The Olympic Games just started in Paris.
This phenomenal sports event aims to connect people. It is supposed to be a sanctuary of peace and global unity, where athletes compete in the spirit of fair play.
That was the original idea, anyways.
Nowadays, the Olympics are more of big game, show and shine, or an occasion for some to re-live their own unfulfilled dreams, at best.
History has shown that the Olympics have often been influenced by the political and military conflicts of their time, as it is happening now.
The ancient idea of the Olympic Truce is not working in the modern world (in spite of President Macron’s unsuccessful efforts), neither is there real equality among the participating countries.
The stark difference in how Russia has been punished compared to the unchallenged participation of other initiators of conflict reveals an uneven application of standards, seemingly chosen and implemented according by who attacks whom.
The theoretically non-political Olympics, that could be an event where people all around the world could enjoy the games and cheer for the athletes – is a far cry from the reality of politics, bans, punishments, boycotts, and doping/anti-doping races.
Then, again, the ban on Russia is not the first occasion in the XX. century history of the modern Olympics.
The ancient Greeks had this quaint idea called Ekecheiria, an Olympic truce, established in 776 BC. Greek city-states would lay down their arms so athletes and spectators could safely travel to Olympia. Imagine that: putting aside differences for the sake of sport! The modern world, however, is a bit more complicated.
Since 1993, the UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions urging a cessation of hostilities during the Olympics. A lovely sentiment, no doubt, but largely symbolic. Unlike in ancient times, modern wars don’t usually pause for sports, and the participation of athletes from warring nations is subject to political winds more than any real commitment to peace.
Interestingly, not all “war” qualifies for bans: there are regions where conflicts seem to be accepted as “business as usual” by the Western World. Military conflicts from such regions don’t lead to disqualification from the Olympics.
Examples include several conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East. Think about Nigeria and the Biafran War (1967-1970). The conflict was brutal, but Nigerian athletes still made it to the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. No international sanctions here.
On the Middle East, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War (1975), kept sending athletes to the Olympics throughout its civil war. Just like with Iraq and the Gulf Wars (1990, 2003): Iraqi athletes competed in other Games during ongoing conflicts without facing any ban.
Syria and the Civil War (2011). Syrian athletes have competed in the Olympics during their civil war, with no serious calls for bans. The same happened to Israel: after the Six-Day War (1967) Israel participated in the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, despite the aftermath of the war.
In spite of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Israeli and Palestine athletes have consistently participated in the Olympics.
The same goes to Rwanda’s participation amidst the horrific genocide. While Rwanda didn’t join the Winter Olympics (though probably the main reason was lack of interest in winter sports) but they showed up for the 1996 Summer Olympics.
Apparently, systematic mass murder of one’s own population is not a cause for a ban.
One notable exception was the South Africa Republic, which was banned from the Olympics due to the Apartheid. The same leaders that decided that the killing of hundreds of thousands of Hutus and Tutsis wasn’t a strong reason deemed racial segregation bad enough to merit exclusion. For nearly three decades. And when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) refused to ban New Zealand from participating, 29 countries (mostly Africans) boycotted the Montreal Games in 1976, protesting that the Kiwi’s national rugby team toured South Africa in defiance of the UN’s calls for a sporting embargo.
The United States and the Soviet Union are/were the Untouchables.
The USA, a frequent participant in various conflicts, has enjoyed uninterrupted Olympic participation. Neither the Vietnam War (1955-1975), nor the Iraq War (2003-2011), or the war against Afghanistan (2001), the so called “Banana Wars” or the Invasion of the Dominican Republic (1965) led to American athletes getting banned. They continued to compete globally.
The mere idea of banning the U.S. was apparently off the table.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had the power to achieve the same privileges as the USA, hence the Soviet Union never was banned from any Olympics regardless their military actions against Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Afghanistan (1979).
Things have changed lately. Russia doesn’t enjoy the same “untouchable” status as the Soviet Union.
Following the annexation of Crimea (2014) there were loud calls to ban Russian athletes.
An idea not fully accepted back then, but in the end there was no need to test its viability.
Thanks to the State-Sponsored Doping Scandal (reminder for those who couldn’t recall: state-sponsored doping led to bans from the 2016 Rio Olympics and the 2018 Winter Olympics. On both games, athletes competed as “Olympic Athletes from Russia”).
The IOC had to protect the integrity of the sport, of course.
This year a total of just 16 Russians and 17 Belarusians have accepted invitations to compete under a neutral flag, as since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, athletes from Russia and Belarus have been banned from all international sports’ events.
History proves that “optics” is often more important than the act itself.
Conflicts that are less visible or generate less international outrage tend to be ignored. High-profile conflicts involving major powers? That’s a different story. And again, countries with significant political clout, like the U.S., seem to get a pass for the same things as others get banned.
Doping scandals, particularly Russia’s, have led to severe sanctions.
On the other hand, while China is also under pressure, so far no general sanction was introduced against them. Chinese athletes only have to live with about six times more doping tests than the Americans. Solely for the sanctity of the Games. As always.
The history of conflicts and Olympic participation reveals a playing field where punishments are unevenly applied. Now, Russia faces severe sanctions while in the past, many could carry on as if nothing had happened.
While “might makes right” is not surprising in geopolitics, the noble idea of Olympics would maybe deserve a truly equitable and transparent approach. For now, it remains elusive, buried under layers of political maneuvering and selective enforcement.
