Joe biden’s “diplomatic boycott”

History reveals that boycott tends not to work. The world witnessed such boycott call by Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands in 1956 over the Soviet invasion of Hungary which had little

geopolitical impact. In his quest to isolate Russia, former US President, Jimmy Carter gave a boycott call of the Moscow Games in 1980 over the invasion of Afghanistan on Dec 24, 1979 but

most of America’s European allies refrained from supporting him though it did have its impact; besides dashing to the ground the dreams of American athletes to win gold, silver and bronze.

Carter had given Feb 20, 1980 as deadline to Russia to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan which was ignored. In retaliation, the Soviet Union led more than a dozen countries in a boycott

of the 1984 Games in Los Angeles. Although the cited reason was security concerns yet there is little doubt about intentions of the move which was essentially a reprisal for the US 1980 full

boycott joined by only sixty nations. FALLOUT OF BIDEN’S BOYCOTT Analysts opine that America’s decision to boycott Beijing winter Olympics may further widen the existing wedge between two

nations which will have its reprisal when forthcoming international multi-sport summer Olympics are organized by the United States in its Mexico City in 2028. CHINA’S ZERO TOLERANCE STRATEGY

ON COVID On the contrary, China’s zero tolerance strategy on Covid19 will come into play without any loophole and strict implementation to keep payers, organisers and spectators from any

threat of getting infected during games starting from Feb 4 to Feb. 20 in Beijing. Chinese authorities have finalised an action plan which visualises that thousands of Games-related

officials, employees, volunteers, cleaners, cooks and coach drivers will be cocooned for weeks in the so-called “closed loop” with no direct physical access to the outside world. RIGHTS

ORGANISATIONS SUPPORT BOYCOTT CALL More than 180 Human Rights organisations and members of US Congress have expressed concern over the abuses against the Uyghur community as well as a

crackdown on free speech in Hong Kong; they interpret the winter Olympic boycott call an opportunity to hold the Dragon accountable for its crimes, without punishing the athletes. It will

contribute a lot in attracting public attention in the world. It is sheer coincidence that after Russia in 1980, another powerful communist country is under the firing line of one more US

President, Joe Biden, who has given “diplomatic boycott” call of Beijing winter Olympics but could muster the support of even a handful of allies though barely three weeks are left for the

inaugural ceremony of winter world sports event in Beijing. INDIA OPTS FOR CAUTION India has supported the winter Olympics but it is a symbolic gesture. A sole qualifier, Arif Khan, a skier

from Kashmir, will participate in the games against a maximum number of four athletes who got such opportunity in the past. US PRESIDENT ADOPTS MID-PATH Experts believe that President Biden

has taken a ‘Mid Path’ of “diplomatic boycott” to protest against Beijing’s human rights abuses, especially its treatment of Uyghur’s in Xinjiang province. As per reports, China is being

accused of incarcerating more than one million Uyghurs in harsh “political education” camps and prisons, while indoctrinating their children and engaging in torture. But China has

vociferously denied the allegations terming them as “baseless”. Beijing has denounced the boycott as “posturing” and has vowed to retaliate with unspecified “countermeasures” against the

United States over its decision to stage a diplomatic boycott of the games. China says Australia, UK and US will ‘pay price’ for Winter Olympics snub. MAJORITY US ALLIES REFRAIN BOYCOTT

Biden’s move has not fetched the desired result as less than half a dozen countries, though influential, have responded to the diplomatic boycott call which includes Britain, Australia,

Canada and Kosovo. The representatives of top Lithuanian officials have reportedly decided to follow suit. Japan will not send its officials to the winter Olympics but it has been cautious

not to use the word “Boycott”. BIDEN’S DECISION FETCHES A DESIRED RESULT Experts believe that America’ decision may have far reaching effects and Biden wants to achieve two objectives.

First, exposing China’s complete disregard for human rights and excesses being committed on Uyghur’s and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in that region, including mass

detentions and forced use of contraception and sterilisations. Second, it is a boycott by the officials only and not athletes which does not attract much criticism from the domestic front as

well as rest of the world. But it is a subtle attempt to denigrate China in the eyes of the world by creating opinion against its policy of ‘suppression’. Olympic boycott calls were

sharpened after Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis star, accused a former top government official of sexually assaulting her. References to her accusation were quickly removed from the internet in

China and she disappeared from public view, prompting athletes and others around the world to post, “Where is Peng Shuai?” Peng was later seen in several short videos shared by Chinese

state media journalists on Twitter. The International Olympic Committee said it called her twice, but questions were raised about how freely she was speaking? One of the Olympic athletes,

Evan Bates, an American ice dancer, two time world medalist with his skating partner, Madison Chock, had expressed his views on behalf of all the athletes. He is of strong view that human

rights violations tear the fabric of humanity. INTERNATIONAL OLYMPICS COMMITTEE’S TOUGH STAND The International Olympic Committee has taken a strong stand and promised to go ahead with

winter Olympics and boycott call will not affect the zeal and enthusiasm of athletes and spectators in the world. It may be recalled that the International Olympics Committee is hoping to

avoid a second straight delay. The Tokyo Games, originally scheduled to be held in 2020, were postponed for one year and a decision was made four months before the scheduled opening

ceremony. A cursory look at the boycotts in the past reveal that the first major boycott of an Olympics came in 1976 when about 30, mostly African, nations sat out the Montreal Games. They

contended that because a New Zealand rugby team had toured apartheid South Africa, New Zealand should be barred from the Games. But no boycott of the Nazi Olympics as the Games went to

Germany in 1936 which was under the control of Hitler’s Nazi Party. Some sports officials, and some politicians, including Mayor Fiorello La Guardia of New York City and Government and Al

Smith of New York, advocated boycotting the Games. But Olympic officials pushed hard against a boycott, with familiar arguments about separation of politics and sports. Avery Brundage, who

was president of the U.S. Olympic Committee, called the boycott plan a “Jewish-Communist conspiracy.” (He went on to lead the International Olympic Committee until 1972). In the end, U.S.

sports officials chose to send a team to Berlin in a close vote. Experts opine that by embracing what some critics have dismissed as a half-measure, Biden and other leaders may argue that

full boycotts are blunt instruments which often do little harm to boycotted nations while inflicting real pain on the boycotters. There is no denying the fact that luminary athletes are

robbed of their peak windows to medal thereby making things worse and a bitter confrontation can be witnessed between the politicians who declare them and the competitors, broadcasters,

corporate sponsors, domestic sports officials and domestic viewers in the world who ultimately become victims of such illogical and unreasonable decisions. (K.S. TOMAR, POLITICAL ANALYST,

HAS WORKED FOR SIX YEARS ON A FOREIGN POSTING FOR HINDUSTAN TIMES) Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts, analysis,

assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK.