In response to the Ukraine war, Western powers and public opinion have compelled international sporting organisations, orchestras, operas, film festivals and other cultural bodies to ban Russian teams and individuals from competitions, performances, and participation in games with the aim of isolating Moscow. While banning has taken place fitfully since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, the process continues, punishing teams, groups and individuals engaged in acti-vities outside Russia.

Russian conductor Valery Gergiev was sacked as conductor of the Munich Symphony Orchestra for refusing to denounce the invasion. His role in other concerts was cancelled. He had come under criticism earlier for taking part in concerts in Russian-occupied Crimea and Syria’s Palmyra after its liberation from Daesh.  Another of the first Russians was soprano Anna Netrebko who suspended performances after being castigated for her friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. She cancelled appearances in Milan and Hanburg and was banned by New York’s Metropolitan Opera. A concert in Siberia was cancelled after she said she was “opposed to this war.” Without condemning Putin.

The West is not the only disrupter, an anti-war concert in Moscow by Russian pianist Alexi Lubimov was interrupted by police ofcicers who were ordered to crackdown on dissent after two decades of relative cultural freedom on Russia. Musicians, dancers, filmmakers and writers have been intimidated. If they speak out against the war while at home, they risk imprisonment and, if they are outside Russia and do not condemn the war, they are threatened with dismissal and boycott.

Oxford university professor Catriona Kelly, a specialist in Russian culture, told the Washington Post. “If they don’t make up their mind to reject the Russian government’s current policy and reject the war, they will just lose their careers in the West.”  Russian musicians are among the best.

Sportsmen and women are also caught up in this lose-lose situation. Russian teams were not permitted to take part in the Beijing Winter Paralympics after other teams threatened to stay away from the games. Russian teams have been suspended by international football competitions while Russia has been banned from participating in and holding competitions by the World Motor Sport Council. Russian athletes have been barred from all international events. While the Russian Tennis Federation has been sanctioned, Russian players can take part in some competitions on an individual basis and not under the Russian flag.

Wimbledon’s total exclusion of Russians has drawn criticism from tennis greats Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal, both of whom called the ban “very unfair,” and Andy Murry, although he plans to donate his 2022 prize money to Ukrainian humanitarian relief.

The list of sanctions on hosting and participation published by CNN is two dozen sports long and includes, inter alia, volleyball, archery, skiing, skating, sailing, rowing, and ice hockey.

In the case of the Ukraine war, banning began within days of the invasion rather than after decades as was the case of South Africa, which not only attacked, invaded and occupied neighbours but, since 2010, also practiced apartheid, crude racial segregation and discrimination. This was codified in 1948 in the aftermath of World War II and the founding of the United Nations in 1945. When, in December 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, the West should have taken action against apartheid.

Nevertheless, South African apartheid was tolerated because that country joined the Western campaign to contain the Soviet Union. Afro-Asian condemnation was ignored by governments although the International Olympic Committee withdrew its invitation to South African teams which were not integrated while individual countries withdrew from games where South Africa sent only white competitors.  

Tolerance was tested in March 1960 when South African police fired on 7,000 demonstrators protesting the country’s racial policies at Sharpeville, killing 69 and injuring 180. In April, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an end to the apartheid regime. In 1963, the UN called for a voluntary arms embargo on South Africa, but this was not enacted until 1977. A 1974 proposal to eject South Africa from the UN was rejected by the US, France, and Britain. The 1977 Sweto uprising put pressure on the West to take action. A voluntary oil embargo was urged by the UN General Assembly in 1987.  Divestment and boycotts were adopted by some countries but not others. “Voluntary” was the key word used in the South African case but does not apply to measures punishing Russia for its war on Ukraine.

Having assumed the leadership of the campaign to sanction Russia over Ukraine, the US only verbally condemned South Africa’s apartheid policy while maintaining economic relations and blocking UN sanctions against Pretoria. The Carter administration pressed for an end to apartheid in South Africa, but did not impose sanctions or discourage divestment on the grounds that such measures would harm black workers.

Nevertheless, popular pressure built on Washington. This did not stop the Reagan administration from cooperating with South Africa when it intervened in neighbouring conflicts. Frustrated by the lack of change in South Africa and Washington’s prevarication, Congress adopted the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986. Nelson Mandela won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1993 and in 1994 apartheid was abolished and he was elected president the country’s first ever democratic contest. Ironically, until 2008, the US officially branded him a “terrorist.”

Once sanctions have been imposed and blacklisting in place, it is the extremely difficult to lift these measures. Mandela completed his term in office in 1999 while still on the US “terrorist” list. His successor, Thabo Mbeki insisted that this should be dropped.

Sanctions constitute political and economic warfare and can constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is particualrly true in the case of Syria and the Syrian people.  Eleven years of civil and proxy warfare has seriously damaged Syria’s cities, towns, villages and infrastructure but sanctions are blocking recovery, devastating the economy, and driving Syrians into poverty. Ninety per cent are estimated to be living below the poverty level. Hunger is crawling across a land which used to feed the population but the land has been dried by drought, abandoned by farmers, and ravaged by fighting.   

While four of the country’s 14 power plants have been destroyed, reducing electricity by 18 per cent, the US Congress adopted the 2019 Ceasar Act starving the surviving power plants of fuel. Consequently, in many areas of Syria, businesses and households receive one hour of electricity for every five hours of outage. Syria has been pushed backwards into the pre-industrial age.

While the US argues it is sanctioning the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian people — whether living in the 70 per cent of the country under Damascus rule or not –are Washington’s real target. The Biden administration  unmoved by Syria’s deterioration and terrorised by the anti-Syria stance of the pro-Israel lobby - has done nothing to rectify this situation. Syrians struggle to survive while billions of Western dollars pour into Ukraine for weapons and humanitarian relief.  

Photo: TNS