This week has seen the start of a ‘diplomatic row’ between the UK and Russia following what appears to be an assassination attempt on an ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia who are living in the UK. An initial assessment from the UK government indicated that they believe that the Russian state can be held in some way responsible for this attack. This conclusion subsequently led to the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats from the UK; an action to which the Russians responded in kind. The ‘row’ has since escalated, with the British Prime Minister saying that the nerve-agent attack on the Skripals was “brazen and reckless” and that Russia “does not respect borders”, indicating that she felt that the attack was “…part of a pattern of Russian aggression against Europe“.
Given then that the conclusion of the British government is such; can its response be considered appropriate?
This summer will see Russia hosting the men’s football World Cup – an event which in 2014 apparently saw more than 3 billion television viewers ; and although it has now been announced that neither the British Royal Family nor any government ministers will attend the competition, the idea that there should be a full boycott has thus far been rejected. Why? The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has indicated that he feels that it is very likely that The Russian President Vladimir Putin will “glory in the sporting event” – using it as a PR exercise similar to the manner in which Hitler used the 1936 Olympics (which was boycotted by the Soviet Union). He also indicated that he is concerned for the safety of the British fans who may journey to Russia to watch the competition, because the diplomat responsible for liaising with the fans has been expelled and the British consulate in St Petersburg is due to be closed by the Russian authorities. Boris Johnson even went so far as to say that the government may recommend that the English fans stay away.
Yet with all of this, there seems little political will to request that the men’s football team itself not participate in the sport.
It seems a little contradictory to me for the British government to openly indicate that the Head of State and Government Ministers should not go, but that it is OK for everyone else. Or even, that the public should not attend, but that it is OK for the footballers themselves to go?
The rhetoric from the UK government concerning the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter is unequivocal – the Russian state is responsible, either directly or through omissions which led to the ‘loss’ of a sample of the nerve agent to a third party. Why then has the UK government limited its reaction to a simple expulsion of diplomats? Does the UK government still harbour doubts of Russia’s guilt? If so why the strong words? If not, why the lack of anything but string words?
The lack of attendance of a member of the British Royal Family is hardly likely to cause much of a stir… whereas a boycott of the competition by the men’s England football team could have a very public and very evident impact on the competition. It would have an clear and immediate impact on the worldwide publicity for Russia as well as the potential revenue generation. There would also undoubtedly be a reduction in the perceived ‘value’ of the competition itself due to the absence of one of the top 20 teams in the world! It is also possible that other countries could follow suit which would only serve to increase the impact. A boycott of the games may not be within the direct purview of the UK government, however I would imagine that it would be difficult for the Football Association to continue to participate if such a boycott should be formally requested.
I have no idea if the Russian state is in any way responsible for the attack on the Skripals, however if the UK government (as it would appear) firmly believe that it is, then surely any failure to respond appropriately to this criminal act can only strengthen Russia’s hand. The British Prime Minister claims that Russia shows no respect for international borders… yet it seems improbable that Russia will be more respectful of international borders if the reaction of countries like the UK is limited to a few broadcast speeches and insults!! It is true that a formal boycott of the competition is likely to see the men’s England football team barred from competing in the 2020 competition (although seeing as that is due to be played in Qatar that may be no bad thing…). It is equally likely that there would also be financial penalties (or loss of revenue) for the FA itself, however this seems to me to only increase the power of such a message. If boycotting the competition would have no impact on the UK, then it can be passed off as an empty gesture, as an irrelevance; yet the very fact that this action would impact the UK only serves to underline its importance, and the value of this principal to the British government. The failure to support this accusation with anything concrete will demonstrate to Russia and to the world that the UK is not prepared to stand up for its beliefs.
Diplomacy should not be a question of loudly making a statement and then carrying on as normal. Such an approach is nothing but empty grand-standing, and serves only to show a lack of conviction.
The Financial Times has indicated that the England team should compete in the normal way, i.e. only in the Group stages and then come back before the quarter finals.
It was a printed article, no indication whether the writer’s tongue was disadvantaged at all.
Sporting boycotts are themselves irrelevent. Those that are penalised are the fans of whichever sport is involved.
Now if you really want effect the situation, look at the the money laundering capital of the world London. And the way it has been used by Russian dissidents to realise their wealth at the expense of their own citizens, and put money into the bank accounts of property developers tothe detriment of ordinary Londoners.
This would be far more effective than the empty gestures of sporting boycotts
The thing is with sporting boycotts – you raise the awareness of what you are trying to do to a multitude (in this case more than a billion people). Although I agree that action should also be taken to the money flowing into places like London, that would impact only a few… if you are going to send a message of this nature, then the more public the better from my perspective.
In the spirit of solidarity I see the EU is to withdraw their ambassador to Russia, in my view another empty gesture. It is being spun as a diplomatic victory for strong and stable TM. I think it is better to maintain dialogue at dangerous times rather than walk away. We will get no nearer the truth by cutting off high level contact.
A more meaningful sporting boycott would be if the nations of the EU who have qualified for the World Cup finals all agree to withdraw, I think that would have an impact. As would hitting the regime in the pocket through economic sanctions and the closing down of money laundering operations.
Lone gestures and tit for tat expulsions are largely symbolic, but for Theresa May they are a way of bolstering her weak government as strong in the face of Russian aggression.
Trade embargoes are a bit difficult really, BP is very heavily involved with Rosneft also, we would apparently like to stop the Russian/UK LNG gas supplies but we buy the gas via third party countries – once it’s in the pipe there is no way of knowing it’s origin.
Handy really, if we knew it was Russian gas we would have to boycott it for fear of upsetting our “special partner” in the land of the free.
We have bought some gas already at sea, but that’s OK because we pay the current owner, not the Russians.
Clearly, the first casualty of (a trade) war is truth.