Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki
diplomacy is a form of public diplomacy, which involves “representative and diplomatic activities undertaken by sportspeople on behalf of and in conjunction with their governments.”71
A broader approach to defining sports diplomacy can also be found in state documents. For example, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea in Diplomatic White Paper 2014 described sports diplomacy as a tool of strengthening bilateral and multilateral sports cooperation and referred to government’s engagement in bidding for sports events, assisting Korean citizens in becoming board members of sports organizations or dispatching taekwondo masters and demonstration teams overseas.72 In US Congressional Record from 2003 it is claimed that “the Secretary is authorized to expand efforts to promote United States public diplomacy interests in eligible countries and elsewhere through sports diplomacy,” which can be done through activities such as bilateral exchanges to train athletes or teams and to assist countries in establishing or improving their sports, health, or physical education programs, providing assistance to American athletic governing bodies to support their efforts to foster cooperation with counterpart organizations abroad and utilizing American professional athletes and other well-known sports personalities in support of public diplomacy goals and activities.73 This approach includes two main types of international activities within the scope of sports diplomacy: bilateral sports exchanges which include supporting development of sport in other countries, for example, sending coaches, experts, or athletes overseas for joint trainings; and the use of global recognisability of sports stars employed by Department of State in order to promote the United States. The presented approach did not refer to breaking political isolation, but once again emphasized the connection between sports diplomacy and public diplomacy.
Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman distinguished two categories of sports diplomacy. First of them refers to the international sport being consciously employed by governments as an instrument of diplomacy, while the second, described as international-sport-as-diplomacy, involves “diplomatic representation, communication, and negotiation between non-state actors (but also with governments) that take place as a result of ongoing international sporting competition.”74 Murray and Pigman present a wider approach to sports diplomacy. First of the categories offered by them is the most obvious dimension of sports diplomacy and is particularly crucial in political analyses. However, a globalizing world brought an increasing role of non-state actors in international relations, and this tendency refers to the international sport as well. Therefore, sports diplomacy, as a domain of non-state actors, should also be recognized.
In his recent book, Stuart Murray presented a framework of four theoretical subcategories: traditional sports diplomacy, sports diplomacy, the specialized diplomacy of non-state sporting actors, and sports anti-diplomacy. Traditional sports diplomacy can be defined as the use, exploitation, or abuse of elite sport, sportspeople, or sports events to advance the state’s foreign policy objectives. “New” sports diplomacy, or simply sports diplomacy, is more inclusive which also includes activities of non-state and public partnerships, while ministries of foreign affairs facilitate, manage, and evaluate sports diplomacy strategies and policies. Its objective is to enhance the state’s image, reputation, and partnership. The concept of diplomacy of non-state sporting actors refers to sports bodies that communicate, negotiate, and engage in diplomatic representation. Sports anti-diplomacy refers to the dark side of the diplomatic employment of sport. Murray describes it as “intentional abuse of sport to drive people and states apart,”75 but this concept is different from the negative sports diplomacy mentioned earlier in this book.
James Pamment identified a number of aspects in which sports diplomacy refers to diplomacy, which include summitry, celebrity, symbolism, and reputational advantages of sporting mega-events and elite sport; multilateral diplomacy and pseudo-diplomacy of non-state sporting institutions and sport as a carrier of values, norms, and standards, promoted as technical knowledge and participatory social practice.76 This approach seems to underestimate the importance of sports contacts on an amateur level that sometimes are employed by states to get closer to other countries or to shape their positive image, although these issues could probably be classified within the first of the aspects presented by Pamment. What is particularly important in this approach is that it underlines issues of image-building and diplomacy (or pseudo-diplomacy) of non-state sports organizations. Hence, it is difficult not to recognize the growing diplomatic role of actors such as the International Olympic Committee or IFs.
Judit Trunkos and Bob Heere distinguished several strategic goals of sports diplomacy. They include using sport as an unofficial opportunity for meetings between state leaders, to communicate about a state which hosts a sports event, to counteract cultural and linguistic differences between states, to create platforms for new legislation and trade agreements, to build wider awareness of particular state owing to activity of sports ambassadors, to create legacies by hosts of sports events, to boost their international image, and to legitimize new states.77 All these aspects fall into the category of sports diplomacy as a means of shaping the state’s perception and its relations with other countries. Trunkos and Heere also referred to the role of international sports governing bodies, but their list of sports diplomacy strategic goals is focused on states.
A review of approaches to sports diplomacy leads to the conclusion that there are several ways of perceiving it, which differ concerning the scope of the term. In general, sports diplomacy can be described as a diplomatic instrument, which because of its target is situated in principle within the scope of public diplomacy. Some authors connect sports diplomacy with the activity of states, at the same time noticing the role of other actors in this field, such as sports organizations, teams, individual sportspeople. In both cases, the target of sports diplomacy includes governments and citizens of another country. The broadest approach to sports diplomacy perceives international sport as a diplomatic arena, with sports organizations involved as diplomatic subjects.
In response to the observations above, particularly in reference to approaches of sports diplomacy presented by Stuart Murray and Geoffrey Pigman and James Pamment, but with particular regard to the subjects and objectives of sports diplomacy, three types of sports diplomacy might be distinguished: (1) as a means of shaping interstate relations, (2) as a means of building international image and prestige of states, and (3) as a diplomatic activity of international sports subjects.
Sports Diplomacy as a Means of Shaping Interstate Relations
If a state-centric perspective on sports diplomacy is adopted, it is hard to deny that it is often subordinate to traditional diplomacy, or foreign policy. When defined most narrowly, sports diplomacy serves the goal of building diplomatic relations in their traditional sense. For example, the purpose of ping-pong diplomacy was in principle to arrange a “safe” meeting for the United States and the PRC. In the situation of lack of official diplomatic relations, sport, which in theory is separate from politics, could be used to avoid the risk of losing face if the attempt to establish diplomatic contact failed. What is more, the United States was allied with the Republic of China and could not have initiated a transparent dialogue with the PRC. There were several circumstances which prevented from traditional diplomatic contacts. An initiative to use sport for this sake became an answer to this problem, which proved to be successful. It was a clear example of how sport can be employed in pursuing relations between states.
In this context, sports diplomacy appears as a tool for realizing particular state interests associated with the need to affect the relations between countries. It does not mean that such sports diplomacy has to be coordinated by the government. Sports contacts might well be initiated on the grassroots level, but in the situation of strong antagonism between states, the proposition of sports exchange and its acceptance involve communication on a governmental level, at least to some extent. It may target public opinion or political elites. Therefore, sports diplomacy, despite being in principle a subcategory of public diplomacy, may also be seen as an auxiliary tool of traditional diplomacy, a substitute for secret diplomacy, which enables establishing international contacts without risking criticism in case the endeavor fails.
The issue of negative sports diplomacy is different. It includes sports boycotts and attempts to isolate particular states in international