The Anatomy of Neutrality.

Institutions seldom admit they have changed their minds. They simply announce that the circumstances have changed.

The International Olympic Committee has now provisionally lifted the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee. The legal explanation is that the particular breach of the Olympic Charter which justified the suspension no longer applies. The Russian Olympic Committee is no longer deemed to incorporate sporting organisations from occupied Ukrainian territories. The paperwork has altered. The war, unfortunately, has not.

This is not an article about Russia.

Russia merely reminds us of a question that respectable institutions spend a great deal of time trying not to answer - How does an organisation decide that morality has been satisfied?

The Olympic movement has always described itself as politically neutral. It is a comforting phrase, polished by repetition and carried into every controversy much like a diplomatic passport. Yet neutrality has always proved remarkably active. South Africa was excluded because apartheid violated Olympic principles. Yugoslavia disappeared under international sanctions. Russia first suffered the consequences of systematic state-sponsored doping, then of its actions in Ukraine. Other nations continue to compete while fighting wars, occupying territory or attracting accusations of serious human rights abuses.

One need not agree or disagree with any individual decision to notice the pattern. Neutrality has acquired the curious habit of making choices.

That is because institutions rarely administer morality directly. They administer rules. Rules possess the immense advantage of being measurable. Morality, being made of softer tissue, does not.

War becomes an eligibility question.

Occupation becomes committee membership.

Doping becomes compliance.

The vocabulary changes long before the underlying reality does. A body can be re-classified without a single bone being reset. This habit extends well beyond the committee rooms.

Athletes frequently remind us that sport should remain outside politics. They are usually sincere. The same athletes often use interviews, podiums and social media to express opinions on war, race or human rights, perfectly entitled to do so - citizenship does not disappear when someone runs quickly or throws accurately. The difficulty arises only when sport discovers neutrality after encountering disagreement. An opinion on the approved cause is called courage. An opinion on the wrong one is called politics.

Institutions behave much the same way. They speak confidently of values until those values begin demanding consistency.

There is, of course, an alternative. The Olympic movement could openly admit that international sport has always been political, because nations are political, flags are political, and deciding who may march behind them is political. That would at least possess the virtue of honesty.

Instead, we are invited to believe that morality has been translated into administration. The committee reaches for procedure where conscience once stood, the way a surgeon reaches for a clamp rather than an apology.

Perhaps that is inevitable. No international body could survive if required to resolve every moral contradiction of the modern world. The difficulty comes when procedure begins to masquerade as principle.

There is nothing new in any of this. Every age has preferred absolution to repentance, since the first is available on request and the second requires actual change. Only the liturgy changes.

The IOC has not decided anything about right and wrong. It has decided, once again, that it does not have to.

If you know someone who’d appreciate this, they probably will. Please share. Sharing's nice.
...
If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more, 'Buy the Goose a Coffee →'.
...
The views expressed are those of the correspondent. Factual claims draw on publicly available sources.