Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Wednesday that Canada will proceed with a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, citing concerns over human rights violations by the Chinese government.
While Canadian government officials won’t attend the Games, the athletes can continue to compete. Earlier in the week, the U.S. announced a diplomatic boycott of the Games as a means of protesting against human rights abuses in China. Australia and the U.K. soon followed suit.
We caught up with Bruce Kidd, a former Olympian and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, for his thoughts on what’s happening and what is yet to come.
How do you feel about the announcement by the Canadian government? Were you surprised by it?
I was not at all surprised by it, given the historic relationships between Canada and the United States, and the widespread concern among Canadians about human rights abuses in China.
The diplomatic boycott is an intriguing idea, enabling Canadians, including the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee and Canadian athletes, to steer between the rock of not saying anything about the genocide of the Uighurs, the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and the takeover of Tibet and the hard place of a sports boycott that would severely damage the Olympics/Paralympics, one of the world’s most joyous international peace festivals, and hurt Canadian athletes.
It’s hard to know how this will all pan out. But if it accelerates the pressure upon the International Olympic and Paralympic Committees only to award games to countries with unblemished records of human rights and reduces the spillover of nation-state and super-power conflicts upon the Olympics/Paralympics, that will be a good thing. On the other hand, if it leads governments like Canada’s to withdraw funding from sport, as it did after the 1980 boycott, that would be harmful.
Some might say that there are few countries with unblemished records of human rights and that spillover of nation-state and super-power conflicts upon the Games is inevitable as long as any country recognized by the UN can participate. How would you respond to them?
First, I would say that any National Olympic Committee (NOC) recognized by the IOC should be allowed to compete. That mostly but not entirely corresponds to their respective country‘s recognition by the UN. While that’s a low standard, that doesn’t mean the IOC can’t pressure an NOC to make changes, as it did with Arab NOCs that did not enter women competitors, and with its recent guidelines on transgender that argue for gender self-identification.
Secondly, in case of staging the Games, the world is slowly moving towards some standard of human rights in the selection of sites. In adjudicating the 2026 World Cup, FIFA asked bidding countries and cities for human rights indicators relating to legislation on several issues like free speech and forced removals, and after Paris, the IOC asks Games cities to adhere to Agenda 2020, which spells out protections in several areas. The big question, of course, is whether these conditions will be monitored and enforced, but the world is moving in that direction. Hopefully, this diplomatic boycott will add weight to those efforts.
China has denied the human rights abuse allegation and said the boycotts violated “the principle of political neutrality of sports established by the Olympic Charter and ran counter to the Olympic motto of “more united.”” What’s your response to that?
I’m glad the Chinese government is speaking about the political neutrality of the Olympics, but I’m not sure we understand it the same way. The Chinese seem to want all talk of politics entirely removed from the Games. As I understand the Olympic project, the idea is to encourage, through sports and culture, the fulsome interaction of participants, recognizing their many social and political differences, as a way of encouraging understanding and respect among the peoples of the world, and reducing the likelihood of war. Those interactions include frank discussions about politics. They require the safe, open neutrality of the Olympic and Paralympic sites, with protected opportunities for full expression and uncensored media investigation and coverage. The big worry about Beijing 2022 is that no one will be allowed to speak or report freely.
The Olympics and Paralympics belong to the world. In 2022, Beijing is the host on the world’s behalf not the owner. With many governments staying away, the international sports community must insist that the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games are conducted in that spirit, and that the IOC and IPC will protect all participants’ rights.
How do you feel about some calls to enforce a full boycott, withdrawing all Canadian presence, including athletes?
If Canadians mounted a full economic, cultural, and educational boycott of China on grounds of human rights, of course, Canadian athletes would participate. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Canadian trade with China is currently at an all-time high, and universities like ours draw our largest source of revenue from international students, many of whom come from China. Athletes resent being the only ones called upon to give up cherished opportunities and benefits to participate in a boycott when everyone else pursues ‘business as usual’.
Moreover, I’m not sure that a new cold war with China is in the best interests of Canada or the world. With significantly interwoven economies and much else, we need to find a better way to work with China, one that ensures full respect for Canadian interests, law and values. That will be difficult to achieve with the current leadership in China, but I’d rather try through diplomacy and people-to-people exchanges than boycotts and threats. The Olympics and Paralympics provide one such opportunity.