Alternatives to a boycott of Beijing Olympics

For the 2022 Games, athletes can protest China’s abuses in clever ways. Foreign officials and advertisers can stay away. The purposes of the Olympics can then endure.

Workers gesture near the ski jumping center under construction for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics in China's Hebei province.

China has jailed nearly every major voice in Hong Kong opposing its efforts to crush local democratic rule in the territory. It has stepped up its harsh treatment of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province, leading to claims of genocide. And yet China is scheduled to host the 2022 Winter Olympics early next year. Around the world, many countries are debating whether to send a signal about these official abuses by not sending their athletes to Beijing. A group of more than 180 activist groups is calling for some kind of boycott.

Some cite the decision in 1936 by Western democracies not to boycott the Summer Olympics held in Berlin that year. Instead of acting as a moderating influence on then-Nazi Germany, those games served as a propaganda triumph for Adolf Hitler’s regime.

An Olympics boycott is not new. In 1976 a number of African countries boycotted the games, protesting the inclusion of then-apartheid South Africa. In 1980 the United States, Canada, Japan, and West Germany boycotted the Moscow Summer Olympics to protest the then-Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. In retaliation the Soviets boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

For more than a century the modern games have served as an opportunity for peaceful contact and greater understanding among nations. Those who would suffer most directly from a boycott are the athletes, who often train for years for their moment in a premier competition. To them, the innate nationalism in the games should not get in the way of the sport itself.

The 2008 Summer Olympics, the first games held in Beijing, were seen by the West as an opportunity to moderate the behavior of China’s ruling Communist Party. Since 2012, however, party leader Xi Jinping has reversed the few political freedoms enjoyed by the Chinese.

Fearing a boycott for next year’s games, China has made it clear it will retaliate against any country that takes such action. As the world’s No. 2 economic power, it has already shown it will punish countries that challenge its policies. China has reduced exports from Australia after that country called for an international investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

Given a boycott’s possible damage to Olympic athletes and to the peaceful purposes of the event, could something short of a full boycott achieve the same purpose of expressing disapproval of China’s abysmal abuse of millions of its citizens?

Could, for example, athletes participate while delegations of government officials and sponsors stay away? Might athletes find ways during the games to distance themselves from China’s propaganda or point out the benefits of a free society? They could, for example, boycott the opening ceremonies or use press conferences and social media to speak up. Their integrity as successful athletes gives them far more credibility than a regime that punishes people for their views, religion, or ethnicity. Clever protest actions at the games would be reported in most countries and possibly slip past government censors inside China.

With the world’s best athletes in Beijing next year, the dazzling spotlight on the games can also shine into China’s dark corners, perhaps helping to achieve the noble aims of the Olympics of building a peaceful world and creating respect for universal ethical principles.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Alternatives to a boycott of Beijing Olympics
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today