Author: Deborah Massawe
Editor: Karly Schmitz
Spring 2022
Termed the "Biden Boycott" by individuals like Victor Cha, Senior Vice President and Korea Chair of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, it was America's diplomatic sanction against Beijing's Winter Olympics. In December of 2021, the White House bipartisanly boycotted this series of games due to "ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang,"--according to national press secretary Jen Psaki. The Biden Administration additionally announced that they would boycott the Paralympic Games, which are set to take place in Beijing on March 4th, 2022. However, what are diplomatic boycotts anyways? Do they work the same as those who are non-diplomatic? Honestly, I had little idea at first; but with a bit of effort and significant help from Google, I did some digging so you wouldn't have to.
For starters, diplomatic boycotts can mean different things, determining the various forms they may take. In this case, it told that the United States would refrain from associating with China, and they did so in the form of abstention–as no U.S. officials were present at the games. Moreover, this diplomatic boycott differed from those considered regular because of the extent to which it was sanctioned. In standard and complete boycotts, an individual, country, or organization endorses "a punitive ban that forbids relations with certain groups, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods," according to the Oxford dictionary. But this wasn't necessarily the case regarding the United State's prudent decision because it did not require American athletes to similarly withdraw from the Olympics. Because of this incomplete aspect, Liu Pengyu, the spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the U.S, concluded on Twitter, "no one would care about whether these people [came] or not, and it [has] no impact whatsoever on the [success of] #Beijing2022".
As stated, the heart of the diplomatic sanction lies within allegations about the Xinjiang region. To summarize the accusations, it's suspected that China is detaining and forcing into labor more than one million Uyghurs, Turkic descendants who are predominantly Muslim. These concerns did not emerge because of the 2022 Olympics, as they have been speculated since 2014. Instead, China maintains that the camps were merely a system of "re-education" established "to combat separatism and Islamist militancy in [ Xinjiang]." Most recently, though, the country claims to have released all detained Uyghurs in 2019. Unconvinced by such responses, human rights activists and global superpowers have initiated sanctions, increased awareness, and investigated reports to establish justice for Uyghurs–a people they suspect are being targeted through genocide.
In this regard, the United States’ withdrawal from the 2022 Olympics can generally be viewed as respectable, but many have teetered over whether the diplomatic boycott had any legitimate influence. About half a dozen other countries who similarly withdrew from the games, such as Lithuania and the United Kingdom, perceive this sanction in terms of symbolism rather than that of concrete outcomes–conveying that they do not support China's accusations of genocide and that they refuse to participate in the events which associate with such. Though honorable, this sense of symbolism naturally raises questions regarding its overall benefit for Uyghurs in Xinjiang. And to answer the inquiries bluntly, nobody knows. However, it's more likely that the effects were relatively unnoticeable because China continues to dismiss the allegations as "fake news" and because of additional factors regarding international law and politics. In solving this unconfirmed mystery, Mike Pompeo, former U.S. Secretary of State, concludes, "A diplomatic boycott of the #Olympics is not enough. The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] doesn't give a rip about a diplomatic boycott, because at the end of the day, they are still hosting the world's athletes. Joe Biden needs to stand up to the CCP." Thus far, President Biden has signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which intends to keep American consumers from unintentionally promoting the alleged abuse of human rights in Xinjiang.
The United States’ sanction of the 2022 Olympics has caused many to oppose its great significance. Nonetheless, it has generally been deemed respectable by activists and national allies who took the same initiative. The slipperiest slope in the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics was, in fact, not along the trails of Yanqing National Alpine Centre but rather in the speculations which led multiple global powers to withdraw from the games diplomatically.
References
“BOYCOTT English Definition and Meaning.” Lexico Dictionaries | English, Lexico
Dictionaries, www.lexico.com/en/definition/boycott.
“The Biden Boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.” The Biden Boycott of the 2022
Beijing Winter Olympics | Center for Strategic and International Studies, 24 Feb. 2022,
www.csis.org/analysis/biden-boycott-2022-beijing-winter-olympics.
Gan, Nectar. “China Threatens the US with Retaliation over Diplomatic Boycott of Winter
Olympics.” CNN, Cable News Network, 7 Dec. 2021, www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/china /china-response-us-olympic-boycott-intl-hnk/index.html.
Person. “U.S. Lawmakers Call for U.N. Uyghur Rights Report before China's Olympics.”
Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 18 Jan. 2022, www.reuters.com/world/china/us-lawmakers- call-un-uyghur-rights-report-before-chinas-olympics-2022-01-18/.
“Who Are the Uyghurs and Why Is China Being Accused of Genocide?” BBC News, BBC,
21 June 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.
刘鹏宇 Liu Pengyu. “Politicians Calling for Boycott #2022BeijingOlympics Are Doing so for
Their Own Political Interests and Posturing. In Fact, No One Would Care about Whether These People Come or Not, and It Has No Impact Whatsoever on the #Beijing2022 to Be Successfully Held.” Twitter, Twitter, 6 Dec. 2021, twitter.com/SpoxCHNinUS/status /1467929864867045384.
Comments