Is boycott of Beijing Olympics useful?

Australia has decided to join the United States’ diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing in February as a protest against China’s human rights violations in Xinjiang. Uighur Muslims in the province are reported to be under various forms of repression, including ‘re-education’, a euphemism for indoctrination. China denies there are violations.

Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that his government was willing to discuss differences with China, but Beijing is unwilling to do so.

There is enough provocation from the Australian side. Canberra banned Chinese company Huawei’s 5G technology under foreign interference laws and demanded an independent investigation into the origins of Covid-19. In response, Beijing has imposed tariffs on Australian imports of beef, barley and wine.

United States announced the boycott on Monday. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing Winter 2022 Olympics and Paralympic Games given the [Peoples Republic of China’s] ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, and other human rights abuses.”

Britain said it will take a decision on the boycott later. New Zealand too decided on the diplomatic boycott. In response to the American announcement, China said the American, Australian and New Zealand boycott does not prevent the athletes of these countries from taking part in the games.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) has rejected the American boycott call. IOC vice president John Coates said, “We are not a world government. We have to respect the sovereignty of the countries who are hosting the games.” Beijing declared that there will be “resolute countermeasures” in response to the American boycott. Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu in Washington said, “No invitation has been extended to US politicians whatsoever, so this ‘diplomatic boycott’ comes out of nowhere.” He also said, “Such a pretentious act is only a political manipulation and a grave distortion of the spirit of the Olympic Charter.”

While the diplomatic pow-wow between China and the Western countries is par for the course, the question to be asked is whether such boycott is useful or not. In 1980, Western countries led by the United States boycotted the Moscow Olympics protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But it did not really help matters. The Soviet withdrawal took place in 1989 under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s reformist programme of glasnost and perestroika, two forgotten words of the last Cold War. It will be futile to speculate if there would be a similar change of heart in China’s leaders. There is also the crucial difference.

The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was beyond its national boundaries. Xinjiang is part of China.

This does not mean there are no human rights violations in Xinjiang, or that the Uighur Muslims are not facing oppression.

There must be other ways of building international pressure over human rights violation within sovereign states. Secondly, when Western countries boycotted Moscow Olympics, the Soviet Union’s decline had begun. On the other hand, China is a rising power and the second most powerful economy in the world.

The world and the United States depend on China’s economy in a way it did not happen with the Soviet Union.

It does not mean that the plight of Uighur Muslims should be ignored, or that the Chinese government should have the freedom to deal with them as it chooses.

If we want a humane global order, then violations in any country are a matter of concern everywhere in the world. And this rule applies to Western countries as it does to China and others. China cannot be made to pay for its dictatorial ways. But it can be persuaded.