When Olympic competition and diplomacy collide

It is tempting to see doping controversies at the Olympics as a challenge unique to sports governance. After all, few workplaces or life moments require performance enhancing drug testing.

Yet the failures of the Olympics – opaqueness, the inability to adapt to new powerful biological technologies, mistrust between China and the United States, and a lack of resources in the developing world – are repeated across most elements of global biological technology governance (bio governance for short).

Right now, global bio governance has the worst of both worlds. Risk is not being effectively managed. And the benefits of new biological technologies are being held back.

For example, much of the human DNA collected, which could contribute to significant medical breakthroughs, remains siloed away from major databases. Even population-wide genetic variance data (not individual level genomes) is often inaccessible to global researchers. Much of the available data is for people of white-European ancestry, meaning that common disease-causing genetic variations are more likely to be found and treated in white people.

We are not doing better on the risks.

If a pathogen with Covid’s risk profile emerged in China tomorrow, the world would unlikely have a better response.

If we take public health, for example, the world (and the world’s leading virologists) still do not know if Covid-19 leaked from the lab or jumped species in nature. We do not know because of Chinese government secrecy which, at times, was aided by the World Health Organisation. Excess deaths since the beginning of the pandemic are 27 million. Covid continues to kill millions of people a year.

Many steps of the Covid response have been stalked by governance failures. The US government ran disinformation campaigns against effective Chinese vaccines often when there was no alterative due to shortages. The Chinese government lied about Western-developed vaccines to its own people. In the early days of the pandemic, the Chinese government hid data, genome sequences and medical outcomes of the virus that, if transmitted to other governments, would have saved lives.

These are not well-meaning missteps in the face of pandemic uncertainty. They are lies for geopolitical goals. If a pathogen with Covid’s risk profile emerged in China tomorrow, the world would unlikely have a better response.

Global biosecurity governance is also woefully underprepared for new DNA synthesis capabilities. Both the genome sequences of pandemic viruses and step-by-step protocols to make infectious samples from synthetic DNA are freely available online.

In May, an MIT team, posing as non-scientists (because MIT is a trusted purchaser and it would skew results), ordered fragments of the Spanish flu from 38 DNA suppliers; 36 out of 38 providers sent them the fragments. There are multilateral and unilateral governance mechanisms to stop this from happening. They do not work.

Environmental bio governance has not fared much better. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is meant to preserve species diversity. Since its inception in 1992, species loss has continued unabated. Research by our team at the Australian National University and InKlude Labs in India shows developing countries do not have the resources to deliver CBD requirements. The United States has not ratified the CBD.

There is no global plant and microbial gene-editing governance mechanism. It is left to individual countries. Many governments restrict the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops. But enforcement remains patchy. Indian and Chinese farmers illegally planted GM crops because of higher yields and greater pest resistance. So, with climate change bearing down on farmers and consumers, countries are approving more and more GM crops.

While these examples cover a wide range of bio applications (and even that is far from complete), it is a handful of underlying technologies that are driving the biggest changes. This includes cheap collection, storage and manipulation of genetic data (particularly using AI), the ability to synthesise large volumes of DNA, and the ability to edit the DNA of most types of organisms.

So, we need to find a way to better govern these technologies and their applications.

Despite the long list of global agreements, meaningful government cooperation involving the United States and China will likely remain out of reach. So, other countries in the region need to find a way forward to share benefits and manage the risk. And do so in a way that is actually feasible for resource-restrained countries.

Our ANU-InKlude Labs team has made a first step in this direction. We have published the new Ethical Frameworks for Deployment of Synthetic Biology in the Indo-Pacific. It offers risk-tiered approaches to data sharing and gene editing. It also explores how poorer countries can disproportionality benefit from the deployment of this technology.

We will be pursuing workshops over the next few months to build regional linkages on this technology.

Reactions to biological technologies, such as gene editing, will be deeply personal and countries may not agree on approaches. But we need to open these dialogues now, so that we understand each other’s risk appetite, and to respond when geopolitics gets in the way and threatens the lives of people in our region.

At the next Olympics, drug testing will remain a source of controversy, but hopefully then we can say that it is unique to sport and that our global bio governance structures are in better order.

Paris will be praying against rain. Despite extensive efforts to clean and prepare the River Seine ahead of the 2024 Olympics, due to commence on Friday, concerns about water quality persist. A heavy downpour could leave the river unsafe for athletes in several high-profile aquatic events planned during the games.

Recent tests have shown varying levels of bacteria in the Seine, where swimming has been banned since 1923 due to the high pollution levels. But since bidding for the Olympics hosting rights in 2015, environmental agencies and city officials have been working tirelessly to ensure the river’s safety, implementing measures such as improved sewage treatment and regular water quality monitoring. Authorities have invested around €1.4 billion with the aim to make the river safe to swim for Olympic events such as the triathlon, para-triathlon, marathon swimming, and to host a distinctive opening ceremony.

Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo leapt into the famed waterway last week for a dip to prove that the famous river had met stringent safety standards.

Water quality is a challenge in major cities around the world. Storm water, chemical pollution or waste spills often lead to pollution. The potential health risks associated with swimming in contaminated water include gastrointestinal illnesses and skin infections from microorganisms. For Olympic athletes who invest years of training for a shot at gold, illness can spoil dreams and livelihoods.

The clean-up for the Seine involved constructing massive rainwater catch basins and tunnels to prevent untreated sewage from overflowing into the river during heavy rains. Treatment plants have also been modernised for water purification. As environmental scientist Ian Wright observed, this followed efforts in other European cities where river swimming is now common such as Copenhagen, Berlin and Vienna, and the goal for the Seine was to reduce bacterial contamination by at least 75 per cent.

The hope is still for a great event and that the river clean-up for the Olympics might hold lessons internationally.

Cleaning the Seine after years of degradation proved a challenge. Greater Paris is home to 12 million people with the city surrounded by heavy industry. But recent rains in Paris have seen bacteria levels spike. A weather data analysis by news agency Associated Press showed that this year Paris has had the second-most days with rain since 1950. Of all the luck.

The hope is still for a great event. And the river clean-up for the Olympics might hold lessons internationally. The focus on rigorous water quality monitoring and innovative purification techniques could be deployed elsewhere, along with floating wetlands and bio-remediation projects to help clean waterways. Drones equipped with sensors can patrol the water, identifying and addressing pollution sources swiftly. The success of efforts in Paris will not only affect the outcome of the 2024 Olympics but also set a precedent for future games in remediating the environment.

And the effort draws on history, too. This will not be the first time the Seine has been used for Olympic swimming. The 1900 Paris Olympics held seven swimming events in the river. Let’s hope that after these games the swimming continues.

As the world eagerly anticipates the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris, the intersection of international politics and sport once again takes centre stage. The participation of so-called "rogue states” (or pariah states) in the Olympic Games has long been a contentious issue, with Russia's involvement being particularly controversial given its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Russia's troubled relations with the Olympics dates back to the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, where a state-sponsored doping program was uncovered. It was also around this time that Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea. The fallout from the doping scandal had far-reaching consequences, affecting the participation of Russian athletes in subsequent Olympic Games.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 added another layer of complexity to its Olympic participation. 

In 2016, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) allowed Russian athletes to compete in the Rio Olympics, but only if very strict conditions were met. Subsequently, the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang also saw strictly vetted Russian athletes compete under the neutral Olympic flag as "Olympic Athletes from Russia". For the 2021 Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Russian athletes participated under the name "Russian Olympic Committee" (ROC).

However, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 added another layer of complexity to its Olympic participation. The international sporting community widely condemned the invasion, with the IOC recommending that athletes from Russia be banned from events. The world’s football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA were quick to follow suit, banning all Russian teams from competitions. However, the two organisations lifted the ban on Russian youth teams in October 2023. Dozens of other international sports federations have also severed their ties with Russia and banned its national teams from participating in international competitions.

As the Paris Olympics approach, the debate over Russian participation remains heated. On 15 June, the IOC approved 14 athletes from Russia with neutral status to compete at this year’s Games, but the extent of Russia’s participation remains unknown. Russian athletes will not be allowed to participate in the opening ceremony, while the Russian anthem is also barred, replaced with music commissioned by the IOC. Medals won by Russian athletes will not be included on any table.

Ukraine has threatened to boycott the Games if Russian athletes are allowed to participate, even under a neutral flag. This puts the IOC in a difficult position, balancing political pressures with its goal of promoting peace through sport.

While Russia's situation has dominated headlines, it's not the only nation facing Olympic restrictions.

North Korea has also had its fair share of Olympic troubles. After not participating in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics due to Covid-19 concerns, the IOC suspended the North Korean Olympic Committee until the end of 2022 for its unilateral decision to withdraw from the Games. But North Korea is set to return this summer in Paris, with 14 athletes cleared for participation as of June.

The isolated nation's participation in international sporting events has often been seen as a rare opportunity for diplomatic engagement. The 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea’s city of Pyeongchang, for example, set the foundation for a breakthrough in inter-Korean relations. The two Koreas also marched together in the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, representing a historic moment of unity. With inter-Korean ties at a dangerous low point, however, this year’s Games are unlikely to bring North and South closer together.

The Olympic Charter promotes peace, solidarity, and fair play, emphasising that discrimination based on politics should have no place in the Olympic movement.

Besides Russia and North Korea, other states have also faced restrictions in participating in world sports events. Ever since the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, there have been repeated calls for the country to be banned from participating in the Olympics due to the prohibition on women playing sport. The IOC stated earlier this month that a team consisting of three women and three men will be representing Afghanistan but that no Taliban officials will be allowed to attend the Games.

Iran has also faced scrutiny due to its policy prohibiting its athletes from competing against Israeli opponents. This has led to controversies in past sporting events, with Iranian athletes sometimes forfeiting matches to avoid facing Israeli competitors. There are also those calling for Iran to be banned from the Paris Olympics due to reported involvement in the Hamas attack against Israel last October, as well as in relation to its discriminatory policies against women and female athletes. Iran will, however, be participating in the Games this year, with 34 athletes having secured a spot so far.

There have also been calls for Israel to be barred from participating in this year’s Games. The president of the Palestinian Olympic Committee, protestors, certain groups, and other individuals around the world, and even some Israelis themselves have called for the country not to be allowed to take part in the Paris Olympics. There are also those who have strongly criticised the IOC for what they perceive to be double standards, banning Russia but allowing Israel to take part in the Olympics. Israel will also be participating in the Olympics this year, sending around 85 athletes – its second-largest Olympic delegation ever.

The controversy surrounding the participation of states with problematic political records in the Olympics highlights the tension between the Games' ideals and the complex realities of international politics. The Olympic Charter promotes peace, solidarity, and fair play, emphasising that discrimination based on politics should have no place in the Olympic movement. Others, however, argue that allowing such states to participate in the Games undermines the very values the Olympic movement aims to promote.

As the Paris 2024 Olympics approach, these debates are likely to intensify. Whatever the outcome, the 2024 Games will once again demonstrate the inextricable link between sport and global politics, challenging the notion of the Olympics as a purely athletic endeavour divorced from worldly concerns.

Hosting the Olympics does not come cheap. The cost of the upcoming Paris Games is estimated to be at least €9 billion (A$14.5 billion).

Against the cost proponents of the Olympics and other mass event games argue that hosting brings benefits in economic stimulus, much needed infrastructure, boosts to tourism, and soft power. The overall value of the Olympics depends on whether these benefits, some hard to measure, exceed the costs. The history of the Olympics suggests that the economics rarely stacks up. So this leaves soft power – the warm inner glow for the citizens of the host city, the diplomatic gains from positive perceptions of the country – as the balancing factor.

So how well have the Olympics done in adding value for their hosts?

One argument for hosting an Olympics is that it provides a fiscal stimulus for the host city. The long run from bid to event rules out the smoothing role that public spending can play in balancing out the business cycle. The value lies in the transport and other infrastructure that is built for the event having an economic return well into the future.

The Games bring a boost to tourism, but with the exception of the 1992 Barcelona Games, there is little evidence of a sustained rise in tourist numbers.

The investment in both the 1956 Melbourne and 2000 Sydney Olympics has had long term benefits from the infrastructure investment. Sydney, for example, used the event to redevelop degraded areas near the city. London also sought to use the 2012 Olympics to restore the fortunes of East London.

While these investments yield value, it is likely that their construction cost more as part of an Olympic build than would otherwise have been the case simply because Olympic timetables concentrate the demand for construction workers and supply. The event horizon also gives firms, and unions, greater leverage to push up prices, and large expensive projects offer greater scope for corruption. The 1976 Montreal Games was an illustrative example.

The value from purpose-built facilities, while great for their specific sports, is less clear. Facilities built for world scale events tend to be costly to maintain, and hard to fill with regular events. Similarly, the Games bring a boost to tourism, but with the exception of the 1992 Barcelona Games, there is little evidence of a sustained rise in tourist numbers. Hosting does tend to increase interest in sport, and the availability of some facilities has enabled sporting achievements on the global stage. Australia’s Fox family no doubt benefited from the 2000 Olympic white water canoe facility.

Olympics are hosted by cities, so the cost calculation for the city depends very much on how much funding they can leverage from higher levels of government, the private sector and recoup on ticket sales. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) owns the broadcast and marketing rights, but these are not a source of revenue for building the infrastructure. As governments at all levels face greater fiscal pressure, making the case for hosting very expensive sporting events is getting harder.

This problem was reflected in Australia last year when the Victorian state government cited rising costs in the decision withdraw from hosting the 2026 Commonwealth Games. Even with the IOC moderating its demands it is hard to make an economic case unless the Games mostly use existing infrastructure, as for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

So what of the soft power argument? The Eastern European countries and Soviet Union boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games in retaliation for the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. A total of 22 African countries earlier boycotted the Montreal Games after New Zealand was allowed to participate despite the All Black’s rugby team violating sport sanctions with a tour of South Africa.

As long as the world can bring together the best athletes from all nations, including from countries under heavy sanctions, to compete under agreed rules of engagement, there is hope.

While this spate of political boycotts has not been repeated, the Games provide an opportunity to pressure governments, such as on Indigenous rights for Sydney 2000 and the treatment of the Uighurs for 2008 Beijing. These protests tend to be forgotten during the Games, but, adding the disruption to locals, corruption scandals, and cost overruns, most Games bring more bad than good press for governments in the lead up. High level political attendance at the Games, however, does offer an opportunity to reopen dialogue between countries in a neutral setting. The 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics was a case in point, with South Korea and North Korea using the event kick off another phase of diplomacy.

Despite questionable economics and mixed soft power impact, the idea of hosting the Olympics remains attractive to many city and country governments. Similarly, industry policies are politically attractive as they can be sold on bringing back “good” jobs and improving security. Just like the Olympics, governments should subject these policies to thorough scrutiny before they bid.

There is a final consideration that goes beyond the value to the host country, and perhaps points to why hosting the Olympics has value. As long as the world can bring together the best athletes from all nations, including from countries under heavy sanctions, to compete under agreed rules of engagement, there is hope. Hope that cooperation can extend to resolving differences through peaceful rather than military means. And hope that international organisations will be able to remake the rules to provide for ongoing and global cooperation.