after the announcement stated that the US will “pay a price”. The IOC has come out and accepted the US’s boycott, stating that, “The presence of government officials and diplomats is a purely political decision for each government, which the IOC in its political neutrality fully respects.”
The winner of the soft power games of the 2022 Olympics would depend on the number of countries that boycott the Olympics, and the intensity of their boycotts. If these countries remain in the minority through their actions, it’s in China’s favour and will help its efforts in creating a global support base.
