Sports diplomacy is the use of international sporting events as a tool for achieving broader policy objectives. There is a timeless and near universal appreciation for sports, and humanity’s natural affinity for the competition and camaraderie of sporting creates unique opportunities that other activities do not. Those opportunities are what governments seek to leverage.
This was evident in March 2024 when the Japanese and North Korean national football teams were scheduled to play two World Cup Qualifiers: one in Tokyo and the other in Pyongyang. The latter would have been the first match for the Japanese men’s team in North Korea since 2011, as well as the first substantive visit by a Japanese delegation to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since before the COVID pandemic. With the two governments already sending signals back-and-forth on potential political-level engagement, there seemed to be hope that they could capitalize on the opportunity that the international sporting event presented, evidenced by the Japanese government’s plan to send over a dozen officials with the delegation.
The Japanese and North Korean men’s football teams play their World Cup qualifier in Tokyo, March 2024 (photo via Kyodo)
This hope fell through as North Korea rescinded its invitation to host the match at the last minute. The DPRK government cited medical concerns as the reason for the short notice snub, but there were almost certainly geopolitical considerations related to the prospect of hosting its neighbors for the first time in over a decade.
The failure of sports diplomacy in this instance invited important questions about the utility of this form of engagement. Can governments actually leverage sports diplomacy effectively? Are there greater risks than rewards? Should politics be removed from international sporting altogether?
There are certainly negative aspects of sports in international relations. This is particularly true when it legitimizes problematic governments—a condition sometimes referred to as “sportswashing.” It is also troubling when participation in international sporting events allows bad actors to enjoy the benefits of being part of a community of nations even as they flout the rules inherent to that community. Perhaps the starkest example of this was the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, when Adolf Hitler leveraged the Summer Games in an attempt to tout Germany's growing strength, to normalize the Nazi party, and to advance the Third Reich’s antisemitic ideologies. More recently, we can look at Russia’s attempts to retain its status and participation in international sports despite its ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine.
The 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin (photo via Wikimedia commons)
There is also the problem that participation in international sports creates opportunities for governments to circumvent sanctions. Simply put, it opens channels for exchange of money and other goods that could undermine the international community’s efforts to curb illicit behavior by certain actors.
So, if there are definite downsides to international engagement through sport, is there any utility to it?
One former Japanese politician fundamentally believed so. When pro wrestler-turned-businessman Antonio Inoki decided to enter politics, he created his own party called the “Sports and Peace Party.” Its fundamental platform was that Japan should employ sports in its foreign policy to improve peaceful engagement with other countries, especially adversarial ones.
Inoki put this concept to the test in Iraq in 1990 after the Saddam Hussein regime invaded Kuwait and forcibly moved resident foreigners (including 245 Japanese citizens) to Baghdad. The Japanese government worked to negotiate the release of the de facto hostages, but in a separate line of effort, Inoki made multiple personal trips to Iraq to seek alternative means of gaining their release. Through those engagements, he organized a two-day sports and music festival in the Iraqi capital in early December 1990. This opened a window for the Saddam Hussein government to approve the release of 41 Japanese citizens upon the conclusion of the event. Soon after, the Iraqi government allowed the rest to return home as well.
(Left) Japanese pro wrestler-turned-politician Antonio Inoki meets with Iraqi officials; (right) Inoki celebrates with the 41 Japanese citizens released from Baghdad (photo via X: @jijicom)
This case demonstrated how sports diplomacy can work in concert with broader government efforts to achieve meaningful effects. Inoki’s efforts did so by creating opportunities for contact, giving the Japan side a bargaining chip that otherwise would not have existed, and creating an off-ramp to further escalation vis-á-vis the hostage situation. This was representative of three core benefits of sports diplomacy.
Establishing contact between adversarial parties can be difficult. This is because there are typically practical and political barriers to engagement. Politically, dialogue can appear overly conciliatory, which discourages parties in tension from pursuing engagement. Practically, there may not be venues or opportunities available to bring relevant officials together to discuss important issues between the two sides. This is where sports diplomacy is helpful, because it creates opportunities for either formal or backchannel dialogue.
An example of this came in 2018 on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea was set to host the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang that February. For the two years prior, tensions had been mounting between the two sides, leading some to believe that militarized conflict was inevitable. However, in his 2018 New Year’s address, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un instead made the suggestion that the two Koreas should leverage the forthcoming Olympics as an opportunity to meet:
As for the Winter Olympic Games to be held soon in south [sic] Korea, it will serve as a good occasion for demonstrating our nation’s prestige and we earnestly wish the Olympic Games a success. From this point of view we are willing to dispatch our delegation and adopt other necessary measures; with regard to this matter, the authorities of the north and the south may meet together soon.
Sure enough, the DPRK and Republic of Korea governments capitalized on this signaled willingness to engage, kicking off intergovernmental contact and initiating a period of rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula.
President Moon Jae-in of South Korea shakes hands with Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, at the Pyeongchang Olympics, February 2018 (photo via the Blue House of the Republic of Korea)
Sports diplomacy can also present a bargaining chip for governments. In any negotiation, the parties involved can try to achieve their desired outcomes by claiming value (signaling or imposing costs; i.e., coercion) or by creating value (promising or delivering benefits; i.e., incentives). The benefits associated with organizing or executing sporting events offer another potential incentive for use in intergovernmental bargaining. When there are few other chips available, this can make a significant difference in affecting positive outcomes.
Another meaningful effect of sports diplomacy is serving as an off-ramp to escalation. In one way, sports can channel competition into non-violent contests. In another, participation in such events may present justification for de-escalation of tensions or a pause in hostilities. The “Olympic Truce” is an operative example of this, where warring parties may adopt a temporary ceasefire for the duration of the games. While this may only be for a couple of weeks, that gives diplomats and decision makers time and maneuver space to pursue more lasting solutions.
Finally, although it was not evident in the Japan-Iraq example, there is one last benefit of sports diplomacy: interpersonal exchanges. International sporting events create opportunities for person-to-person contact between athletes, coaches, administrators, and fans. While this is not enough to eliminate practical sources of conflict and tension (e.g., territorial disputes), it can erode the political or emotional ones. These one-off interactions may eventually give way to routine engagement, fostering ties and linkages that can contribute to rapprochement and confidence building over time.
None of these effects are enough by themselves to change the course of international relations. Sports diplomacy must be done in concert with other deliberate diplomatic, military, and economic efforts to reduce tensions and mitigate the risk of crisis and conflict. Governments must also consider the potential negative effects to ensure that they are not inadvertently reinforcing illicit behaviors in ways that have secondary and third order impacts on peace and stability. However, if wielded correctly, there are clear examples of how sports diplomacy can be a game changer in international affairs.
Comentários