Belarus strongman Alexander Lukashenko: Was it a mistaken
precedent to ban him from
the Olympic Games after he was
returned to office as
president for fourth time in what most
observers perceived as a
rigged election?
With Olympic Ban on Belarus President, West Initiates New Era of Sport Politicization (Gazerta, Russia)
"The Olympic boycott issued to Belarus
President Lukashenko is a clear signal from the Western
world to the post-Soviet autocracies. The West no longer hopes for the democratization
of these countries, and has begun to perceive them as the political heirs of
the Soviet regime. ... This sets a precedent, not only for the history of the Olympics,
but for the West's relations with the dictatorial regimes of the post-Soviet
space."
The Soviet Olympiad: Russians are sensitive to Olympic politicization, after President Jimmy Carter did his best to sink the 1980 Olympiad in Moscow, when the Kremlim decided to invade Afghanistan.
The refusal to allow [Belarus President] Lukashenko
to attend the London Olympics means that once again, we are living in an era
characterized by the politicization of major sporting events.
The Olympic boycott issued to Lukashenko
is a clear signal from the Western world to the post-Soviet autocracies. The
West no longer hopes for the democratization of these countries, and has begun
to perceive them as the political heirs of the Soviet regime.
The organizing committee of the London Olympic Games refused
accreditation to Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko,
who also happens to be head of his country’s Olympic committee. It is possible
that IOC leaders will manage to convince British authorities and their Olympic
organizing committee to change its collective mind, but for the moment at
least, the Belorussian president will not be permitted to attend the Olympics
for political reasons.
Posted
by Worldmeets.US
The U.S. and E.U. refuse to recognize the December 2010 outcome
of the Belarus presidential election, in which Lukashenko
was re-elected to a fourth term. Friction between the West and Moscow
intensified after protesters in Minsk who disagreed with the election result
were violently dispersed, and ensuing court cases which resulted in
actual prison time for several former presidential candidates. To date, there are
a number of E.U. economic sanctions that have been imposed on Belarus, which
were introduced due to the presence of political prisoners in the country. In
addition, the Belarus president is banned from entering the E.U. as well as the
United States. It is this ban that best explains the London Organizing Committee's
decision to refuse to allow Lukashenko to attend the
London Olympics.
The Belarus president, it seems, saw this coming. At a
recent meeting with the Belorussian Olympic team, Lukashenko
expressed criticism of the politicization of the modern Olympics.
“It is political - and sometimes politically dirty,” he
said. Given that, the president gave the athletes traveling to London an
assignment to win as many medals as possible. Tellingly, he even distorted the
foundational principle of the Olympics that, “It is participation that counts,
not victory.” Lukashenko declared, “What matters to
us is victory, not participation.”
However, considering that Olympic competition was designed precisely
so that sports would ensure a distraction from political differences, an
exception could have been made for Lukashenko,
permitting him to travel to London. Especially since Lukashenko
is the lawfully elected - and IOC recognized - head of the Belarus National
Olympic Committee. As such, E.U. sanctions do not apply.
It turns out that the political impact is felt by the entire
Belarus Olympic delegation, which has been automatically rendered
semi-outcast. Why, the U.S. even permits Iran President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad to attend U.N. General Assembly sessions because it’s a global
forum, and not just a visit by a politician who from the point of view of
Washington is considered "untouchable."
The recent history of the Olympic Games includes some
notable cases of sudden politicization. The most prominent was the boycott by
the U.S. and several dozen other nations of the 1980 Summer Olympics
in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and then the
retaliatory boycott by the Soviet Union and a few of its allies of the Los Angeles Olympic
Games in 1984. At that point, the USSR went even further, and held an alternative
1986 Goodwill Games
in Moscow. And there is a political scandal of a similar order at the
London Olympics: In connection with the sharp deterioration of relations with
Great Britain, Argentina President Cristina Kirchner has refused to travel to London
and has forbade all members of her government from attending.
But all of these are voluntary acts of refusal on the part
of states or government officials to attend the Olympics. Up until 2012, there were
no instances of denying a head of state the right to attend the Olympics for
political reasons.
This sets a precedent, not only for the history of the Olympics,
but for the West's relations with the dictatorial regimes of the post-Soviet
space. Clearly, it is much easier to introduce and implement sanctions against
countries bereft of oil or natural gas and on those that play little or no
significant role in global affairs. In that sense, Belarus and Lukashenko are much more convenient targets than, say,
Russia and its leaders. Nevertheless, the "Magnitsky Act" will now certainly be passed in the U.S.
This is the
first clear signal since the collapse of the Soviet Union that the West is no
longer hoping for the democratization of Russia and other former Soviet
republics. It is unlikely that Western countries will dare refuse entry to senior
Russian officials or freeze their bank accounts. But given its present course, the
West is more likely to equate Russia with Belarus in terms of the nature of its
political regime. Russian officials, if they continue to assault civil
liberties within their borders, must also be prepared for harsher sanctions
against themselves in the West.