The opening photo of the Winter Olympics in Beijing on Friday concentrates multiple messages that transcend the sports sphere. The staging somehow portrays a new cold war typical of the 21st century. On one side, the United States, the European Union and other democracies, and on the other China, Russia and other authoritarian or autocratic countries. Both absences and presences draw a polarized map. The absences are linked to the diplomatic boycott adopted with different motivations and intensity by countries such as the United States, India, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia. Among those who did come to Beijing were high-level representatives of authoritarian regimes, but also from most European Union countries (albeit with lower-level authorities). Very significantly, large companies were also present, as main sponsors and headquartered in the countries that support the boycott. It is, therefore, an x-ray of the global panorama of alliances and harmony; in it the uncertainties and divergences within the Western ranks are well seen.
The boycott countries justify it as a denunciation of the violation of human rights, especially of the Uyghur Muslim minority, the object of unacceptable repression by Beijing. But unlike the Moscow Games of 1980, also boycotted, the action today is directed against a power on the rise, with an economic vigor that supports almost unlimited ambitions, and fully embedded in the global system. It is a scheme of rivalry that challenges democracies in a much deeper way than the USSR of the last century. The paradigm changes completely in the face of the evident interdependence between China and the West and the enormous spectrum of connections of all kinds. Political turmoil, even without reaching the military threshold, can have far-reaching and profound repercussions on our societies. In the case of Europe, the persistent dependence on Russia for energy is added.
The increasingly emphatic attitude of Russia and China requires Europeans to define their place in this new scenario. Is it necessary to face it with a common position in the EU? If so, what should be the strategic common denominator? The first answer should be a resounding yes; the second, inevitably, will have to be a compromise between the partners. Of course, community institutions and governments are in it. But events call for speeding up in many ways the reduction of the weight of national instincts and the opening of a wider and deeper public debate than the current one. It must go beyond the scope of the presidencies and chancelleries and involve much more than what happens today to parliaments and civil society itself.
#games #cold #war