As the 2022 Winter Olympics kicked off in Beijing, President Biden made the untraditional executive decision to not send government officials to the Olympics, although athletes are still allowed to participate. This diplomatic boycott is in response to the human rights crisis of the Uyghur Muslims and the “crackdowns on pro-democracy protests” in Hong Kong. Given the obvious conflicts with China, other countries have taken similar actions, including the U.K., Canada, Australia, and Japan, to name a few. While Japan has not gone as far as other nations in declaring their actions, they are sending officials responsible for the Tokyo Olympics instead of government officials.
Various U.S. news outlets have reported about China’s response, stating that China has warned other countries to stay out of their domestic affairs. The Chinese embassy in Washington declared the U.S.’s boycott a “grave distortion of the spirit of the Olympic Charter.” Liu Pengyu, a spokesman from the embassy, stated that in reality, these diplomats' presence would not impact the success of the Winter Olympics and that “no invitation had been extended to the U.S. politicians, ‘so this diplomatic boycott simply comes out of nowhere’.”
The China Institute of International Studies also responded to the diplomatic boycott by saying that the U.S. embellished the issues in Xinjiang and Hong Kong through organizations such as the G7, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, and the U.S.-E.U. summit. According to the Institute, this boycotting of the Olympics is all in effort to “incite international anti-China public opinion and [to] engage in ideological confrontation,” and when faced with concrete evidence will no longer be valid.
The Institute calls into attention the history of political manipulation as a central aspect of the Olympics, citing the Cold War, where boycotts of varying scales left “eternal regrets and wounds in the hearts of athletes and the general public.” After the Cold War, international political tension eased and the Olympics were no longer used to incite political confrontation. This gave birth to the 1992 “Olympic Truce,” an ancient Greek tradition that contributes to the greater goal of a peaceful future for mankind through sports, which was launched by the International Olympic Committee and the United Nations. However, the U.S. was one of the few nations that refused to take this treaty seriously. For example, during the 1998 Nagano Olympics held in Japan, U.S.-Iran relations were tense and former President Bill Clinton stated that he was ready to take military action against Iran despite the Olympics. With much persuasion by the International Olympic Committee President Samaranch and Japan, the U.S. finally agreed to a truce. Despite this, the U.S. launched the Iraq War in 2004 during the Athens Olympics.
The Institute goes on to elaborate on the importance of the Olympics and how it also symbolizes human pursuit and promotion of “peace, friendship, solidarity, and fair competition.” They criticize the U.S. for politicizing sports, and by declaring a boycott, advertise the Olympic games as a “gimmick” as the U.S. reaps the benefits of sending athletes while withholding their diplomats. China warns the U.S. and their allies that these boycotts that are based on “ideological prejudice and blatant lies” will be “rejected by the people, and will eventually be a laughing stock in the history of the Olympic Games.”
The China Institute of International Studies begins to close their statement by reinforcing the idea that they do not condone using the Olympic games as a way to incite Sino-American relations and political confrontation. The Institute further emphasizes that the games are going to be held successfully, just like the 2008 Beijing Olympics.