The International Paralympic Committee has firmly stated it will not exclude countries from competition solely for launching wars, following its controversial decision to reinstate Russia and Belarus. This position puts the sporting body at odds with the UK government and numerous European nations.
International Backlash Against Reinstatement
The United Kingdom joined 32 other predominantly European countries in signing a joint statement expressing what they termed "serious concern" about the IPC membership vote to lift partial suspensions against Russia and its ally Belarus. The decision, taken in September, has sparked international controversy given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
IPC President Andrew Parsons, in his first interview since the controversy erupted, explained to Sky News that the committee's position stems from its constitutional framework. "The decision is not linked to participation in wars," Parsons stated unequivocally.
Original Suspension Based on Sport's Misuse
Parsons clarified that the initial suspension imposed in 2023 resulted from how Russia and Belarus utilized Paralympic sport. "Russia and Belarus used Paralympic sport to promote what they called the 'special operation' at the time," he revealed. "This is what led to the first suspension."
The IPC president indicated that between 2023 and the present day, monitoring has shown "less evidence of that being used again for the promotion of the war." This assessment came from evidence provided to IPC members before the crucial vote by a company specializing in online monitoring.
Global Divide on Sporting Sanctions
The controversy highlights a significant geographical divide in how sporting sanctions are perceived. Parsons noted that imposing sporting sanctions over the Ukraine war appears to be "largely a European concern." He observed that other global regions emphasize the importance of consistent application of rules.
This perspective is reinforced by the geographical distribution of nations criticizing the reinstatement. Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea were the only non-European nations to sign the joint statements from governments opposing the lifting of the ban.
"What came really strong was, why only Russia and Belarus?" Parsons recounted from discussions with IPC members. "There are all the conflicts around the world and they have not been suspended."
Constitutional Limitations and Government Expectations
The core of the dispute lies in differing interpretations of the IPC's constitutional obligations. Parsons explained that a country launching a war does not constitute a breach of the IPC constitution, despite the UK and other governments apparently believing this was the case.
The historical context reveals the complexity of the situation. Athletes from Russia and Belarus faced exclusion from the Beijing Paralympics shortly after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. This initial ban came amid threats of a widespread boycott.
Subsequently, Russia and Belarus received partial suspensions as IPC members in 2023 through a general assembly vote. The official reason cited "breaches of its constitutional membership obligations" without explicitly mentioning the war in Ukraine.
Despite the reinstatement, there will be no Russian or Belarusian teams at the Winter Paralympics next year in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo. This exclusion largely results from ongoing bans maintained by individual sports federations.
The critical governments addressed this point in their recent joint statement, noting: "We view this development with serious concern, given that the Russian aggression against Ukraine continues and the Russian and Belarusian breaches of the Olympic Charter remain."
Parsons acknowledged the governments' concerns, stating: "I understand they are not demanding anything in that statement, only they want to know the consequences of that decision leading up to LA (2028 Paralympics), which is understandable. And we will respond to them with information that they want."
The dispute underscores the ongoing challenge international sporting bodies face in navigating geopolitical conflicts while maintaining their constitutional integrity and global membership cohesion.
