The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced it will create its own internal human rights unit as it finalises a number of policies aiming to address issues “within the scope of its responsibility”.
In a statement, the IOC said its framework would, among other things, “ensure fairness, safety and non-discrimination of athletes on the basis of gender identity and sex characteristics”.
Olympic sports World Rugby and World Athletics have both adopted exclusionary positions against transgender and intersex athletes and may require further clarification from the IOC.
Nobody yet knows how the IOC plans to use the policy or what significant difference it expects to make.
It comes at a delicate time though with China challenging superpowers — and not-so-superpowers — both economically and politically.
Given the IOC’s reluctance to be interviewed about the announcement, the hope is it will use the policy as part of its armoury for ‘behind-closed-doors’ diplomacy in its pursuit of making a positive global difference.
Alternatively, the fear is it may just be more window dressing in an extension of an ‘all care, no responsibility’ approach where local organising committees bear all the pressure of staging a Games while the IOC allows them short-term rental of their prized and lucrative possession, the Olympic Games.
This week’s announcement is sure to be met with celebration in some quarters while sparking concern in others.
Gymnasts and other athletes who have suffered abuse at the hands of coaches and officials over many years may interpret the news as having the powerful IOC on their side as they seek justice.
Transgender and intersex athletes, who are excluded from competing in some sports, will hope they too have a heavy hitter in their corner as they navigate a path to inclusion.
After all, the right to play is a human right according to the Olympic Charter’s Fundamental Principles.
Presumably it will not be retrospective, so it is doubtful it will have any impact on the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games, despite numerous calls for countries to boycott because of human rights abuses against Muslim-minority Uyghurs.
But what would it mean if China decides to submit a bid for the Summer Games of 2032, as has been rumoured, putting it in direct competition with Brisbane and a handful of other cities?
Equally, what would it mean for the Brisbane 2032 bid?
Will Australia’s own human rights record be raised — the detention of asylum seekers and the developing world conditions that exist in some remote Indigenous communities with no access to healthcare, education or running water?
There is a standard clause already inserted in host city contracts from Paris 2024 onwards, which states:
“Protect and respect human rights and ensure any violation of human rights is remedied in a manner consistent with international agreements, laws and regulations applicable in the Host Country and in a manner consistent with all internationally recognised human rights standards and principles, including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, applicable in the Host Country.”
The IOC might have been asked by potential host cities why they were expected to abide by a set of principles the IOC had not embedded in its own policies.
What impact could this have?
What will the human rights policy mean for the IOC’s own members, such as the head of the Belarus National Olympic Committee, Alexander Lukashenko, who also happens to be the under-fire president of the country accused of election fraud by the European Union?
Lukashenko has had high-profile athletes detained for taking part in street protests against his government that lacks “any democratic legitimacy”, and allegedly had them tortured and told they would never represent the country again.
What does it mean for the IOC’s member sports that have used their own science and outdated methods of classification to have transgender and intersex athletes banned from contesting their sports?
South African runner Caster Semenya is unable to compete in her chosen events because World Athletics have demanded she medically change her natural body to reduce her competitive edge … while everyone else is free to exploit their own.
World Athletics — when still known as the IAAF — said in briefing notes in May last year it was under no compulsion to recognise human rights.
“The IAAF is not a public authority, exercising state powers, but rather a private body exercising private contractual powers,” the notes read.
“Therefore, it is not subject to human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Yet World Athletics president Lord Sebastian Coe, who became an IOC member in 2020, has announced his athletes are free to take a knee on a medal podium to promote human rights should they choose to do so, breaking the IOC’s controversial Rule 50 banning all forms of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda”.
“If an athlete wishes to take a knee on a podium, then I am supportive of that. Athletes are a part of the world and they want to reflect the world they live in. For me that is perfectly acceptable,” he said.
This is where human rights become fraught, where one collides with another.
Rugby Australia has experienced the clash of rights first hand when its organisational commitment to gay rights came face to face with Israel Folau’s personal commitment to religion.
FIFA’s response to human rights
The IOC would also have seen the impact on football’s world governing body, FIFA, when it committed to its own human rights policy in 2017.
It was put to the test in December 2018 when former Bahraini footballer Hakeem al Araibi was wrongfully detained in a Thai prison.
Former Socceroos captain Craig Foster called on FIFA to exercise its human rights commitment to help free al Araibi, who had been given refugee status in Australia.
It put FIFA in an awkward position with one of its senior officials being a member of the Bahraini royal family, who had detained protesting athletes including Al Araibi prior to his escape.
Awkwardness aside, FIFA is now congratulated for playing a role in rescuing Al Araibi from further torture. He is not the only beneficiary of football’s commitment to defending human rights.
Charges have been laid against football officials in Afghanistan who were guilty of raping members of the national women’s team; significant improvements in workers’ rights in Doha have been made as Qatar prepares to host the FIFA 2022 World Cup; and work has been done to allow women into football stadiums in Iran.
There are also criticisms.
In its most recent report, published in January 2020, FIFA’s Human Rights Advisory Board said:
“It is our view that FIFA’s human rights efforts have now come to an important crossroads that require FIFA to deepen its efforts to embed its human rights commitments into the governance of global football or risk losing the ground that has been gained.”
“For example, we, along with other stakeholders, were concerned by the awarding in October 2019 of the expanded FIFA Club World Cup to China without appropriate human rights due diligence prior to the decision, or appropriate communication about how FIFA intended to manage human rights risks in connection with the tournament.”
The UN’s Human Rights Council reported in July 2020 that “while sport is often an instrument for promoting peace, development, solidarity and human rights, United Nations human right experts and activists have also noted that sport is often characterised by inequality and discrimination within and across national borders”.
This week’s announcement from the IOC might signal the shift the UN has been looking for.
Social responsibility, respect for universal fundamental ethical principles, political neutrality, and a responsibility to apply principles of good governance were at the very centre of the IOC’s foundation.
After all, the founding father of the modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, envisioned a movement, a way of life — not a fortnight of games once every two years.
More than 120 years later, the organisation still struggles to live up to its own lofty ideals.
But as of today perhaps those outside the Olympic bubble will recognise it has moved one step closer to becoming a movement, rather than being seen as a glorified event promoter.
The IOC has been developing its strategy with independent experts HRH Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Rachel Davis, vice-president of Shift — a non-profit organisation with expertise in business and human rights.
