Olympics and sport anti-diplomacy
SPORT is rarely what it pertains to be. For many, international sport is nothing but a parody of international relations, ‘war minus the shooting’ in Orwell’s famous 1947 remark.
As such, nations, sports people and non-state sports actors exist in an anarchic, competitive realm and will often cross moral, ethical and legal lines. International politics is Janus-faced; it can be good and bad, brilliant and moral and amoral, all at the same time.
The same logic applies to sport diplomacy: there is always a dark yin to the utopian yang.
For many governments, sport is used as an unconventional diplomatic tool like food, art, culture and music because of its broader appeal and generally inoffensive nature. Sports people and sporting events are usually taken under the wings of diplomacy.
They are exploited as diplomatic tools to bring the state’s international prestige into the limelight where the rest of the world can see. They improve a tainted image of a state and help to encourage acceptance on the world stage.
As an institution, diplomacy embodies civility and peace. Diplomats constantly attempt to mediate estrangement and minimize friction in the anarchic international relations through continuous dialogue, representation and good offices.
They are, however, one cog in a large government machine and must serve the whims of the party, leader or head of the state. The ideal character of diplomacy and sport, in other words, is often tarnished by, and subsumed under the great, ghastly political machine.
Sport anti-diplomacy tears down rather than builds good relations, increases isolation and estrangement and represents an anarchic, uncivilized type of behaviour.
Sport diplomacy is often considered a positive force in international relations. However, there is a long way to go before it can stop war, end decades of suspicion between.
For example, Pakistanis and Indians, or allow women to watch men’s sports in Persia. Where the Olympics Games, for example, bring separate people, nations and states together, sport anti-diplomacy pulls them apart.
Let’s say, when the head of the state use certain sport to increase friction, or a terrorist organization deliberately targets an international event because it is a symbol of globalization, their behaviour can be described as sports anti-diplomacy, because it goes against the ideal character of both sport and diplomacy.
That’s the trouble with Nelson Mandela’s famous quote about ‘sport having the power to change the world.’ It’s too idealistic; too far-fetched.
This aspect of sport has quite a long history. Sparta was banned from participating in the Olympics after it failed to keep its Olympic truce back in 420 BC. It is recorded as the first boycott in international relations.
Similarly, in recent history, the boycott of Moscow Olympics by United states in 1980, and four years later, the boycott of Summer Olympics in Los Angeles by Soviet Union and thirteen satellite states are the excellent examples of sports anti-diplomacy.
In the former case, Jimmy Carter wanted to send out clear message to Soviet Union for their invasion of Afghanistan, in 1979. The boycott of Moscow Olympics was to make clear to the Soviets that it cannot invade an independent country; while at the same time do as usual business with the rest of the world.
Likewise, in the latter case, the boycott of Summer Los Angeles Olympics had the motives of countering an anti-Soviet hysteria that United States had been very keen on promoting.
This Tuesday, on 07 December, Biden Administration announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics over human rights concern.
The diplomatic boycott comes as the US attempts to thread the needle between stabilizing difficult relations with Beijing and maintaining a tough stance on trade and political conflicts.
The US has accused China of human rights abuses against Uyghurs Muslim in northwest Xinjiang province, suppressing democratic movements in Hong Kong, committing military aggression against the self-ruled island of Taiwan and more.
On the other side, Beijing, which seems to be greatly affected by this diplomatic boycott, has warned the US that this action will undermine the dialogue and cooperation between the two states in a series of important areas and international issues.
These exchanges between countries via sports are purely practical and are said to be low-risk, low-cost, and high profile.
The established and emerging power are competing on many fronts for their supremacy, and the domain of sports would provide them another battleground to play their cards.
—The writer has a major in IR from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
