11 votes

Countries which have announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics

7 comments

  1. [5]
    Omnicrola
    Link
    I'm still struggling to grok the actual implications of this. It's clear from the way this has been reported that this is more than just posturing and empty gestures, or at least China isn't...

    I'm still struggling to grok the actual implications of this. It's clear from the way this has been reported that this is more than just posturing and empty gestures, or at least China isn't treating it as empty gestures (which is part of the point I suppose).

    However what I don't grasp is what diplomats would normally be doing at an Olympics. It makes sense to me that each country would have representatives there as it's a great opportunity to meet with other diplomats, but what are they there to do? What are their official reasons, and what are their actual reasons? Are there actual opportunities being walked away from here by boycotting, or is it just a very public and formal rebuke?

    5 votes
    1. [4]
      FluffyKittens
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It’s a public and formal rebuke, but also goes beyond that. Flip the perspective: what would the US et al. be signaling by attending the Olympics? I’d argue it would be read globally as tacit...

      It’s a public and formal rebuke, but also goes beyond that.

      Flip the perspective: what would the US et al. be signaling by attending the Olympics? I’d argue it would be read globally as tacit approval of the CCP’s aggressive domestic and foreign policies. Avoiding that signal is the primary motivator for the boycott.

      However, I’d argue there’s another (albeit lesser) motivator at play, which is that the boycott undermines the legitimacy of the CCP. The fact that other global powers can’t be compelled to attend makes China appear weak on the world stage - which for an autocratic regime built on quasi-Orwellian hegemony, can signal an opportunity for domestic opposition to take root.

      E: some better analysis - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-world-next-week/id306597476?i=1000544499310.

      10 votes
      1. [3]
        petrichor
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        But they are attending the Olympics, no? If I'm reading the article right, just the diplomats (who I wasn't previously aware attended) are boycotting. The US et al. are still sending athletes.

        But they are attending the Olympics, no?

        If I'm reading the article right, just the diplomats (who I wasn't previously aware attended) are boycotting. The US et al. are still sending athletes.

        1 vote
        1. nukeman
          Link Parent
          Correct, in part because only the USOC can pull out athletes (and I guess there isn’t enough public pressure) and also because it prevents China from hoarding medals in the absence of Western...

          Correct, in part because only the USOC can pull out athletes (and I guess there isn’t enough public pressure) and also because it prevents China from hoarding medals in the absence of Western countries.

          7 votes
        2. FluffyKittens
          Link Parent
          Diplomatic boycott is more like the US isn’t formally attending as a nation but is letting individual athletes compete. Not so much about literal diplomats conducting international relations.

          Diplomatic boycott is more like the US isn’t formally attending as a nation but is letting individual athletes compete. Not so much about literal diplomats conducting international relations.

          3 votes
  2. [2]
    lou
    Link
    It might be a good idea to alter the title to make it clear that this is about diplomatic presence, not the athletes.

    It might be a good idea to alter the title to make it clear that this is about diplomatic presence, not the athletes.

    6 votes