Russian invasion of Ukraine and the so-called IOC neutrality

The International Olympic Committee has always adopted political stances, from the admission of sheikhs and royalty to the acceptance of a seat at the United Nations to promote peace dialogues between the two Koreas. The agency, however, always proclaimed a “political neutrality”, which the Russian invasion of Ukraine calls into question.

The politicization of the IOC was evident during the 1936 Olympic Games in Hitler's Germany. During the Cold War, the games were scenarios of conflicts (in Mexico City), violence (Munich) and boycotts (Moscow). Throughout its history, the IOC maintained relations with authoritarian states such as China and Russia, staging the summer games in Beijing and Moscow, and the winter games in Sochi and Beijing.

The reality is that the IOC is a non-profit company, based in Switzerland, that generates 90% of its revenue from the sale of the broadcasting rights of its fair and sponsorships. And that it must satisfy its sponsors, a relatively new phenomenon.

Thirty years ago, on the verge of bankruptcy, the IOC changed direction and became more commercial and professional. Olympians are asking for higher and higher prizes, knowing that their careers are fragile (only 30% participate in more than one Olympic event).

The most visible political event involves the inaugural parade of the games, with the participation of 206 nations and territories. For comparison, the UN has only 193 member states.

After the invasion of Ukraine, the IOC recommended that sports federations and event organizers “not invite or admit” Russian or Belarusian athletes. But he did so not because of the war itself, but because the “Olympic truce” had been violated. Nor did it suspend the Russian and Belarusian Olympic committees or IOC members of those nations, nor did it ask its main sponsors to take any action against those countries.

The IOC tries to look good with everyone.

“Taking a firm stance towards Russia is relatively safe. The only ones who are criticized are the ones who highlight the IOC's inconsistencies,” said Helen Hefferson Lenskyj, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto and author of “The Olympic Games — A Critical Approach”.

DOES ANYONE LISTEN TO ATHLETES?

The IOC has an Athletes Commission, which faces pressure from outside. To participate in the games, athletes must sign documents that allow the use of their image, limit their freedom and in which they waive certain rights. In relation to the Tokyo Summer Games (2020) and the Beijing Winter Games (2022), there was an additional clause exempting the IOC from any liability associated with COVID-19.

Rob Koehler, general secretary of Global Athlete, said that this sportsmen's rights organization helped Ukrainian athletes send a letter to the IOC calling for the suspension of Russian and Belarusian athletes. He indicated that they did not receive any response.

“Failure to act quickly against Russia and Belarus will continue to tarnish the Olympic image,” Koehler said. “And when that image is tarnished, the most affected are the athletes, who are the ones who fill the stadiums and attract sponsors and television broadcasts.”

At his first press conference as president of the IOC eight and a half years ago, the leader of that organization Thomas Bach did not go around. He said that “the IOC cannot be apolitical.”

“We have to admit that our decisions have political implications. And when we make decisions, we need to weigh those political implications.”

He then stated that “in order to fulfill our role and ensure that the (Olympic) Charter is respected, we must maintain strict political neutrality and protect athletes.”

The day before the opening of the recent Beijing Winter Games, Bach reiterated the IOC's stance of “political neutrality”, saying that not doing so would “jeopardize the games.” Three weeks later, and after Bach was photographed with the presidents of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and China, Xi Jinping, at the opening ceremony, Russia invaded Ukraine.

The IOC then said that the war had generated “a dilemma that cannot be solved.”

Xu Guoqi, historian at the University of Hong Kong and author of “Olympic Dreams: China and Sports”, points out that during the Cold War “everything was political” and that there were boycotts in three jousts, those in Montreal, Moscow and Los Angeles.

“There were never any pure Olympics,” Xu said.

THE KEY TO SUCCESS

The success of the Olympic jousts responds to both sporting and political factors. Part of its appeal is the competition between countries, nationalism, waving flags and the emotional intonation of national anthems. Winning the most medals creates a sense of national superiority and there is strong competition between democracies and authoritarian governments.

Many Olympic disciplines are not popular, but they attract large audiences in the framework of this battle of nationalism.

Patriotism and politics are part of the appeal to sponsors and television, but the IOC insists that it is politically neutral.

The IOC is a permanent observer of the UN, increasing its political influence rather than reducing it. Very few non-governmental organizations enjoy such status, such as the Red Cross.

Jules Boykoff, professor of political science at the University of the Pacific and detractor of the IOC, believes that athletes should not parade with the flag of their country but with that of their sport. All of a sport in the same group.

Eliminating nationalism, however, is unthinkable. That is why, says Boykoff, author of “Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics,” says that, by admitting its politicization, the IOC “opens the door to a more serious debate about the policies it supports.”

“Over the years the IOC has been very tolerant of tyranny. But using the term 'apolitical' as a shield protects itself from legitimate criticism and fair denunciations that it is associated with everyone, regardless of their policies. He chooses to ignore the fact that neutrality can mean supporting oppressive forces.”

POLITICS THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT

Almost all modern Olympic jousts have had political nuances since these competitions resumed in 1896.

The countries defeated in the First World War were not invited to those in Antwerp in 1920. Neither does the newborn Soviet Union.

Hitler tried to use those of 1936 in Berlin to promote Aryan racial superiority. American Jesse Owens, an African-American, won four gold medals and thwarted Nazi propaganda.

In Mexico City, in 1968, African-Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists, symbolizing black power, on the podium. The US Olympic committee expelled them from the team, but in 2019 they were both inducted into the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee Hall of Fame.

It was thought that holding the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing would help promote human rights in China, but the general impression is that this did not happen. And the recently concluded Winter Games in the same city took place amid a strong repression of the Uighur and Tibetan minorities, and tight control of Hong Kong.

The president of the International Paralympic Committee Andrew Parsons complained that his speech at the inaugural ceremony on March 4, in which he made a passionate anti-war appeal, was censored by the Chinese media. China has not publicly criticized the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Parsons' words in English were silenced or not translated, something the Chinese attributed to an unexplained “flaw”.