Through Jen Psaki on Monday, December 6, the United States announced the diplomatic boycott of the next Winter Olympics to be played in Beijing in 2022 (February 4-20). A decision that followed a previous threat expressed by Joe Biden himself in November.
As a result, no American political or diplomatic representative will be in China to attend the opening ceremony due to the situation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and human rights in general. A decision criticized by the Chinese authorities a few hours later. However, the notion of diplomatic boycott, widely used in recent weeks, is sometimes misunderstood.
What is a diplomatic boycott?
“It is a type of boycott which aims not to convey the message by athletes by letting them compete, but rather by political and diplomatic representatives of one or more countries.“, explains Carole Gomez, geopolitician and research director at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris).
The diplomatic boycott, which consists in sending no political or diplomatic personnel, is therefore to be distinguished from the so-called full boycott, which involves the absence of the athletes, like the striking examples of the Games in Moscow in 1980 and in Los Angeles. in 1984 in the middle of the cold war, respectively boycotted by the Western countries and the Soviet bloc.
This absence of representatives manifests itself during the “most important moments of the Games, namely the opening and closing ceremonies, but also for corridor diplomacy, when discussions take place in sports arenas“, details Carole Gomez.
Jen Psaki announces that the Biden administration won’t send diplomatic representation to the Beijing Olympics given the PRC’s “ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity” pic.twitter.com/Cpsn0IZiRd
– Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 6, 2021
But, at this stage, the definition remains incomplete. The notion of diplomatic boycott covers several degrees of sanction depending on the message that wants to be conveyed. If the highest representatives of a state can mark the occasion by being absent from the opening of the Olympic Games, they can sometimes be replaced by other emissaries, such as a minister or an ambassador.
“There was already this reflection during the first Beijing Games in 2008, recalls Carole Gomez. Many countries had wondered whether to send someone, and if so, who to send to China. There may be a form of gradation in the response from States.”
What is his goal ?
The first question to ask, in order to be credible and audible on the international scene, is that of the objectives pursued by the announcement of the boycott. In the case of China, in this case, it is a question of highlighting the human rights situation in the country.
But, whatever the cause advanced, the main goal remains to attract the attention of other heads of state and government, but also to reach public opinion in general. “Boycotts must be read in the light of foreign policy, but also that of domestic policy“, specifies Carole Gomez.
For Joe Biden, this announcement echoes repeated calls for a boycott on the part of the American political class, Republicans and Democrats alike, and a desire to shatter the image of a cautious president, sometimes nicknamed “sleepy Joe” (“Sleeping Joe”).
How effective is it?
To have a significant impact, the announcement of a boycott must be followed by other states. “If you are the only one absent at the ceremony, for example, instead of attracting attention and pointing fingers at something, you find yourself ostracized and pushed aside.“, emphasizes Carole Gomez. At this stage, in the case of the Beijing Olympics, no other country has yet formalized a diplomatic boycott in the wake of the United States, but the Anglo-Saxon countries – the Great Brittany, Australia and Canada – are considering it.
Announcement / confirmation of a #boycott diplomatic service at the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics.
The reactions of Beijing and the IOC will be essential to dissect and analyze.
Who will follow suit? If the United States remains alone, they will appear isolated … https://t.co/DMp7DjS2tE– Carole GOMEZ (@carole_gomez) December 6, 2021
Effectiveness also depends on the response provided by the target country. “Retaliation announcement could chill other states from following US boycott“, believes the geopolitician, especially since China, because of its growing economic weight, remains the main trade partner of many countries. Beijing has already threatened Washington since its announcement.”The United States will pay the price of their bad move. Stay tunedChinese diplomacy spokesperson Zhao Lijian said.
The sanction translated by the boycott remains however of the order of the symbol, of which “the scope depends on its impact on the international and sporting scene“, tempers Carole Gomez. Several counter-examples can then be cited according to the researcher:” Lhe boycott of the Moscow Games in 1980 did not end the invasion of the USSR in Afghanistan, that of African countries in 1976 to protest against apartheid in South Africa did not end it.“.
If the symbolic success of these full boycotts, massively followed at the time, is still remembered today, they can be explained by a “extremely strong political bloc logic and less power of sports bodies compared to today“, develops the researcher.
Today, without a sports boycott, the absence of diplomats is more of a political message, as confirmed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) following the American decision. “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 presence of government officials and diplomats is a purely political decision for each government, which the IOC in its political neutrality fully respects. – IOC statement https://t.co/QloXN2QoMD
– IOC MEDIA (@iocmedia) December 6, 2021
What are the precedents in history?
The Beijing Games, first of the name, in 2008 had already provoked the call for a boycott on the part of civil societies and political representatives. But the hope of an opening up of the Chinese regime, deemed authoritarian, by the international community had lessened the impact of the protests. At the time, the Presidents of the United States and France, namely George W. Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, had themselves traveled to China to attend the opening ceremony.
Even closer to us, the Winter Games in Sochi (Russia) in 2014 raised the issue of a diplomatic boycott. If various appeals had been launched by associations for the defense of human rights and public figures – like the British actor Stephen Fry – against the oppression of minorities in the country, they had been followed very little. by the international community.
The de facto absence of several Western heads of state had been compensated by the presence of less important representatives. If François Hollande, for example, had not taken part in the opening ceremony, France was represented by the Minister of Sports at the time, Valérie Fourneyron.