Debunking the IOC’s oldest myth: the Olympics aren’t political
On the 4th of February, fireworks lit up the Beijing skies. The boom resounding above the stadium signalled the beginning of the 2022 Winter Olympics. Ever since its selection as host country seven years ago, China has faced widespread criticism, highlighting the politically charged nature of the Olympics. Under Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, however, the Games must be neutral. According to the rule, ‘No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.’ What this declaration neglects to consider, however, is the inherently political nature of the global sporting event. The organisation of the Olympics itself is political, as it is organised by country. This means of organisation by national team underscores that the Olympics is not solely an arena for sports, but also for political tensions.
It is naïve for the IOC to believe that sports and politics can be entirely separated. Looking back at the history at the Olympics, it is apparent that the Games have always been politicised. Most notably, countries have used the Olympics to promote their own political platforms. At the 1936 Berlin Games, Adolf Hitler used the Games to promote Nazi ideologies, namely German and Aryan superiority. The politicisation of the Olympics is also evident through countless boycotts and bans. One of the largest boycotts took place at the 1980 Games in Moscow, when the United States and over 60 other countries refused to participate following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. South Africa holds the record for the longest ban, as it was banned from 1964 to 1992 over its apartheid policies. The politics of the Olympics have even been catalysed in the form of violence, whether in the killing of hundreds of students by the Mexican military prior to the 1968 Mexico City Games or the murder of eleven Israeli athletes by a Palestinian militant group during the 1972 Munich Olympics. As evident throughout Olympic history, it is often difficult to establish a clear line between sport and politics.
This is the case also on an individual level. Sports are a powerful tool, as they often give individuals a voice and a platform to speak from. Athletes have frequently relied on their platform to issue statements regarding various social, racial, and political issues. At the 1968 Mexico City Games, American sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith held up their black-gloved fists in a black power salute as they received their medals, symbolising resistance and defiance and calling attention to racial inequality. Both athletes were subsequently removed from the Olympic Village. As seen throughout history, the Olympics is heavily politicised, on the side of the IOC and the countries that host and attend, as well as on the side of athletes who participate.
Given this history of political Olympics, it is of little surprise that there was widespread public outcry when China was selected as the host for the 2022 Winter Olympics. China primarily came under scrutiny for its human rights abuses. China has been accused of committing crimes against humanity. There are also accusations of genocide against the Uyghurs, a Muslim minority ethnic group in China’s North-Western province of Xinjiang. Human rights organizations have claimed that over the past few years upwards of one million Uyghurs have been held against their will in ‘re-education camps,’ speculated to be forced labor camps. China has also faced substantial backlash for its widespread censorship and attack on freedom of speech in Hong Kong. It has additionally received criticism for its continued chokehold on Taiwan and Tibet.
When pressed about these issues at press conferences, China refused to address them. Yan Jiarong, an Olympic organising committee spokesperson, repeatedly expressed that the Games should be entirely free from politics. When asked about Taiwan, however, she was quick to describe it as an ‘indivisible part of China.’ When confronted about forced labor in Xinjiang, she quickly interfered, claiming, ‘the so-called forced labor in Xinjiang is lies made up by deliberate groups,’ ultimately circling back to the idea that China was against the idea of politicising the Games. Though she refused to comment on anything political, that comment in and of itself reveals the ‘sportswashing’ of the Games, as Yan and the Chinese government used the ‘apolitical’ nature of the Olympics to direct attention away from its internal human rights abuses.
Several countries around the world saw through this, prompting them to boycott the Olympics. These countries all sent their respective athletes, though they declined from sending government officials. The United States was the first to announce its boycott, citing ‘genocide and crimes against humanity’ in Xinjiang as the primary motivator. The declaration of the US was quickly followed by Australia, Britain, Canada and Denmark. India declared a boycott because one of China’s torchbearers was a Chinese army officer involved in the killing of several Indian officers along the border of the two countries. Japan announced that it would not send any government spokespeople, though it did not label it a diplomatic boycott. In lieu of government officials, Japan sent its Olympic officials in a bid to maintain relations with its largest trade partner, while simultaneously siding with the US and the West. Though for various political reasons, these governments each refused to send official representatives to Beijing.
Aside from governments, individuals also expressed opposition to the host of the Games. Olympic athletes have no say on where the Olympics are held. When the IOC selects a repressive host, athletes themselves are forced to deal with the consequences. Some athletes directly called out China. Nils van der Poel, a Swedish gold medalist for speedskating, expressed that it was ‘extremely irresponsible’ to hold the Olympics in a country that ‘violates human rights as blatantly as the Chinese regime is doing.’ American Nordic skier Noah Hoffman stated that athletes should use their powerful platforms to criticise China, though he claimed that they should ‘speak out when they get back.’ The anti-China sentiment of some athletes demonstrates that every aspect of the Olympics is touched by politics.
Although the IOC insists on an apolitical Olympics, politics and sport are often inseparable. Throughout history, countries, as well as athletes, have used the Olympics to promote their own platforms. The political nature of the Games was especially evident through the 2022 Beijing Olympics. China hosting the Games was controversial due to its record of widespread human rights abuses and censorship. The internal politics of China prompted several countries, led by the United States, to boycott the Games. Though all athletes attended, some expressed opposition. The events which transpired in Beijing reveal that politics and sports are closely linked. By claiming that it is ‘apolitical’ and turning a blind eye to China’s internal issues, the IOC played an active role in masking human rights abuses and legitimising the Chinese government. The IOC is therefore fostering a mindset where all countries believe that they are entitled to participate in the Games, regardless of their domestic situations. If anything, the Beijing Olympics has shown that though separating politics from sport is a beautiful idea in theory, it is not feasible in practice.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
Image courtesy of Arsov via WikiCommons, ©2022, some rights reserved.
