The End of Détente* A Case Study of the 1980 Moscow Olympics By Thomas Smith After the election of autonomous and must resist all pressure of any Jimmy Carter as US kind whatsoever, whether of a political, religious President, Prime or economic nature.”1 With British government Minister Margaret documents from 1980 recently released under the Thatcher flew to Thirty Year Rule, the time seems apt to evaluate the Washington on 17th debate about the Olympic boycott, and to ask the December 1979 for question: to what extent was the call by the British her first official visit. government for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Five days later NATO Olympics an appropriate response to the invasion of announced the de- Afghanistan? ployment of a new Before the argument of the essay is established, it generation of American is first necessary to provide a brief narrative of the rockets and Cruise main events. Thatcher’s government began discussing missiles in Western the idea of a boycott in early January 1980; however, Europe. On the 25th their first action was to call for the Olympics to be December Soviet moved to a different location. Once the IOC declared troops marched into that relocating the Olympics was out of the question, Afghanistan. Thatcher told the House of Commons that she was now advising athletes not to go to Moscow and wrote Photo: U.S. Government to Sir Denis Follows, Chairman of the BOA, informing Introduction him of the government’s decision. The BOA, which was Britain’s NOC and the organisation that could During the 1970s, relations between the West and the accept or decline the invitation to the Olympics, Soviet Union were marked by an era of détente. High- declared that they were against a boycott, but, at the level treaties were signed; cultural exchanges occurred wishes of the individual Governing Bodies of Sport and foreign policy was driven by realpolitik and (of which there were 26 which made up the BOA), pragmatism. However, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan postponed making a final decision until the 25th of in December 1979 led to a significant shift in relations and March. In the meantime, the government undertook actions taken in response to the invasion largely ended a variety of measures in order to persuade the BOA to the period of détente and sparked off a new Cold War, support a boycott. Despite such efforts, on the 25th spearheaded by the ‘New Right’ of President Ronald of March, the BOA declared that it was accepting the Reagan in the United States and the Prime Minister, invitation to Moscow 2. From then on, the government Margaret Thatcher, in Britain. concentrated its efforts on trying to persuade the Indeed, the response to the invasion which caused Governing Bodies of Sport to boycott the Games, rather the most friction at the time, and a long-running than the BOA, as these Governing Bodies reserved the debate in historical monographs ever since, was the right to defy the BOA’s decision if they wished. As a choice of some Western leaders, such as President result, four Governing Bodies, Equestrianism, Hockey, Jimmy Carter and Margaret Thatcher, to call for a Shooting and Yachting, agreed to the boycott, while boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games that were to be held in Moscow. The reason this action caused Thomas Smith | *1991. He was awarded his postgraduate much friction and debate was because the Olympics, degree in Russian and East European studies from the Univer- according to the International Olympic Committee sity of Oxford in 2014. He previously attended University College London where he received a degree in History, specialising in (IOC), was an explicitly non-political event and that the politics of Russia in the 1970s. He now works as a policy “National Olympic Committees (NOCs) [which make adviser. up the decision-making body of the IOC] must be 32 the remainder supported the BOA. In the end, a twice over Afghanistan, then next time they see an relatively complete British Olympic team made the opportunity they may decide to stay at home”9. Thus, trip, although, at the request of the BOA, the British not only would a boycott convey a strong message, but team used an IOC flag throughout the competition also it was hoped that it would induce a new global rather than the Union Jack. relationship with the Soviet Union, in which forays Crafted using a balanced evaluation of unique into the Third World would no longer be accepted primary source material which documents the case and détente would be transformed into a two-way both for and against the boycott, this essay will argue, relationship. Furthermore, a boycott was also seen contrary to the predominant trend in the general as the most conspicuous way “in which we can bring history of the boycott, that the British government’s home to the Russian people that their rulers have call for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games miscalculated.”10 Indeed, the Civil Service advised the Sir Denis Follows was appropriate. This conclusion will be reached by government that a boycott would be “impossible to (1908-1983) had been approaching the question from a new perspective conceal”11 by the Soviet authorities, unlike athletes Chairman of the British which argues that the government’s call for a boycott making political gestures while at the Games (as some Olympic Association should be analysed as two different types of response suggested as an alternative to a boycott) which would (BOA) from 1977. to the invasion of Afghanistan – a punitive response invariably be censored by the Soviet authorities as Previously, from 1963 and a response which aimed at preventing the Soviet all “internal broadcasts will be recorded and edited to 1975, he served as Union from exploiting British athletes for political before transmission.”12 Thus, the Olympic boycott was Secretary of the purposes, which will be referred to as the preventative to be the crux of the punishment meted out by the Football Association. response. The appropriateness of the first response, British government to the Soviet Union in the wake of it will be argued, was questionable, yet, the second, the invasion of Afghanistan. because of the way in which the Soviet Union was appropriating the Olympic Games during the invasion of Afghanistan, was a politically necessary response for the government, and thus, appropriate. Indeed, by arguing the political necessity of this response, this essay will also challenge the traditional approach to the boycott as one of a question over whether it was appropriate that politics should interfere in sport, and instead argue that such a debate was actually irrelevant. The Punitive Response A boycott came to epitomise, in the eyes of the government, the punitive response that the Soviet Union deserved in the wake of the invasion of However, although the arguments for the boycott as a ‘Ah, the starting Afghanistan. Although the government emphasised punitive response to the invasion of Afghanistan are pistol! Let’s go!’ that the boycott was part of a package of measures compelling, they are, in themselves, problematic. Firstly, Caricature: Daily Express taken against the Soviet Union, such as withholding although the Soviet citizens would notice a boycott, there support for a Soviet Film Week at the National Film was a good chance that the reasons behind it would Theatre 3, the boycott was clearly the centre point of a be covered up by the Soviet government or portrayed punitive response and all of the other measures were as a measure to end détente and start a new Cold War. relatively minor in comparison. Thus, for Thatcher, a Indeed, the Soviet government, aided by the fact that the boycott would be a clear signal to the Soviet Union boycott was only partial, effectively portrayed the boycott that “aggression cannot be committed without cost” 4 as an anti-Soviet and anti-détente measure and, in and that for the West, appeasement and détente were conjunction, managed to successfully engender a sense no longer the top priorities 5, a sentiment backed by of Soviet patriotism, which encouraged the solidarity of most Conservative and also some Labour MPs 6. the population with the leadership. Although the government never expected that Secondly, there was a persuasive argument to a boycott would alter the strategic situation in suggest that a boycott, rather than simply altering Afghanistan 7, it was argued that a boycott would deter the nature of détente, could destroy it completely. the Soviet Union from further expansion8, as Foreign Indeed, as Foreign Affairs expert Dr. Karen Dawisha Office Minister Douglas Hurd wrote in an article for explained in a statement to the Foreign Affairs Select the Daily Express, “If we can make the Russians think Committee, a boycott could “raise the temperature of JOH 2 | 2015 The End of Détente – A Case Study of the 1980 Moscow Olympics 33 the Cold War”13, not least by isolating the pro-détente There is a system in the Soviet Bloc countries which members of the Politburo and allowing hardliners to unashamedly uses sport for the glorification of the rise to prominence within the Soviet Union. Again, State, there is a system in the Third World countries such fears were proved correct - the NATO assessment of where the Government tend to run sport and thirdly, the boycott concluded that the boycott, as predicted, there is the system which is prevalent in the western damaged détente irreparably, and relations between democracies where sport is run on a voluntary the Soviet Union and the West entered a new era of principle, but where it has now become such a vital confrontation.