Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Google Bard seen on Google blog post with Google logo on mobile, in Brussels, Belgium.
What We're Watching: Bard bot, Nigerian election heats up, Tibetan kids pulled away
Google's Bard vs. ChatGPT
Google has soft-launched Bard, the tech giant's answer to OpenAI's uber-popular ChatGPT artificial intelligence chatbot. Why should you care? Well, Google says that Bard will "outsmart" ChatGPT, a service that has taken the world by storm since it became a thing in late 2022 and is now backed by Microsoft. But how? Bard will be up to date on current events — giving it a leg up over ChatGPT, which is stuck in 2021. Also, Bard will run on something called Language Model for Dialogue Applications or LaMDA, which is so advanced that last year Google fired an engineer who declared that LaMDA was "sentient" because it could mimic human emotions. This is where it gets tricky, since theoretically this type of AI could be used to make deepfake videos virtually indistinguishable from real ones. And that, in turn, might someday unleash political mayhem befitting a "Black Mirror" episode. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. So far, access to Bard is by invite only, and Google likely has guardrails in place to ensure its new AI platform doesn't become too smart for its own good.
Nigeria nears decision day
Some people simply refuse to take no for an answer. Atiku Abubakar, known widely by his first name, is now making his sixth run for president of Nigeria in an election set for February 25. Atiku did serve as vice president under Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007, but the now 76-year-old candidate is making a determined run to finally win the top job. He should be careful what he wishes for. Nigeria’s next president will wrestle with a COVID-damaged economy that’s still recovering from two recessions in five years and the ongoing security challenges posed by terrorist group Boko Haram in the country’s north, secessionists in the southeast, and well-armed criminal gangs in multiple regions. His campaign presents him as a “unifier,” not an easy sell in a country polarized along regional and religious lines. Still, he might actually win this time. His main opponents are the favorite, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who represents the currently unpopular ruling party of outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari, and a compelling outsider, Peter Obi, who doesn’t have a well-organized party behind him with local officials to help get out the vote.
China is separating Tibetan children from families
Over 1 million ethnic Tibetan children are being forcibly separated from their families and placed in residential schools in China’s bid to assimilate them into the majority Han culture, according to UN experts. The youngsters only visit home for one or two weeks a year, and because they have not practised their native tongue, many struggle to communicate with their parents. This is the latest example of the Tibetan way of life coming increasingly under threat as part of the systematic “ideological education” policies targeting Chinese minorities under Xi Jinping. Chinese officials insist they are determined to promote ethnic culture, but Tibetan monks and nuns are also dispatched to “transformation through education” facilities, where they endure reported sexual abuse and torture — much like Uighurs suffer in reeducation camps in the northwestern Xinjiang region. The “Land of Snows” has long endured repression since China, but resistance there to the ruling Communist Party — which last erupted into a failed uprising in 2008 — is likely to be further blunted by increased state surveillance, including phone hacking, spying on villages, and even DNA collection.
COVID protests spread in China
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: My goodness, speaking of kicking off your week, all across China, demonstrations of the sort that we have certainly not seen under Xi Jinping rule about COVID, about zero COVID, and the loss of liberties that Chinese citizens have faced, but also increasingly moving towards demands for free speech and open media, and even Xi Jinping's removal, certainly unprecedented in this country in the last decade. Xi now, of course, on his third term, having removed term limits, consolidated extraordinary power, but some people really aren't happy about it.
What's going on here? Well, first of all, the proximate cause, the spark that set this all off was an apartment building fire in Xinjiang, where the firefighters were not able to adequately respond because of COVID quarantine measures. So, they couldn't get hoses to actually fight the fire because they weren't allowed in, they didn't have the keys, it was locked down. And as a consequence, a lot of Chinese citizens died. That led to demonstrations all over the country, ostensibly in solidarity with this incredibly poor mistake on the part of local Chinese leaders in Xinjiang, but also really increasingly frustrated with the fact that zero COVID in China has been an incredible disruption to daily life for hundreds of millions of Chinese.
You get one case and suddenly you can lock down your entire apartment block. You were in contact with somebody who was in contact with someone that was positive and so much for your ability to get into a workplace or a restaurant. And these apps which monitor your every move, and unless you're green, you are not going anywhere as a Chinese citizen. And they're testing you across the country every two days. And they're watching while the rest of the world and the World Cup, for example, is all out and they're celebrating and they're in post-COVID life. And that's not the case in China at all.
Very interesting to see that the classes of people that are angry here are across the map. You've got students in universities across the country. You've got workers in factories that have been locked down, that are stuck in the dormitories or stuck in their places of work for weeks on end. You've got members of the middle-class in shopping malls in higher end locations. The urban intelligentsia in Shanghai, which led to some of the first significant outcry after their quarantines and lockdowns were fairly badly handled. And of course, as the wealthiest city in China, very educated city in China, the feeling was, well, how can our government get this wrong? We're the ones that are supposed to do everything right. Well, not at all.
Now, it's important to recognize that we're not talking about scenes that are violent. There have been a number of arrests, but nothing like significant repression on the part of the Chinese police forces or army so far, which means that the Chinese government is allowing this to play out at least over the course of the weekend. And I do expect that some of the response from the Chinese government will be an admission that zero COVID measures have not been effectively rolled out across the entire country that have not been equivalently rolled out across the entire country. By the way, that is true. And a number of local and regional officials will be forced to fall on their sword will be removed, some will be arrested, corruption, incompetence, I mean, we've certainly seen that movie before in China. And there's a lot that Xi Jinping can do in response to that as well as cracking down to a harder degree at the same time that would take a lot of these people off the streets.
So this is not a threat to Xi Jinping's regime or his rule. And if we look back to 1989, in the months leading up to the Tiananmen Square massacre, demonstrations and massacre, you would've seen millions of people demonstrating across the country in cities everywhere. That is nothing remotely like what we're seeing right now.
But the key point here is that Xi Jinping's ability to respond to changing zero COVID is limited. There are record numbers of cases in China, nothing like what we see in the United States, but far greater than China has seen since the beginning of COVID outbreaks a couple of years ago. And a lot of Chinese are not vaccinated, and those that are, most of them were vaccinated a couple of years ago. Particularly when we look at older populations that are very vulnerable. China's own vaccines have been very limited in efficacy, less so than mRNA vaccines in the West. They're not willing to approve mRNA vaccines from the West. And while they have gone faster with approvals for therapeutics in response to COVID, they still don't have distribution taken care of on the ground in China. And so they don't have the widespread therapeutics that exist in the West either. So they're still at a minimum months away from meaningful reductions and relaxations of zero COVID policy in China. And that means that Xi Jinping's ability to truly address the anger that we're seeing on the streets is going to be mostly about stick, it's not about carrot.
Now, of course, with the surveillance state that China presently runs, they have the capacity to do that in a way that really no other state at scale can. But that does imply more violence. It does imply more repression. It also implies, and this is critical, longer reduced economic growth, bigger disruptions in supply chain. It's very interesting right now, I saw oil prices are basically trading at the top of their pre-Russian invasion range. Why? Because of expectations that zero COVID is going to be a bigger economic problem for longer. I think that's absolutely right, that the Chinese are going to have to deal with lower quality and lower realities of growth through 2023 at an absolute minimum.
Another thing I'd mention is that during Xi Jinping's private bilaterals at the G-20 in Bali, just a week and a half ago, he wasn't bringing up zero COVID at all. It didn't show up in those conversations unless he was proactively asked about it. In part, maybe because at the time he didn't think it was a crisis, certainly wasn't planning on making any significant announcements anytime soon. I think that's where we are right now.
So they're stuck, they're in a corner. This isn't major instability, but it's absolutely bearing watching out and certainly will have a major impact on the global economy in 2023. That's it for me. Hope everyone's well, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman fist bumps US President Joe Biden in Jeddah.
What We're Watching: Biden-MBS fist bump, Xi in Xinjiang, Kenya-Somalia thaw
Biden’s Saudi trip fallout
Engagement with would-be pariahs may cost you politically, but it's necessary for the national interest. Over the weekend, US President Joe Biden got panned — mostly by fellow Democrats — for fist-bumping with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, aka MBS, during Biden's controversial Middle East trip. (The CIA believes MBS ordered the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Kashoggi.) Still, the White House said the president returned from the region with some important agreements, such as progress on ending the war in Yemen or making a joint pledge with Israel to stop Iran from getting nukes. But did he really achieve much else? Riyadh announced that it'll increase oil production, but not enough to tame rising gas prices and inflation in America before the November midterms. The Saudis are also nowhere near joining the Abraham Accords, and peace between Israel and the Palestinians remains as elusive as it was under Biden's predecessors. So, why go at all then? The short answer is: as long as the US wants to continue being a player in the Middle East, you simply can't afford to ignore the Saudis, or MBS himself.
Xi Jinping "inspects" Xinjiang
China's President Xi Jinping wrapped up a surprise visit to Xinjiang on Friday, his first in eight years, in a bid to demonstrate national unity in a region where Beijing has been accused of systematically violating the human rights of the Uyghur ethnic minority. Xi reaffirmed his commitment "to the correct and Chinese way to address ethnic issues" in Xinjiang. Although the one million Uyghurs who human rights groups say China has put in internment camps there may beg to differ, Xi clearly has no intention of changing tack in Xinjiang. Still, the visit is relevant for two reasons. First, it had been two weeks since Xi was seen in public following his trip to Hong Kong – his first trip outside mainland China since 2019 – to mark the 25th anniversary of the city’s handover (rumors swirled about him possibly catching COVID from a lawmaker who tested positive after meeting Xi there). Second, Xi seems to be making a big splash to show off his accomplishments in China's most restive regions as he prepares to secure a norm-defying third term as head of the ruling Communist Party in November. Will Tibet be his next destination?
Kenya and Somalia patching things up
Frenemy neighbors Kenya and Somalia took a big step toward warmer ties on Friday, by signing a slew of cooperation deals during Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's first visit to Nairobi since being elected in May. Mohamud and Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta agreed to reopen the border, resume flights between the two countries, and lift a ban on trading khat, a mild stimulant that’s one of Somalia’s few exports. The two sides have been at odds for years over a bunch of issues. Kenya complains that Somalia doesn't do enough to stop al-Shabab militants from carrying out deadly attacks across the border, and has threatened to shut down Somali refugee camps in response. For their part, the Somalis resent Kenya for hosting the leader of Somaliland, a breakaway region whose independence is not recognized by Mogadishu. The relationship further deteriorated last October, when the UN's top court ruled in favor of Somalia in its long-running maritime border dispute with Kenya over an Indian Ocean triangle region presumably rich in offshore oil and natural gas. Still, the current déténte could be scrapped by whoever wins the presidential election to replace the outgoing Kenyatta on Aug. 9.Chinese President Xi Jinping meet via video link with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet.
Did the UN accomplish anything in Xinjiang?
When human rights are abused around the world, the UN playbook calls for its envoy to visit that country to assess the situation on the ground and then decide whether the allegations merit a full-scale probe. But what if you knew beforehand that you wouldn't see anything you shouldn’t and that your trip would likely benefit the authoritarian government allegedly responsible for atrocities?
That's perhaps how UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet felt Saturday after wrapping up a much-anticipated visit to China’s northwestern Xinjiang region. Beijing has long been accused of subjecting over a million ethnic Uyghurs there to both classic violations, such as warrantless detention, torture, sexual assault, and separation from their families, as well as more Orwellian surveillance, forced labor, and internment in re-education camps.
So why go at all?
Beijing, as expected, choreographed Bachelet's tour — the first time a UN human rights chief has been allowed inside China since 2005 — to whitewash China’s human-rights record in Xinjiang. Her itinerary was kept under wraps, and she traveled without reporters. Even the build-up to the visit was marred by compromise: Bachelet’s office delayed without explanation a major Xinjiang report it was due to release last year, despite announcing it would be "deeply disturbing."
What’s more, Bachelet only spent two days out of six on the ground in Xinjiang. There she met top officials, visited a prison, and toured an “experimental” school. Most controversially, and in language echoing China’s, she said she checked out a former Vocational Education and Training Center, part of a contentious program in which China has been accused of using forced labor and indoctrination.
Bachelet said that while she couldn’t fully assess the notorious program, Beijing had reassured her that it had been shut down (previously, China had denied the existence of the program altogether).
What Bachelet saw in China and how much access she got in Xinjiang has been a major source of controversy. She had called for unfettered access, but her tour was restricted to a “closed loop” within a limited “bubble” due to what Beijing cited as COVID restrictions. Setting the political agenda beforehand, Beijing insisted that the purpose of the visit be “friendly,” not investigative.
“This visit was not an investigation,” Bachelet admitted Saturday. But she stressed the importance of engaging with senior officials and discussing human rights to pave a road to help China fulfill “its obligations under international human rights law” in the future.
The US, of course, strongly criticized the tour. Even before Bachelet left China, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Beijing had managed to “restrict and manipulate” the visit, preventing Bachelet from making an independent assessment of the human rights situation in Xinjiang. He also lamented that she was neither able to garner any information about hundreds of missing Uyghurs nor meet any affected families or anyone who had been through China’s alleged labor transfer program.
Human rights groups, for their part, argue that the trip has done wonders for Beijing but accomplished little for anyone else.
Bachelet “could have strengthened her hand by releasing her office's long-awaited report on Xinjiang. She could have postponed the visit rather than accept significant constraints on it,” says Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, noting her skepticism that the trip will do anything to end human rights violations in China.
The trip was a wasted opportunity for the UN, says Mehmet Tothi, an activist with the Canada-based Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project.
“There was no unfettered or meaningful access to any places deemed sensitive by China. So it was open for manipulation, and she became a propaganda tool for China,” he says. “In a sense, this trip simply woke the Western media up to the stark reality that China is a major power at the UN these days.”
The thing is, they already know that in New York and Geneva, where China’s influence has been expanding rapidly over the last decade, according to Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group.
“It is a bit fanciful to imagine that any UN official, even a human rights official, would now go to Beijing to read Xi Jinping the riot act over his internal security policies,” Gowan says. “It is depressing on a moral plane, but politically predictable.”
Finally, Bachelet’s cautionary approach to China runs contrary to her track record. The former Chilean president, considered a fierce human rights defender, has been remarkably outspoken against abuses — from racism in the US and Russian aggression in Ukraine to the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians — but there's been barely a peep on China since she assumed office in 2018. She called out Beijing’s tough policies for Hong Kong but, until recently, never issued an official statement on Xinjiang or even on Tibet.
It’s puzzling that someone who was imprisoned by Pinochet and fled Chile in the 1970s — and knows what it means to struggle under a cruel dictatorship — said nothing about Xinjiang in her recent lecture to Chinese students about human rights in Guangzhou. Before last week’s trip, Bachelet defended herself, saying that she is a “grown woman” who is “able to read between the lines” and that the priority was to engage directly with China on human rights.
Still, getting Beijing to acknowledge its detention program and discuss its rollback is a win for Bachelet, as is having direct discussions with Chinese officials about stuff they’d rather not talk about — especially with a pesky foreigner.
“It’s imperative that the high commissioner be seen to be engaging with the government of China,” Philip Alston, a New York University professor and former UN human rights official, told a webinar last Friday. “The mere fact that she had a direct exchange with President Xi Jinping is an accomplishment.”
Bejing, for its part, bullishly defended its actions, with Xi telling Bachelet that China's handling of human rights “suits its own national conditions” and that following international institutional norms would be “deviating from reality.”
Also, no probe now doesn’t mean no probe later. Richardson remains hopeful that Bachelet will still commit to investigating and prosecuting China’s alleged crimes: “A failure to do so would reflect Beijing's ability to render international human rights institutions utterly toothless.”
But nobody’s holding their breath for a full-blown investigation. Many fear that Bachelet — a contender for the top UN job — has put the world body in a tight spot by agreeing to visit Xinjiang on Beijing’s terms. This risks damaging the standing of her office and further hurting the reputation of the UN, which has been marred by decades of ineffective diplomacy to fix the world’s problems.
While Bachelet’s tour was likely doomed before it began, engaging China and securing marginal assurances from Beijing is a start to address the highly sensitive issue of Xinjiang. And diplomacy is a task that the UN is a lot more suited to execute than investigation.
But the UN can only knock on Beijing’s door. It’s the larger community of powerful international players, such as the G7, who must organize and force a rethink in Beijing.
This comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media. Subscribe for your free daily Signal today.
People react after the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
What We're Watching: Texas mourns, Boris caught red-handed, lethal weapons sent to Ukraine, China’s human rights abuses leaked
Will Texas school shooting move the needle on US guns debate?
Another mass shooting has rocked America, leaving 21 dead (19 of them children) at an elementary school in Texas on Tuesday — the second-worst school massacre in US history after Sandy Hook almost a decade ago. “When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?” President Joe Biden said in a nationwide address. “Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?” For one thing, stricter gun laws are vehemently opposed by most Republicans: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz controversially responded to the tragedy by calling for more armed law enforcement at schools. For another, 2nd Amendment die-hards like the National Rifle Association have deep pockets to fight legislation and fund campaigns (Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and former President Donald Trump are all slated to speak Friday at the NRA's annual conference in Houston). If a bipartisan gun bill failed to pass in 2013 in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, the odds are even longer now because US politics is even more polarized and we're less than six months out from the November midterms.
Booze might bring down Boris
Will a toast burn down Boris Johnson’s premiership? The British PM has long denied that he broke any of his country’s strict pandemic lockdown rules, but now photos have emerged of a party at his residence on November 13, 2020, in which Johnson is holding up a glass of what looks like booze near a table spread with wine and food. The timing could prove disastrous for Johnson: the photos dropped just a day before the planned release of the Gray Report, an official investigation of the so-called “partygate” scandal. PMs who knowingly mislead Parliament are expected to resign, though there’s no guarantee that Johnson will concede to any wrongdoing of that sort. His supporters say he didn’t knowingly lie. Once Sue Gray publishes her report, Johnson will again address parliament on the matter, Downing Street says.
The West’s lethal weapons arrive in Ukraine
The US and Europe are playing an increasingly active role in Ukraine’s defense against Russia. They’ve imposed historically harsh sanctions against the Russian economy, announced higher spending on defense, and moved to ease trade dependence on Russia. They are also sending increasingly potent weapons to Ukrainian fighters for use against Russian forces. This was the focus of a Monday meeting at the Pentagon of the “Ukraine Contact Group,” a bloc of countries committed to helping Ukraine. After a briefing from Ukraine’s defense minister, more than 20 countries pledged to deliver new “security assistance packages.” The Czech Republic promised attack helicopters, tanks, and rocket systems. Denmark is offering anti-ship Harpoon missiles that might help push back the Russian navy from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, potentially easing the flow of grain exports. Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland, and others are also contributing. There are reports that the US has provided powerful artillery for use in the Donbas, the scene of Ukraine’s fiercest fighting and a place where long-range firepower is invaluable. Ukrainian forces have sustained heavy losses, and it will take weeks to train Ukrainian soldiers to make the best use of these weapons. But as Russia’s Donbas offensive grinds slowly forward, its forces may find additional gains are more costly this summer, and that seized territory may become harder to defend. The Contact Group is scheduled to meet next in Brussels on June 15.
The many faces of China’s human rights abuses
The world has known for years that the Chinese government’s “re-education” and “counter-terrorism” programs in the Xinjiang region involve widespread human rights abuses against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim ethnic groups who live there. Now we can see the faces of Beijing’s victims — thousands of them. The BBC has published an archive of local police photos taken in 2018. The release of the archive, which was evidently hacked, coincides with a weeklong visit to China by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, the first trip to the country by the UN’s highest-ranking human rights official since 2005. While her visit is an opportunity to place fresh pressure on Beijing, critics worry that China might take the opportunity to whitewash its abuses (history buffs may recall the trick Nazi Germany played on the Red Cross in 1944). The release of the photo archive could also ripple into the US-China relationship, making it harder for US President Joe Biden to move ahead with any plans to lift Trump-era tariffs on certain Chinese goods in order to tamp down inflation.
Activists take part in a protest against China's treatment towards the ethnic Uyghur people and calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, at a park Jakarta, Indonesia, January 4, 2022.
What We’re Watching: Xinjiang at the Beijing Olympics, Boris in deep(er) trouble, Indonesia’s new capital
Selling Xinjiang. Xi Jinping — a man well known for both his grand vision of China’s future, and for his willingness to get large numbers of people to do things they might not otherwise do — said in 2018 that he wanted 300 million Chinese people to participate in winter sports. The Chinese government announced this week that this goal has been met in honor of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games, which open in China’s capital on February 4. Multinational companies are consistently impressed by the commercial opportunities created when 300 million people decide to try new things. But it’s an inconvenient truth that most of China’s most abundant snow and best ski slopes are found in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, a place where Western governments and human rights organizations have accused Beijing of imprisoning more than one million minority Uyghurs in re-education camps. In these prisons, critics say inmates have experienced “torture, and inhumane and degrading treatment.” As China’s government opens new profit opportunities in Xinjiang, multinational corporations will face pressure from multiple directions not to invest there.
Boris at the battlements. “In the name of God, go,” Conservative lawmaker David Davis said on Tuesday during an especially heated session of the UK parliament. These words, once directed at former PM Neville Chamberlain over his inept handling of Adolph Hitler, were this week aimed at the current prime minister, Boris Johnson. Now comes news that a dozen other of Johnson’s fellow Tories have sent letters calling for a vote of confidence in him as party leader. That’s a sign we might see the 54 letters needed to trigger that vote in coming weeks. Johnson’s approval numbers speak for themselves: the latest polls show that just 22 percent of British adults say he’s doing “well” as prime minister, while 73 percent say Johnson is performing “badly.” As we’ve written, his problem is not only, or even mainly, that he attends parties he shouldn’t. It’s that controversies over pandemic policies, the (rising) cost of living in the UK, and lingering Brexit bitterness have given rivals within his party who have never much liked him plentiful ammunition to complete his political execution.
Goodbye Jakarta, hello Nusantara. Indonesia passed a new law on Tuesday authorizing the government to relocate the capital from Jakarta to a new city to be built on Borneo island in about a decade. It will be called Nusantara, the old Javanese word for "archipelago.” President Joko Widodo wants to ditch Jakarta because the current capital is too congested, polluted, and flood-prone. But building an entire capital city from scratch in the middle of the jungle — as Brazil and Myanmar have done in past decades — will be no easy feat. First, the government must raise most of the $32 billion budget from private investors. Second, environmental groups oppose destroying precious rainforests that are home to many endangered species. Third, the president’s successor could shelve the entire project. Widodo, who is term-limited, aims for Nusantara to become a low-carbon business & tech hub that will promote sustainable economic growth beyond the main island of Java, where most Indonesians live. Whether that will take the expected 10 years, much longer, or happens at all will depend on the country’s next leader.
Would athletes be exempt from a Beijing 2022 Olympics boycott?
Will Western nations boycott next year's Beijing Winter Olympics over China's human rights abuses in Xinjiang? Probably not, says the International Olympic Committee's Dick Pound. But some countries, he anticipates, may opt to only send their athletes — like his native Canada, which has a lot of diplomatic issues with the Chinese. Pound, a former Olympian athlete himself, spoke in an interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Politics, protest & the Olympics: the IOC's Dick Pound
- Will the US and other Western countries really boycott the Beijing ... ›
- What We're Watching: US Olympic boycott threat, Myanmar junta ... ›
- How political sports boycotts (really) work - GZERO Media ›
- Should the US boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games? - GZERO ... ›
- Peng Shuai, China's tennis star, appears safe but questions remain - GZERO Media ›
How political sports boycotts (really) work
In recent days, America's pastime has become deeply embroiled in America's politics. US Major League Baseball pulled its annual All-Star Game (an annual friendly matchup of the sport's best players at every position) out of Atlanta to protest the Georgia state legislature's recent passage of restrictive new voting laws.
Just a week into baseball season, the move is a big deal in the US. But more broadly, it's the latest in a series of increasingly high-stakes sports decisions around the world that have a lot to do with politics.
China under the spotlight. Human right groups outraged by China's genocide in Xinjiang are putting pressure on Western governments and corporate sponsors to withdraw from the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. At the same time, Chinese sports fans have turned on Nike — which makes the kits for China's national football and basketball teams — for expressing "concern" over allegations of forced labor in Xinjiang's cotton industry.
Meanwhile, European football (soccer) players have defied a FIFA ban on political statements in order to join a growing chorus of protest over the rampant mistreatment of migrant workers in Qatar, which is set to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. (Some 6,500 migrant laborers building the stadiums have died in the decade since the gas-rich Gulf kingdom was awarded the tournament under fishy circumstances.)
But what these boycotts actually intend to achieve is probably not what you think. All of these major sports events — watched by hundreds of millions of fans across the world and which draw in billions of dollars from corporate sponsorships — will surely take place as scheduled.
The odds of Georgia expanding voting rights for minorities to get back the All-Star Game in Atlanta are as slim as those of China admitting it holds Uighurs in mass internment camps and uses them as modern-day slaves to pick cotton to ensure all nations attend the Olympics. Interestingly, Qatar caved somewhat by promising long-overdue reforms to improve the conditions of migrant workers.
That's because sports boycotts are not usually designed to reverse the policies they are opposing. But they can be quite effective in achieving other outcomes.
First, their unique combination of cultural and economic power make sports an outsize arena for political disputes to play out.
The MLB's decision to drop Atlanta is less about weighing on the latest US political culture war than taking a stand on not further restricting voting rights, which most Americans support. It also follows the tournament organizer's own efforts in recent years to attract younger, more racially diverse fans.
Second, boycotts raise the cost of pursuing certain policies. While the specter of Western countries pulling out of Beijing 2022 may not be enough for China to reverse course on Xinjiang, a mass withdrawal of corporate sponsors could lead Beijing to lose billions of dollars in revenue from the games.
However, the domestic boycott against Nike is being led by Chinese celebrities and consumers who want the American brand to stop talking about the Uighurs. This puts Nike into an impossible position in China: on the one hand it risks a backlash from its Western clients if it doesn't speak out (which is what the NBA did when it kowtowed to China regarding Hong Kong's democracy protests in 2019), and on the other hand it can lose a lot of business in China if it does.
To further complicate things, China is also in a tough spot: stoking nationalist sentiments by unilaterally terminating these agreements would be immensely expensive. And all of this is going to get worse as US-China relations continue to deteriorate.
Third, boycotts are a great way to draw wider attention to problems that boycotts alone won't solve.
In the 1960s, bans on white-only sports teams in international tournaments, including the Olympics, helped rally public opinion against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Today, with many sports superstars among the world's top influencers on social media, it's a lot easier for them to raise awareness about any issue, and reach a wider audience.
But wading into political minefields in the current highly polarized environment can also be immensely risky for athletes, sports leagues and governments if they make the wrong call. Just ask Colin Kaepernick.
- Will the US and other Western countries really boycott the Beijing Olympics? - GZERO Media ›
- How should athletes protest at the Olympics? - GZERO Media ›
- Politics, protest & the Olympics: the IOC’s Dick Pound - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The IOC's Dick Pound on how sports and politics should mix - GZERO Media ›
- Aaron Rodgers takes "Cheesehead" literally | Ian Bremmer - GZERO Media ›
- Can sports fans save America? - GZERO Media ›
- Would athletes be exempt from a Beijing 2022 Olympics boycott? - GZERO Media ›
- Should the US boycott the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games? - GZERO Media ›
- The dangers of sportswashing for the Olympics - GZERO Media ›