When China was awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics seven years ago, very few outside the People’s Republic and its small circle of friendly regimes were thrilled. China’s human rights record was poor when it hosted the Summer Games to great fanfare in 2008, and things have only gotten worse since. Xinjiang, Hong Kong, ubiquitous tech surveillance, the suppression of civil society — the list is long. And Beijing’s sense of dominion has expanded to cover speech in any language, on any continent, and on any platform. The Covid-19 pandemic has just reinforced these worries.¹See this CSIS program on the Beijing Olympics, a videotaped panel discussion, with Scott Kennedy, Jeffrey Wasserstrom, Rep. Young Kim, Sophie Richardson, Susan Lawrence, Charles Edel and Anna Ashton.

It is not surprising that many in the human rights community and U.S. Congress have at some point called for a full-scale boycott, suggesting that only by not participating would the U.S. demonstrate that it does not endorse Chinese abuses. (Some also called for moving the Games.) Critics have similarly painted the American corporate sponsors of the Winter Games as amoral sellouts, willing to make billions while toeing Beijing’s line. 

Yet despite substantial pressure, the Biden administration in early December 2021 announced that it would not send any senior American officials to the Games but would still lend full support to America’s athletes. Some view this middle position as a lukewarm, watered down protest option. In fact, a diplomatic boycott is not only wise politically — balancing pressure from human rights groups and Congress with the preferences of the athletes, sports enthusiasts and the business community — it also turns out to be a winning strategic choice. A diplomatic boycott will be more effective in advancing human rights and American values than had the entire U.S. delegation stayed home. 

The January 24, 2022 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek declares these Olympics “China’s Games.” In reality, Beijing may be the host, but the Olympics belong to everyone who participates, and their larger meaning is entirely up for debate — constantly. 

China’s top leadership certainly would like to use the Games to highlight the country’s growing economic might and give the Chinese Communist Party pride of place on the world stage. The event’s slogan “Together for a Shared Future” asks the world to join hands with this China.

But Xi Jinping doesn’t get the final word. The 2022 Winter Games is a case of “one world, two Olympics.” Beijing is going to tell its story, but the rest of the world is going to tell theirs. 

Although the official slogan is omnipresent through Chinese media, a search of data mining platform LexisNexis barely registers use of the phrase in the English-speaking Western world. There are far more stories about the Olympics that also mention genocide, human rights and Xinjiang. 

But the run-up to the Games is just the preface. Potential authorship for the full story can only be credibly claimed by those who remain involved. And that’s why a diplomatic boycott makes so much more sense than staying home. 

If the United States, Europe and others did not send athletes to the Games, the world would not watch the Olympics, and the discussion would be over. Instead, the lead-up to the Games has shone a spotlight on China as well as providing an opportunity to learn more about this complex, diverse country. 

Moreover, if the United States had announced a full-scale boycott, it likely would have stood alone. The diplomatic boycott, by contrast, has been effective at helping a substantial number of countries find common ground. This was a soft boycott, as Washington only “informed” allies of its position and did not publicly pressure others to go along. State Department spokesperson Ned Price was clear on this point: “This is a sovereign decision that each country needs to make.”

By taking this more laissez-faire approach, Washington has garnered substantial support. Nine other countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Kosovo, Lithuania, and the United Kingdom) have joined the United States in announcing they would not send top political leaders because of China’s human rights abuses. Another eight countries have said they would not send diplomats because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but that explanation is likely a convenient excuse to avoid antagonizing Beijing. Many of these 18 countries have taken this step despite their substantial commercial ties with China. 

All of them are also democracies, with an average “Freedom Score,” computed by Freedom House, of 89.6 out of 100. By contrast, the leaders attending the Games come from 10 countries (Argentina, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) which have an average Freedom Score of only 37.9, much closer to China’s own score of 9/100. When the camera pans the opening ceremony showing who is – and who is not – sharing the stage with Xi Jinping, the message will be clear to all.

…[I]f the United States had announced a full-scale boycott, it likely would have stood alone. The diplomatic boycott, by contrast, has been effective at helping a substantial number of countries find common ground. 

For the next 16 days, the world’s attention will remain on China. The Western media, led by American broadcaster NBC, may feel pressure from Beijing to only do puff pieces on individual athletes or Chinese cuisine. And all international visitors, including the traveling media, will be inside a “closed loop” and kept away from permanent residents, depriving them of interview opportunities. Nevertheless, the international media is resourceful and will have a chance to explore the conflict between China and the world over human rights, China’s place in the world, Covid, and other issues. The possibility of news breaking during the Games — over omicron cases, protests by athletes, the tensions over Ukraine — raises the likelihood of meaningful reporting that would be far less likely in the context of a full boycott. 

The presence of athletic delegations from the United States and elsewhere means Western officials, human rights groups, and reporters are continuing to push for the International Olympics Committee and Beijing to live up to their commitments with regard to journalists and the proper treatment of athletes. There is now an active discussion about the need to revise or repeal Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter prohibiting political, religious, or racial demonstrations at Olympic venues. International attention has also put a spotlight on China’s intrusive “My 2022” app and Beijing’s encouragement of attendees to use the new digital Chinese currency. 

One last upside to the diplomatic boycott is the precedent it sets. When Paris, Milano Cortina, and Los Angeles host the upcoming games in 2024, 2026 and 2028, respectively, they will not need to worry about a Chinese-led full-scale boycott. Of course, if China were to adopt reciprocal penalties, Xi Jinping and other authoritarian leaders would not show up to these Games. In practice, that would make things easier, not harder for the respective host governments of France, Italy and the United States. By pulling heads of state from the equation, the Olympic movement may be better able to withstand growing tensions between China and the rest of the world. 

While the Olympics are unique, the best strategy for the U.S. to take towards the event is also its best approach towards the broader strategic competition with China. 

Beijing and Washington outwardly say they are opposed to decoupling, but their actions suggest they operate according to a similar calculus: fewer ties mean fewer risks. Beijing has long limited foreign news and social media and has recently taken a great deal of information offline. Its zero-Covid policies have brought travel between China and the rest of the world to a crawl. And China is now clearly pursuing a policy of technology self-sufficiency. Conversely, Washington has rapidly expanded export controls and investment restrictions, poured cold water over research collaboration, and is pushing for a diversification of supply chains away from China. 

Some of these steps may make sense, but the underlying logic behind them is flawed. Less is not always better or safer. Just as with the Olympics, staying engaged on America’s terms is often a more effective strategy. Extensive decoupling may lower some of America’s risks, but it also would eliminate America’s leverage, voice and influence over China. Moreover, just as a full-scale boycott taken alone would have left the U.S. isolated, the U.S. cannot effectively engage with or compete against China on its own. The more the U.S. can collaborate with others to collectively set the terms of relationship, the more likely our approach toward economics and human rights will hold sway, and the more likely our security will be safeguarded. 

The imperative to stay engaged — on our terms in concert with our allies — applies to every aspect of the relationship, including maintaining our commercial competitiveness, leading in the setting of international technical standards, protecting the climate and public health, promoting human rights, and ensuring our national security. There are substantial risks and vulnerabilities that must be guarded against, but there are also opportunities and leverage we have against China that we would lose if we took our puck and went home. We can win this competition best by staying on the field and making best use of all of our advantages. To the extent life can imitate sports, let the games begin. 

---