No Representation With Current Invasion: Should Russia And Belarus Be Banned From The Paralympic Games?

    The International Paralympic Committee’s (IPCs) decision to ban Russia and Belarus from the recent Paralympic Games has created a heated debate on the subject. The IPC argues that the ban aligns with its commitment to peace and neutrality, which is very relevant to Russia given the current invasion of Ukraine. But this also raises some good questions– Should athletes be bearing the punishment of Russia as a whole? Especially those with disabilities, should they really be paying for the actions of their government? Is this really fair? It begs the question of if the IPC is making the right call in this, and furthermore, should the ban continue into future Paralympic games?

    To decide whether or not the IPC has made the right call, we have to look at what is important to the IPC. The IPC’s values consist of: inclusion, equality, and the belief that sports should transcend politics and government. By excluding Russian and Belarusian athletes from the Paralympics, the IPC is basically saying that these conflicts and governmental choices outweigh these principles. Is this really fair to athletes who’ve trained their entire lives for the moment to represent their country? Most likely, many if not all of them have no control over their governments’ decisions, and banning them might feel like collective punishment, which might only serve to divide us further. In the IPCs defense, they have a responsibility to uphold their stance against aggression and with equality, and allowing these specific nations to participate could be seen as legitimizing or justifying their governments’ actions.

    Personally, I think the IPC should stand strong in their ban. I feel that the moral implications far outweigh the right to compete. I'm sure the people of Ukraine would rather the Russians leave them alone, but it seems you cannot always get what you want. I also believe that although it does suck that you might not be able to compete because of a government choice you might not even agree with, that it allows for the conversation to be opened up in Russia or Belarus, if enough athletes are upset, maybe they can try to enact change or awareness in their home country. But if they are included in the Games, people at home may not think that anything is wrong. Furthermore, Russia and Belarus were given a warning, agreed to a truce, and broke it still, aiding in the decision to ban them.

    But there are other ways we could go about it– we could instead find ways to let individual athletes compete neutrally—without flags or anthems, as people have done in the past. This could allow the athletes to play, while still signaling that the actions of Russia and Belarus are not accepted.  As for hosting events in Russia or Belarus? I would think that’s a hard no. Holding competitions in these countries would directly support their regimes by bringing tourism and business, and athletes from other nations might feel unsafe or uncomfortable participating. In conclusion I do believe that the ban adheres to the IPC values, and although it is an extreme stance, I believe that you must have a reaction equal to the action. And as far as invading countries goes, I think that being banned from the games is like a slap on the wrist.