Do athletes have a moral duty to protest Chinese authoritarianism? How about Elon Musk?

Do elite international athletes have a moral responsibility to publicly comment or act in a way that acknowledges their awareness of oppressive — or worse — political conditions in nations in which they compete?

Do societal moral standards require them to speak up, even when criticism and confrontation jeopardize their ability to compete and may threaten to derail an entire career?

The Beijing Winter Olympics — scheduled to begin in early February in and around China’s capital city — makes this a timely question.

Several democratic nations have announced “diplomatic” boycotts of the Beijing competition. They include the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, and Japan. (To be clear: democratic claims alone do not necessarily stifle a nation’s darker impulses and render it “moral.”)

That means that no political office holders from the the boycotting nations will attend these Games, but qualifying athletes are free to make their own choices about competing.

The following paragraphs from the above linked Washington Post article explain the limits on free speech China is demanding (with International Olympic Committee acquiescence).

The IOC has said athletes will be free to express themselves during the Games as long as they abide by IOC rules barring any demonstrations during sporting events or medal ceremonies.
Athletes could raise any number of issues, including allegations of cultural genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the erasure of civil freedoms in Hong Kong, and the arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and outspoken Chinese citizens. [Note that the Post left Tibetan issues, a major international sticking point for the West, off this list.]
But Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive to criticism about the country’s human rights record, its role in the outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic, and even the country’s efforts during the Korean War.

Despite China's vast religious and political repression, 2022 Olympic boycott still unlikely

We’re rapidly approaching the inflection point on whether China will get to stage the 2022 Winter Olympics without some sort of concurrent international protest — such as a major boycott — prompted by Beijing’s often outrageous treatment of its Muslim Uighur, Tibetan Buddhist and underground Christian religious minorities, as well as its secular pro-democracy movement.

The question for me is: Will the international community — and in particular the United States and other democracy-espousing nations — punk out as it did with the Nazi-run 1936 Berlin Olympics. Or will the International community find some righteous backbone and either boycott the 2022 winter games, or make its opposition to Beijing’s policies known in another significant and unmistakable manner?

China, of course, has threatened retaliation against any nation that dares to challenge it by linking the Olympics and human rights.

When I last posted about the possibility of an international boycott of the upcoming China Games, — back in 2019 — I wrote off any boycott possibility as an extreme long shot.

As of this writing, I think a widespread boycott is still highly unlikely. But it’s no longer a completely dismissible long shot, I believe, because of changed circumstances — not the least of which is the ongoing coronavirus crisis and China’s oblique explanations of the pandemic’s Wuhan region origins.

Why still unlikely? Ironically, for the very same reason a protest is now slightly more conceivable, the coronavirus.

The U.S., without which no boycott can succeed, as well as its major pro-Western democratic allies, are all still deeply engaged in trying to halt the coronavirus.

We don’t know how much longer this fight will go on or what surprises are ahead. Regardless, the effort has left them economically vulnerable and politically drained. I’d say they lack the necessary additional emotional and intellectual bandwidth to take on another international crisis. Certainly not one they can avoid without triggering immediate dire consequences for their own citizens.

Forget the morality of the situation. Moral avoidance is a well-honed government strategy with a global heritage.