Following the US announcement on December 6th that it had decided to conduct a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics (February 4-20), Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada also announced that they would do the same in protest “Xinjiang is carrying out genocide and crimes against humanity”. “They will inevitably pay for this bad behavior”, Threatening Beijing, Thursday, December 9th.
In France, after the position of the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports, Jean-Michel Blanquer, was inconsistent, he confirmed that Roxana Maracineanu, the Minister for Sports, and the Secretary of State for Disability Affairs, are in China Existence, Sophie Cluzel-and the head of diplomacy Jean-Yves Le Drian-plead “Common Position” European Union (EU)-Emmanuel Macron (Emmanuel Macron) clarified Paris’ position on Thursday night. “We cannot politicize this topic, especially when it takes very small symbolic measures.”, Announcing the head of state, confirming that the decision will be made in unison with his European partners.
Director of Sports Geopolitics Research at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (IRIS), Carol Gomez Explain in detail the problems and consequences of diplomatic boycott.
What is the purpose of the US diplomatic boycott?
Our idea is to always go beyond simple messages sent. In addition to hoping to mobilize international attention on a certain topic and put this on the political and diplomatic agenda, there is also the problem of knowing who the United States can rely on as its allies to try to establish an alliance of nations, which will follow the same process…
These goals must be considered at the bilateral level-Washington’s engagement with China is a struggle-but Joe Biden’s decision is also for his voters, or more broadly, for his people. In recent months, the President of the United States has been accused of being insufficiently active.Help to say “America is back”.
After that, it was not a very powerful punch on the table.On the one hand, the terms “Genocide” and “Crimes against Humanity” Statement, on the other hand, we decided “just” not to send official representatives to participate in the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is a relatively symbolic sanction.
Will this measure work?
Effectiveness must be measured according to the various goals identified. The best example is the 1980 Moscow Olympics. The resistance of the United States and the Western camp did not prompt the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, where the Soviets stayed until 1989. On the other hand, this makes it possible to mobilize its population and its camp has also sent a particularly strong message to the front.
“As long as all countries fail to position themselves well, we cannot judge the possible effects yet”
As far as this case is concerned, as long as all countries have no self-positioning, we cannot yet judge the possible effects. If there are only four countries left, no matter how powerful they are, they will not be as important as twenty, thirty, or fifty countries. If African, South American or Asian countries join the process, it will start to become interesting…
Effectiveness ultimately depends on China’s response. If this is really a very ineffective thing, she won’t even take the time to respond to it. However, she reacted immediately. Diplomatic boycott is still a weapon of the Cold War, but I see it as the first stage of the rocket.
Does China have the means to deal with the threat?
By announcing the country that will succeed the U.S. “It will pay a high price”, China uses an interesting formula. This is a direct threat, undisguised, but still very vague. This shows that the Chinese authorities will wait and see which countries will support Washington’s decision. It can also prevent some of them.
Most importantly, facts that do not specify this threat tend to magnify it. Could it be economic sanctions? Closing the cultural center? Summon envoys? In short, how will the various sanctions adopted by Beijing be selected, and what will be the grading of sanctions? Today I don’t know if these are the same for everyone. Dealing with the United States can be complicated. On the other hand, we can imagine that China’s crackdown on Australia or the United Kingdom will be even greater.
In this context, how to understand France’s position?
The Elysee press release issued on Tuesday is concise and clear [dans le texte, la présidence française déclare avoir pris « bonne note du choix des Américains » et affirme vouloir se « coordonner au niveau européen »], But it has at least time to negotiate with partners and try to develop a common strategy within the EU: “Let us not make the decision alone, but at the age of twenty-seven”. This form is faithful to France’s traditional diplomatic methods.
In addition, Paris scored 1Uh In January, the head of the European Union. If France does not want its six-month presidency to be plagued by conflicts with China, its position is a way, not to escape the problem, because the Uyghur problem will always exist, but to leave room for maneuver for itself.
The last element: the prospect of the 2024 Paris Olympics is in the minds of all French politicians. They may be afraid of strong opposition, although here I also find it difficult to see the significance of this.
Isn’t the “weapons” calling for a boycott of sporting events commonplace?
We have to distinguish two things: the boycott call for the Qatar World Cup or the Beijing Olympics-for many years, from institutions or non-governmental organizations-but the policies of the government and the authorities may not necessarily take this into consideration, and the boycott itself, this situation Much less.
What really matters at this level is the ability to unite. When you resist an event or a country, your goal is to attract attention, blame, and reject actors. If you are alone and put yourself outside the international community, this may be a double-edged sword.This is what happened with the UK in the 2018 World Cup [qui avait tenté un boycottage sportif après l’empoisonnement sur son sol de l’ex-agent russe Sergueï Skripal]. Only Iceland followed the British.