Issue of IOC losing its moral compass is overlooked

Myanmar swimmer’s protest over junta exposes what the Beijing boycott call is missing

The reason swimmer Win Htet Oo is not heading to the Tokyo Olympics is easy to explain. The athlete, whose parents have Burmese lineage, did not want to compete for Myanmar due to the junta in power in his homeland. In February, the military, led by senior general Min Aung Hlaing, seized control of the country after a general election was won by Aung San Suu Kyi’s ruling National League for Democracy party late last year. The military said the election was marred by voter fraud.

The coup led to widespread protests and the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners advocacy group estimates security forces have killed at least 766 civilians. The junta disputes this figure, stating that at least 24 members of its security forces have been killed during the protests. More than 200 nongovernmental organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have urged a global arms embargo on Myanmar.

As an athlete, representing your country at the Olympics is the highest honour. Win Htet Oo feels a military dictatorship does not represent his values as an athlete or human being. He is a practising Buddhist and subscribes to the ideals of democracy, the freedom of expression and a country’s obligations to uphold fundamental human rights.

His decision to forgo trying to clock an Olympic standard qualifying time in the 50 metres freestyle, which would allow the Myanmar Olympic Committee to invite him to attend the Games, is understandable. But standing in front of a flag you feel represents “a genocidal military” would be difficult. He also had the option of qualifying and then making a statement in Tokyo.

The International Olympic Committee’s newly adopted rule 50, which explicitly bans any type of political gesture by an athlete at the Games, would have surely come down hard on him. He spoke to the Post about raising a threefinger salute – a “Hunger Games” symbol used in multiple protest movements across Southeast Asia – but feared heavyhanded repercussions by the IOC.

Athletes have been protesting against their own nations for decades. The most memorable is the Black Power salute by US athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. Now in the US, taking a knee during The Star-Spangled Banner has become its own form of protest.

Australian swimmer Mack Horton’s unwillingness to get on the podium with Chinese swimmer Sun Yang made international headlines during the 2019 World Swimming Championships in South Korea. Horton’s goal was simple: bring attention to Yang’s questionable past regarding doping.

This is why something doesn’t add up in the boycott movement concerning the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. No athlete has come forward stating they will not compete next February over alleged human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, or the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong.

So far, this boycott call has been led by Western politicians looking to score political points as well as a coalition of human rights groups. This does not excuse China’s actions over its Uygur population, nor should it signify any athlete agrees with what is going on or that by competing at the Winter Olympics they support the host nation’s policies.

The IOC has long shown its willingness to hide behind its policy of “political neutrality” when awarding Games to wealthy, influential nations such as China and Russia, which also has a questionable human rights record.

The IOC, within its own charter, outlines six fundamentals of Olympism, and is littered with phrases like “social responsibility, fundamental ethical principles” and “the harmonious development of humankind”. How this blends with “political neutrality” and rule 50, an apparent censorship tactic by the IOC, is anyone’s guess.

Dragging athletes into the fray is a questionable tactic when the IOC has lost its own moral compass in awarding bids to countries that violate the values outlined in its own Olympic charter.

Athletes should be free to get political and stand up for what they believe in. And they should be able to make these decisions on their own, not forced into a geopolitical stand-off by politicians who should be aiming their rhetoric at a morally and ethically bankrupt IOC.

The International Olympic Committee has long shown its willingness to hide behind its policy of ‘political neutrality’