Champions of double standards
I have previously written on this website about the weak foreign policy approach which the EU adapts towards its eastern neighbours and about the double standards persistent in its relationship with Russia as compared to other post-Soviet states. These however, as well as the subject of politics in sport, are gifts that keep on giving, and I am back discussing the same issues again as the EU and its member states have now decided to deepen the divide between the double standards they apply to third countries even further.
Ukraine, which has had ups and downs in its relationship with the EU but has for the most part been encouraged to stay within the EU sphere of interest, has recently come under fire for the treatment that its jailed ex-Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, is suffering in jail. Tymoshenko, convicted last year in what is widely believed to be a politically motivated (although not entirely groundless) trial, has been sentenced to seven years in prison. She has since been reported to suffer back pain and require specialist treatment, with suggestions that she should be moved to an overseas (possibly German) clinic. Tensions caused by the Ukrainian authorities’ last-minute denial of this request as well as Tymoshenko’s recent allegations of brutal treatment by prison guards have inflamed the situation in the past few days.
As a result, the German president, Joachim Gauck, announced his decision to boycott a summit of Central European presidents due to take place in Ukraine on 11-12 May. Then followed Angela Merkel’s declaration that neither she nor her ministers would be attending the Ukrainian leg of the upcoming European Football Championship (co-hosted this year by Poland and Ukraine) if Tymoshenko’s situation does not improve. Now, also Jose Manuel Barroso has announced his plan to boycott the Ukrainian games, and Vivianne Reading has declined the invitation to attend the opening ceremony of the Championships... in Warsaw. Discussions are also ongoing on a boycott by Italy (where an unlikely supporter of human rights has been found in Silvio Berlusconi).
The German approach clearly aims to exploit the spotlight shining onto Ukraine in connection to the Euro Championships to force it to either allow Tymoshenko treatment in Germany or release her completely. Should either of these two happen, this will be claimed as a success for EU policy in the East; a failure to deliver will result in Ukraine’s delegation to similar ranks as Belarus vis a vis the EU – and neither side wants that. While it is at this point difficult to say which scenario will prevail, even Tymoshenko’s release does not seem like it would be a genuine victory but rather a sad testament to the inefficiency of EU diplomacy, which is unable to achieve its desired results unless it publicly threatens to upset the progress of a major sports event.
What is clear that Germany as well as the European Commission have set the bar high for themselves. Previously, sports events that have been boycotted on genuine human rights concerns (and not purely ideological grounds) have included games in Nazi Germany and South Africa under the apartheid. Should we therefore understand that by boycotting Ukraine, whose list of human rights infringements may be long, but is by no means close to some of the worst offenders, Germany is committing itself to boycotting sports events in any country with similar or greater infringements? This would of course be highly commendable. I am therefore expecting to hear a retrospective apology for Germany’s participation in the 2010 Beijing Olimpics, its renouncement of all of Michael Schumacher’s awards in the Formula One Grand Prix in protest for the 2012 edition having been held in Bahrain, and a declaration that it is pulling its representation out of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olymic Games in Russia. Although I think it would be best not to hold my breath.
Comments (1)