Olympic Boycotts in History: The Politicisation of Sport
By Vanessa Lace, Second Year History
On the 6th of December 2021 the US announced it would not be sending official delegation to the Beijing Winter Olympics because of alleged human rights abuses within China. Many Western countries soon followed suit, whilst China complained over their actions forcing a politicisation of the games. What effect have previous Olympic boycotts had on international relations, and should politics interfere so much within sport?
Beijing is the first city to host both the summer and winter Olympics, but those who were reporting at the 2008 games have noted a marked difference in the atmosphere around the two. Back in 2008 China wanted to assert itself as a powerful nation and world-class player in the global economy. Other nations were impressed and excited by China as they attempted to show their growth from the events of Tiananmen Square and showcase new and upcoming talent. This included the work of Chinese architects on many of the Olympic buildings, including the spectacular ‘Bird Nest’ or National Stadium.
However, some have questioned the suitability of Beijing as a city for the winter games, as although the Hebei Province gets very cold it receives little snowfall. This means the games are the first to use all artificial snow, a move that has come under criticism for the vast amounts of energy and water required, especially in such an arid area.
Additional criticism has come from the building of new infrastructure from scratch, in an environmentally conscious era where we are trying to repurpose and preserve, not build anew. Yet China sees it differently, arguing the games is pioneering for the amount of green energy being used to run it. And unlike in 2008, to an arguably arrogant extent they don’t seem to care whether anyone is watching, because President Xi Jinping is confident in their world position.
You could say it’s pathetic fallacy for a winter Olympics to have a much darker background. It is under this significantly more sombre tone that many Western nations have decided to stage a diplomatic boycott by not sending official delegation to Beijing. Unlike a ‘traditional’ boycott, they are still allowing their athletes to go and compete, in recognition of the training and time put in, and how much it will mean to them to be competing on an international stage after Covid.
By withholding official representation, countries including the US, Canada, the UK and Australia aim to send a message to the Chinese government that they do not agree with China’s inaction to protect human rights. The ongoing mistreatment of democracy protestors in Hong Kong and the news of Uyghur Muslims being detained in camps for so called ‘re-education’ has left many angry and disturbed towards the attitude of the Chinese government. There are also concerns over the treatment of tennis player Peng Shuai, who disappeared after accusing former Communist Party member Zhang Gaoli of sexual assault.
What effect might the boycott have on international relations? Let us consider some previous Olympic boycotts and their effect on international tensions.
I would argue that politics is almost intrinsic to the Olympics. It is not just as simple as each country sending athletes to represent them. Taiwan for example protested against the IOC in 1960 by refusing to put a name on their uniforms during the opening ceremony in Rome, because they were made to compete under Formosa and not the Republic of China. In 1976 they withdrew from the games completely for the same reason, showing how Taiwan’s colonial history impacted their politics and in turn their willingness for this to bleed through to sport.
At the tail end of the Cold War the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics was one of the biggest in history. US President Jimmy Carter led sixty nations to stage a boycott against the Soviet Union’s decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979. The Moscow games consequently had one of the most skewed medal tallies in history, with the USSR winning 80 gold and a total of 195 medals.
Although the invasion of Afghanistan is cited as the cause of the boycott, I would also argue the continued tensions and ideological differences between the liberal capitalist West and the socialist Eastern bloc was also a contributing factor. This can be evidenced by the boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, where the USSR were joined by thirteen more countries in retaliation towards the the actions of the West four years prior. This again affected the medal count as with no competition from strong nations such as East Germany, the US won a record 83 gold medals.
The above are just a handful of Olympic boycotts in history, showing us not only how widespread the practise is, but also how it is intrinsically linked to politics. The decision by a government to withhold participation is based on whether they can put up with the ideology and actions of the host nation. There is no doubt that boycotting has an effect on the relationship between the boycotter and the boycotted. Such actions send very clear signals of one government’s opinion to another.
But have we now seen the last of the ‘traditional’ boycott practise of not sending any athletes? The Intenational Olympic Committee have stated that the games are not meant to be political, in the case of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics we can see how much of an impact it has on competition through the significantly skewed medal tallies.
I would argue that the diplomatic boycott of Beijing has allowed countries to take a stand against what they see as morally unjust behaviour from the Chinese government, without directly affecting the result of the sporting competition that the competing athletes have worked their lives towards. Perhaps Beijing 2022 will mark the beginning of the history of diplomatic Olympic boycotts.
The front cover of Newsweek magazine 28 January 1980, historyfirst.com