The "B" word

On Sunday night, during CNN's televised debate among Democratic Presidential hopefuls, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson suggested that the U.S. consider boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics to protest China's support for the Sudanese government and its role in the Darfur genocide.

It's hard to know whether Gov. Richardson's comment reflects significant public support for the idea of boycotting the Beijing games, or whether it was just a sound bite to help him stand out from the other candidates. It does suggest that with 2008 right around the corner, those seeking political gain from taking a position for or against a boycott are going to be getting more attention.

Ever since China was awarded the 2008 games back in 2001, there have been calls for a boycott. Human Rights groups were among the first organizations to protest China's selection. Advocates for freedom of the press have also gone on record calling for a boycott. In 2005, Paul McCartney, the former Beatle, called for a boycott based on China's alleged animal rights violations. Recently, Japan's prime minister Shinzo Abe went on record as saying that Japan would NOT boycott the Olympics. "Sports and politics should be considered separately," he said.

Do boycotts work? Do they help call attention to, or help change the evil policies of national governments? or do they rather inflame international tensions? or are they simply irrelevant, a moral statement without consequence?

The U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980 to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan Over 60 other countries followed suit, including Japan, West Germany, China and Canada (several NATO countries such as Great Britain and France supported the boycott, but allowed their athletes to compete if they wished). Four years later, citing anti-soviet hysteria, the USSR and other soviet bloc countries returned the favor by boycotting the 1984 games in Los Angeles. For many years, African nations threatened Olympic boycotts to prevent the admission of apartheid South Africa into the games.

Maybe a better question to ask than "do boycotts work," is whether participation in an athletic event represents tacit approval of the political policies of the host country for that event. Or can the two be kept separate?

One thing is certain, with the Olympics coming only once every four years, athletes who willingly or unwillingly participate in a boycott lose what might be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to compete. If you google "1980 U.S. Olympic team", you'll find pages and pages of links to the "Miracle on Ice" -- the U.S. hockey team's unlikely victory over the Soviet Union in the 1980 Winter Games in Lake Placid. None of the top links mention the individual athletes and teams that didn't get a chance to compete against the Soviets in Moscow.

Among the track athletes who qualified in the 1980 US Olympic Trials were Don Paige (800m), Steve Scott (1500m), Mary Decker (1500m), Henry Marsh (3000sc), Matt Centrowitz and Bill McChesney (5000m), Craig Virgin (10,000m), and Tony Sandoval (Marathon). all were at the peak of their athletic careers. All had medal chances. Some competed four years later at Los Angeles, but none -- except for Slaney perhaps -- were still at their peak, and none ever stood on the podium.

Moral issues are hard. Moral issues often demand sacrifices. Still, I hope that those who use the "B" word now, and, like Bill Richardson call for sacrifice from others (without themselves sacrificing), have weighed carefully the losses and gains of such an action.