On Dec. 6, the Biden administration announced that the U.S. will be diplomatically boycotting the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, citing “ongoing genocide and other human rights abuses” in Xinjiang. The U.K., Australia and Canada joined the boycott shortly after, and as usual, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) responded with a biting threat of unspecified, “resolute countermeasures” — to have the U.S. “pay a price for its practices.”

The administration’s actions are praiseworthy — it’s protecting athletes’ personal rights and simultaneously acknowledging prevalent humanitarian issues on a national stage, providing needed media attention and awareness — but no effective change will take place so long as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) continues to allow abusive countries like China and Russia to host the Olympics in the first place. 

While the U.S.’s current diplomatic boycott still allows athletes to attend the games, the U.S. — along with more than 60 other countries — previously imposed a full boycott of the 1980 Winter Olympics in Moscow to protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The protests were to no avail: Troops from the Soviet Union stayed in Afghanistan until 1989, and the games were hurt by unruly behavior from spectators, cheating by officials and intrusive security. The only real harm was to protesting athletes, many of whom lost their only chance to participate at an Olympics.

In 1936, Olympic officials gave Hitler’s Nazi Party the go-ahead to host the games in Germany, despite protests from the U.S. and other sports officials citing the persecution of Jews — several Jewish athletes were later sidelined at the games. Like the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, these protests had virtually no effect on the actions of the host country; the Nazis continued to proudly perpetuate ideals of Aryan supremacy and national socialism. When former IOC President Avery Brundage maneuvered the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States to a close vote in favor of sending a team to Berlin, they came to see giant swastikas plastered all over the walls of the stadium. 

There was great hope that other countries’ actions during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics would change China’s human rights policies for the better: According to the book “Inside the Olympics” authored by Richard Pound, former vice president of the IOC, the decision to give the games to China “was made in the hope of improvement in human rights.”

At the time, the city was under scrutiny for civil unrest in Tibet and terrorist attacks by Xinjiang separatists. In the months leading up to the games, violent protests broke out in Tibet against the PRC’s repressive policies, resulting in some 30 Tibetans being jailed, some for life. 

It was “naive,” however, to think that the Olympics would change China in ways the IOC suggested: According to AP News, instead of accelerating improvement in human rights, China’s strict stage-management of the games was deemed a soft power victory, announcing the nation as a superpower on the global stage and casting the games as a “symbol of China’s rejuvenation,” according to Historian Zheng Wang.

Pound’s writings outline a misguided thought process: For hosts with controversial matters at hand, enabling them to host Olympic games doesn’t result in any changes, but rather provides a chance for them to present a moral victory.

Since its inception in 1894, the Olympic Movement was founded with the intent of “blending sport with culture and education to help communities and nations live in harmony with each other” and creating a way of life “based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles,” according to the Olympic Charter. Founder Pierre de Coubertin characterizes the Olympic Games: “The important thing in life is not the triumph, but the fight; the essential thing is not to have won, but to have fought well.”

Coubertin’s words represent one of the Olympic System’s most important principles: Participation is paramount.

But how can the IOC hold itself responsible for these words if it can’t manage to select an appropriate country to host the games?

China attempts to take the world stage through the Beijing Olympics to redeem itself in the eyes of nations around the world, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. By instilling a diplomatic boycott, the U.S. is essentially demonstrating that the image China is trying to portray to the world in fact hides a lot of human rights abuses.

While boycotts “may not change policy,” according to The New York Times, they have already succeeded in garnering more attention toward China’s long history of human rights abuses.

In people’s hearts, the Olympics stands as a token of ultimate sportsmanship and talent, not politics. Yet the 50th Rule in the IOC’s handbook, which prohibits political, religious and racial propaganda in Olympic venues, has never stopped nations from using the games as a platform to broadcast their stances on political issues. 

John Coates, vice president of the IOC, said challenging China on its human rights record is “not in our remit.” At the same time, the IOC “respects the political decisions taken by political bodies” such as the U.S. Their response shows inconsideration for upholding the IOC’s fundamental principle of human rights. 

From the Olympics’ long history of boycotts, the IOC cannot expect nations to turn a blind eye to controversies such as human rights abuses. By choosing to remain silent about these issues and thereby prioritizing their principle of political neutrality, the IOC in turn undermines its own core values of participation and respect.

Other sporting organizations, such as the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), have already established their stance on political issues. After accusing a top Chinese leader of sexual assault, Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai quickly disappeared from public view for weeks in November. Following her disappearance and China’s warning against “malevolent investigation” into her case, the WTA pulled out all games in China.

While the IOC need not take as drastic measures as the WTA did, restricting its policies of selecting the host for the Olympics to uphold the values it represents is a good start. Ultimately, it’s up to the IOC — not competing countries — to toughen up and denounce unethical behavior from countries wishing to host the games, or risk tarnishing the memories of the Olympics for people around the globe.