YSL 16/12/22 - When should we boycott?

 

As usual I find myself getting in arguments online with people I probably agree with on more than I disagree. I really don't have much interest in going back and forth with Serbian nationalists all day so I'll make my comments here instead. But it got me to thinking on a larger subject I've been pondering - where do we draw the line? Who and what do we choose to support or give a pass to?

Is it right to treat Russians or Chinese as pariahs on the world stage? Should we do business with dictatorial regimes and rigid theocracies such as Qatar? I don't have all the answers but I ahve some thoughts after the jump.

Along with several of his fellow pros, veteran tennis player Sergiy Stakhovsky has become a fierce and vocal advocate for his native Ukraine  since the full scale Russian invasion began in February 2022. While I'm very supportive of the Ukrainian cause and find a lot of the online scepticism of the war effort and President Zelensky personally to be pretty suspicious and disqualifying, some of the behaviour from Zelensky and athletes like Stakhovsky and Elina Svitolina have veered into some quite petulant bullying. Ultimately I can#'t begrudge them too much - wouldn't you do anythign and everything you could in defense of your nation? Stakhovsky has a bad habit of sharing private text exchanges he has with other players and took to Twitter to air his grievances with a pair of Serbian players, Victor Troicki and Janko Tipsarevic who are traveling to Russia for an exhibition tournament.

The Serbian opinion… pic.twitter.com/B1PBI7ZMt6

— Sergiy Stakhovsky (@Stako_tennis) December 1, 2022

As I said, I understand the desire to stand up for your nation and ascribe only the most honorable motives to it. And I am very open to querying Bill Clinton's foreign policy decision making. But it is plain cracked to hand wave away the atrocities committed in Bosnia and Kosovo that prompted NATO's bombing campaign. My Serbian friend notes that action was not approved by the UN Security Council, but the opinion of a worthless, corrupt chamber in a worthless, corrupt organization hardly moves me. The objection was led by Russia who had regional interest and incentive to oppose Western influence encroaching on their sphere of influence. 

I don't like that Stakhovsky shared these messages out, it is just simply a cheap shot to air dirty laundry like that. But the post was shared by a notorious online provocateur in tennis fandom suggesting there were "very real questions" to be answered. This is of course total crap. It's transparently obvious Troicki and Tipsarevic are going to Russia for the paycheck, well understand it will be frowned upon and are deflecting. I wish they'd just admit that - being a mid level tennis pro is not a glamorous lifestyle, there are lots of bills to pay and not enough sponsorships to go around. 

When the Russian invasion began, not only did sanctions slam down, Russian sources were censored, Russian made products were removed from sale and such was the hysteria even some non-RUssian products. WImbledon famously banned Russian and Belorussian players from the tournament, hiding behind the UK government's ambiguous guidance. The problem with sweeping directives is they are indiscriminate so players like Andrey Rublev and Daria Kasatkina who veered off the party line were banned just the same as those who were more nationalistic like Gasanova and Potapova. It made a farce of the competition as several top players were excluded. A mockery was made of the organizers as a Russian-born player ended up winning. 

Is the object of these shows to punish Vladimir Putin and the Russian government or jsut Russia and Russians generally? The people who ended up hurt were players and fans around the world deprived of their talent. When it comes to an autocratic government it really does not make a huge difference - they can spin these things anyway they need to and given the West withdrew almost entirely from the region, there's now less pushback than ever to the propaganda. I believed then it was a mistake to ban Rossiyan athletes and that has been borne out by the ATP's decision to fine the LTA for the decision. 

What of players like Daniil Medvedev who preferred to stay quiet on the issue? What of Aryna Sabalenka who in the past has been supportive of Belarossian President Lukashenko? Here's the thing, wouldn't you do or say anything if not to defend your nation then certainly not to denigrate it or her people? I think about this when I look over to Hong Kong where none of the divas had much of anything to say when protests broke out there in opposition to new laws targeting dissidents and opposition to mainland interference. Internationally famous stars like Eason Chan and Joey Yung have been defensive over credible reports of internment camps and ethnocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang province.

It's impossible to know what's really in a person's heart. But I have to believe some will be influenced by their surroundings, being immersed in the culture and media of their own countries. The Chinese will look at the fates of those like Jack Ma and Peng Shuai who embarrassed or undermined the government and realize it is not in their interests to be outspoken or oppositional - which is why it's important to continue to support figures like Peng who were. But what next? Do we in the West withdraw our support from those not so courageous? Do we stop listening to their music, watching their films or sporting events?

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. As a free market enthusiast, we should make our own choice about what feels right to us to support. Ultimately I think the appropriate weight will be brought to bear. In the case of individuals I think we should be able to separate them from the state. When the state is involved, I think it does depend on our relations with them. If it's Russia, an aggressor in a war harmful to our interests or China, suspected in engaging in espionage, IP theft and interference, it is probably correct to disengage from the state. 

If it's Qatar hosting the World Cup, they may have acquired the rights under suspicious circumstances and we may not agree with the way they govern their state and treat certain minorities therein. But in terms of international relations we have no squabble with them and frankly have no business going over there telling them how they should or should not be conducting their business. It would be incredibly disrespectful to Qatar, Qataris and frankly, football fans and the international community to interrupt the festivities to deliver a pious, moralistic sermon as Gary Lineker and the BBC did at the start of the tournament. 

I was not sure if I particularly wanted to watch the World Cup this time around - I was skeptical of the process by which it came to be hosted by Qatar, suspicious of the state's alleged human rights abuses and disillusioned by football and the odd time of year it was taking place. But once it kicked off there is just something about international football that fills the soul with light and inspiration, even with its modern scattered identity crisis. I'm weak and I watched. 

It's up to each individual to decide who and what they are willing to support. I may disagree, have my own opinion and state my case for or against but it's not for me to jusge or condemn. Some doubt and fret but I truly the free market will tell in the end - If an organization, comopany or individual pushes the boundaries of what's acceptable in civil society whether they are Disney, Apple, the NHL, Kanye West or a cash-strapped tennis player, their behaviour will and should be corrected by the will of the people, not the preponderance of the state.

Follow @BaiHuJ