On March 3, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) announced that all athletes from Russia and Belarus would be barred from competing at the 2022 Paralympics. The decision came less than a day after the IPC announced it was permitting athletes from both countries to compete as neutrals. The IPC’s ban, however, felt forced and hollow.
Make no mistake; it was athlete resistance that forced the IPC to abandon its tolerance of Russia and Belarus. Advocacy groups like Global Athlete and current and former Paralympic and Olympic athletes pressed the IPC to take a stronger stance against Russia and Belarus by joining the majority of teams, leagues and federations in an international sporting boycott.
According to IPC president Andrew Parsons, Russian and Belarusian athletes were not banned for their respective nations’ roles in the outrageous and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, but rather to preserve “the long-term health and survival of the Paralympic Movement.”
In fact, the IPC press release contained not a single reference to Ukraine. Parsons’s comments at the opening ceremonies likewise excluded the words Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.
The IPC’s actions aren’t all that surprising. After all, when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, IPC head of communications Craig Spence told CBC:
MacIntosh Ross, Assistant Professor, Kinesiology, Western University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
“We’re quite happy to leave the politics to the politicians; we’re competing as we planned.… We don’t want global politics to overshadow what we hope will be a fantastic sporting event.”But people’s lives can’t be reduced to mere politics and global sporting events can, and do, benefit the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that play host. China, which was criticized for using the Olympics to obscure human rights abuses, views the recent games as an economic boon. A spokesman for Beijing told the New York Times that the Winter Olympics “brought positive economic benefits and created new sources of growth for the local economy.” Beyond the IPC’s underwhelming response, the broader sporting landscape is even more complicated, ranging from complete inaction to expulsion, illustrating the politically charged nature of international sport in the 21st century.
