Deploying sanctions against Russian oligarchs and banks was a no-brainer. Now comes the far thornier question about how far to go in canceling Russian President Vladimir Putin’s country — not just politically connected elites, but the athletes, artists and other symbolic ambassadors of the regime.
The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club — the body that runs the historic Wimbledon championship — has decided to ban Russian and Belarusian tennis players from this year’s tournament. Roland Garros, as the French Open is called, has not made a similar determination, which leaves the odd spectacle of Russian players being banned in some places and not others. One look at tennis Twitter and you can see a neatly divided fandom.
The All England club would like this to be viewed as a principled decision, akin to the apartheid-era bans on South African athletes that ostracized the ruling National Party. However, it risks looking more like a hollow display of off-court gamesmanship, like an orchestra refusing to play Tchaikovsky.
Illustration: June Hsu
Martina Navratilova, one of the all-time greats of the sport who fled communist Czechoslovakia when she was 18 and is now a US citizen, has condemned the decision as unfair.
“I understand the banning of teams, of course, representing countries, but on an individual level, I just think it’s wrong,” she said.
World No. 1 Novak Djokovic, a six-time Wimbledon winner, has also spoken out against it.
Elina Svitolina, a top-ranked women’s player, who is Ukrainian, has said only Russians who denounce the invasion should be allowed to play. That is a view British Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Sport Nigel Huddleston was pushing initially, too, but ultimately the All England Club decided that it would be too messy to police.
Of course, requiring players to make a political statement of that kind would also set a dangerous precedent, and denouncing Putin poses a real risk for players and their families in Russia.
All of this could end up in the courts as the tennis world hashes out a proper protocol. The Association of Tennis Professionals, which runs the men’s tour, is opposed to the move and has warned that its rules do not allow tournament hosts to discriminate against players based on anything other than their ranking.
The All England club’s ban might also be challenged on the grounds it contravenes UK human-rights law, which includes nationality as a protected characteristic. Of course, Wimbledon is a well-lawyered private members’ club that prepares its defense against such charges.
PURPOSE OF SANCTIONS
The invasion of Ukraine is clearly so brazen and consequential that there are few realms of modern life where these questions do not arise. As with all sanctions and cancellations, the question must be: To what end?
Forget deterrence, obviously. Putin is not going to change his military plan on the off chance that a Center Court audience can see world No. 2 Daniil Medvedev — who has never made it past the fourth round there — square off against Djokovic.
There is, of course, the argument that it would be unfair to Ukrainian players to have to compete against Russians given what their country is suffering. Yet that can happen at other tournaments, and where to draw those lines is a road to endless “whataboutery.” Israel has been on the receiving end of a lot of that over the years.
A somewhat better argument in favor of the ban — and the one implied in the club’s statement — is that it denies Putin a vicarious victory. In theory, sport and politics should be separate spheres. In reality, because humans identify so strongly with sporting competition and achievement, they have always been intertwined.
French President Emmanuel Macron sat in the VIP box with Putin to celebrate France’s 2018 soccer World Cup victory. Boris Johnson’s career got a major boost as London mayor when he presided over the 2012 Olympics, and he was quick to hitch his wagon to the Emma Raducanu fairy tale when the British player won the US Open last year.
Let’s face it, no political leader has elided sporting prowess and national greatness more overtly than Putin, a judo blackbelt whose own shirtless images are carefully crafted to push his narrative of past and future Russian greatness.
Putin has invested heavily in sports, hosting numerous major events, such as the lavishly financed 2018 FIFA World Cup and the 2014 Sochi winter Olympics — whose official media guides said: “The sleeping giant of Russia is awakened, ready for change and growth.”
Wimbledon wants none of that. Even the remote prospect of Putin beaming with pride from the Kremlin as the Duchess of Cambridge congratulates Medvedev on his victory, on Wimbledon’s centenary no less, would be a public-relations nightmare for the venerable club.
Yet the Kremlin has used the decision to reinforce its narrative that NATO and the West discriminate unfairly against Russians. Banning Russian players, therefore, has the perverse effect of helping Putin push his message of Russia alone against a hostile world, but only because the Kremlin twists everything to match its message.
The ban also — quite deliberately — reduces the chances of war-related headlines around the tournament, but who does that serve?
It is also a ban on the powerful symbolism of a Russian-Ukrainian doubles act, or the prospect of Russian or Belarusian players using the global platform they would have at the event to send a message to Putin or fellow Russians and Belarusians at home to oppose the war.
While it is hardly the job of the tournament to facilitate such things, it is not quite right to say the ban is wholly about denying Putin the satisfaction, as it also reduces his risk that he would be called out by Russian players on a global stage.
QUESTION OF FAIRNESS
Navratilova has a point in drawing a distinction between team and individual sports, and questioning the fairness of the measure. National teams play under a flag. Sports with state-led development programs that select and groom players from a very young age, as is the case with gymnastics or figure skating, are also flag-bearers even where they feature individuals competitors.
Apart from Davis and Billie Jean King (formerly known as the Fed) cup national team competitions, tennis is a fiercely individual sport in which nationality plays a limited role.
In apartheid-era South Africa, many sports faced bans and boycotts, but its tennis players were largely free to compete around the world. Johan Kriek won the Australian Open in 1981 and 1982, and Kevin Curren made it to the Wimbledon final in 1985. Both men took US citizenship, which enabled them to avoid the apartheid bans.
Citizenship does not neatly overlap with national identity in tennis, partly because great players need to be around clusters of other great players when they are developing. Russians are ubiquitous at Spanish and US tennis academies. The retired star Maria Sharapova moved to the US when she was seven, but represented Russia in the 2012 Olympics. Similarly, many Russians cheer German-born Alexander Zverev as one of their own because his parents were Soviet-era Russian tennis players.
Or take Andrey Rublev, another top-10 ranked men’s player who was born in Russia and honed his game in Spain. His mother coached at the famous Spartak Tennis Club that has produced so many strong Russian players, and was awarded the Russian Medal of the Order for “Merit to the Fatherland” in 2009.
Rublev was the first Russian player to speak out against the war. After his semifinal win in Dubai, he used a marker to write on a television camera lens: “No war please.”
He also made a statement by pairing with Ukrainian Denys Molchanov to win the doubles title.
To mention these individual cases highlights Wimbledon’s dilemma. Either the club makes individual decisions based on the circumstances of the player (much the way banks conduct know-your-customer due diligence for compliance purposes), or it enacts a blanket ban on any player with a Russian passport.
That is the route favored by retired Ukrainian player Alexandr Dolgopolov, who says all Russians should be held accountable in some way.
An arguably bigger hit to Putin, a massive hockey fan, would be the expulsion of the 55 Russian players active in the National Hockey League, as legendary Czech goaltender Dominik Hasek has advocated.
However, while the league has suspended its ties with Russian businesses and its Russian-language social media accounts, it has not gone that far. As with the All England club, these decisions tend to be foremost about commercial and narrow reputational risk management.
Two years ago, Wimbledon had reason to feel smug during a time of maximum uncertainty. It held pandemic insurance and was indemnified against an event that took pretty much every other organization by surprise.
The decision to ban Russian and Belarusian players from this year’s championship is another insurance policy of sorts. However, while it ensures that the drama stays on court, it is an unsatisfying answer to the question of how far to punish ordinary — and even extraordinary — Russians for Putin’s crimes.
Therese Raphael is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion and is a former editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal Europe.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS