Diplomacy and the Olympic Boycott

Abstract

Chapter 1 considered four broad categories which, taken together encapsulates the spectrum of diplomatic activity that takes place in relation to the Olympic Movement. Within the range of activities generally interpreted as ‘state diplomacy’, the Olympic boycott perhaps best represents the idea of states using sport as a mechanism to pursue foreign policy objectives. Yet such a perspective over-simplifies the often complex processes, influenced by non-state as well as state organizations that lie behind decisions relating to the Olympic boycott. The state centred boycotts of the Cold War Years are historical phenomena that took place in a different geo-political context (although even these boycotts were complex, episodes involving a number of competing interests). Changing IOC protocols for bidding and hosting the Games (Taylor 1988) together with a breakdown of the bi-polar political realities, has increased the risks and lessened the potential diplomatic benefits of the Olympic boycott. Yet the boycott has not gone away. It has evolved into a range of activities based on withdrawal or non-involvement of state (and non-state) organizations, in order to convey disagreement with or opposition to some aspect of the organization of the Games or the behaviour of the host state. This includes boycotting of the opening and closing ceremonies, non-involvement with the Olympic torch relay, withdrawal or threat of withdrawal of sponsorship support and decisions by sports federations to not engage in particular events as an expression of displeasure with particular IOC or Organizing Committee decisions. In addition, at time of writing, tensions in the Middle East, as opposition to a number of regimes continues to increase, could present a challenge for the international community, including the UN and the IOC, concerning which institutions should be recognized as legitimately representing the state and the interests of Olympic athletes within the state. How this may influence the engagement (or disengagement) of National Olympic teams at the forthcoming Olympic Games remains to be seen.1