anchor: hello. you are watching al jazeera. the high court in london has ruled that wikileaks founder julian assange can be extradited to the united states. the 50-year-old could face trial in the u.s. on charges including publishing classified military documents. his partner says he has been punished enough. >> today, it has been almost a year since i stood outside court with our victory of the blocking of the extradition.

for the past year and the past two years and a half, julian has remained in bell march prison. and in fact, he has been detained since the seventh of december, 2010, in one form or another, 11 years. for how long can this go on? anchor: people in that the u.s. can now send money to family movers in afghanistan through a financial institution otherwise subject to american sanctions. the move does not apply to charitable donations. the u.n. has warned nearly 9 million afghans are facing famine this winter. u.s. president joe biden says he is very concerned about a supreme court decision to keep abortion curbs in texas, but biden hailed the ruling that allows abortion providers to challenge the state law banning procedures after six weeks. that law came into effect in september and is america's strictest. the procedure is at a time when

women often do not know they are pregnant. protesters in myanmar has held a silent protest against the ousting of the democratically elected government. businesses were closed, industries and markets deserted across the country on friday. the united nations has accuse the government of crimes against humanity. and an explosion in the lebanese port city of to ray has injured about a dozen people. >> [explosion] anchor: it happened late friday evening in a palestinian camp in southern lebanon. videos show a number of right red flashes followed by an explosion. the cause is to be determined. those of the headlines. "inside story" is next. i will be back the top of the hour with more news. ♪

anchor: what will a diplomatic boycott of the beijing? winter olympics achieve? canada? -- canada is the latest to protest against china's human rights record. with our people political issues at play -- but there are deeper political issues at play. this is "inside story." ♪ anchor: welcome to the program. i'm nick clark. sports and politics often mix whenever the olympic games are held. it will apparently be no different for the beijing winter games to begin in february. despite china's repeated denials of human rights violations and suppression of freedoms, particularly in xinjiang, and

hong kong, chinese leadership is coming under scrutiny. the u.s. is joining others in a diplomatic boycotts of the games. athletes will still go to beijing, but government representatives will not be there for the opening and closing ceremonies, or to attend official functions. so far, other countries seem more reluctant to join in. france's president calls the boycott insignificant and pointless. >> i don't think we should politicize this to make very small and symbolic measures. either we say we are going to do a complete boycott, not going to send any athletes, or we are going to try to reengage in useful actions. i am more in favor of doing things that have a useful effect. anchor: aside from human rights, the four boycotting countries have other concerns about china. for example, donald trump launched a trade war because of what the former u.s. president said were china's unfair practices. britain and at several western nations have banned the chinese

telecoms company huawei from their networks because of concerns that the chinese government agents could infiltrate the equipment for spying. when canadian police arrested the huawei executive at washington's request, police in china swiftly detained two canadians. all have since been released. australia angered beijing by demanding an international investigation into the origins of covid-19. china is warning the boycotting nations that they will pay a price. >> i want to point out that the beijing winter olympic games is a staging for winter sports athletes. any asked to politicize sports violates the spirit of the lepic charter. china is opposed to that. nick: let's bring in our guest from seoul in its se south -- in south korea.

ross griffin is our middle east editor of the international journal of the history of sports. from portland in the u.s. state of oregon, we have the chair of the pacific university's politic and government department. he is a former professional and olympic football are. a warm welcom to you all. victor, this boycott, is it driven by a real objective to chinese human rights abuses, or is it all about countries' individual spats with china? >> i think there has always been general -- genuine concerns about human rights, with china in particular, and this has been a constant issue in ch sino u.s. relations since 1972, when the u.s. and china normalized their relations. having said this, this did not

prevent americans from establishing good relations with china in the latter part of the cold war and right up to the donald trump administration. so the question is, why now, and why make a big issue over human rights? because they have coexisted quite well over the past 40, 50 years, even though human rights have been a concern. i think at the heart of the issue, it is not just about human rights, but a geopolitical tussle between the chinese and the americans, and secondly, there are domestic considerations on the part of the biden administration. this is due to the fact that the republicans have been going very strong criticizing the biden administration for not going harder on china. so the biden administration wants to be seen doing something

to confront the chinese, and i think they have picked this olympic issue as one of the things of the few that they can actually do to fan off criticisms. nick: sure. jewels, what is your thought? why make such a big issue of human rights when it has often -- when it is often just ignored? >> i think that is exactly right, that the olympics provide an opportunity to speak out about what our gross human rights violations in china. in the united states, essentially china has become a bipartisan punching bag. both republicans and democrats are beating up on china right now. it is a very fraught moment. the u.s. defense department needs no assistance whatsoever when it comes to the political demonization of the country, and i think that is what we are seeing right now. back in 2018, there was a poll that was done to assess what people believed the threat of china was, and it was only 48%

in 2018 who thought that china was a threat. earlier this year, get another poll, up to 77%. the olympics provide this giant spectacle that the whole world watches, but we are seeing something wider happening here, what i think is arguably the demonization of the united states, and it has potentially serious ramifications. nick: russ griffin, i am wondering to what degree this could have an effect anyway. how much of a statement is being made by government officials not attending in this way, because after all, it is the athletes that count here and they are still going? >> in many ways, these kinds of boycotts are very much a symbolic thing. by letting the athletes go, take the u.s. for example, they still get that moral victory. we often see it with the summer

olympic games. by telling their athletes you cannot go, you are penalizing or punishing these people who put their lives on hold for four years to train for these games. but by letting them go, you get the good grace, all of your athletes competing, and you also get the possibility of asserting that dominance where you can actually win. and by suggesting a boycott, you are raising that awareness of the alleged issue that you think is a concern that the rest of the world should take heed of. so we are looking at it in terms of listening to macron's words a few minutes ago. an athlete only boycott, one that pulls the athletes out of the games, is a very big move. but this one has the possibility of applying a bit of finesse to the situation that would allow countries like the u.s. to win on both sides. nick: china says it doesn't care, doesn't it? as far as they are concerned,

victor, there is already some impact, isn't it? because china is not achieving what it hoped to gain on this, and that is positive pr. right now, all anybody is talking about is human rights abuses and not sport. >> they have been talking about the xinjiang issue for a while now, so it is not just these couple months. insofar as where china is concerned, this couple of years it has always been about damage control, not so much about propagating a positive image. this is one of the considerations in china now. regardless of what they say, the americans and japan and whoever else is going to say what they like. but it is not only so much the administrations of these countries. it is also the social media and mass media in general, because th country -- because these countries have a free press. i would say they have not

put putting a positive image abroad a top priority. the chinese have had zero covert policy, so some are concerned about the effects. they want to host a successful olympics, but at the same time they want to limit the number of foreigners coming into the country. nick: we have heard of boycotts before. olympic way cuts are not new, but they boys involved the athletes -- olympic boycotts are not new, but they have always involved the athletes. the soviet union got back on the americans by boycotting the olympics in 1984. all the while, new zealand has said it is not sending officials to the beijing olympics due to health concerns, and japan is among other countries considering diplomatic boycotts of the games. ross griffin, these boycotts when they have involved athletes as well, what kind of success

have they had in implementing change down the line? >> it is a tough one to call. it is a very subjective one. everyone recalls the most famous boycotts of 1980 and 1984, as you mentioned. but in terms of the effectiveness, the 1976 games in montreal often goes under the radar where you had 28 african nations who boycotted the montreal games because new zealand, as you just mentioned a few seconds ago, they embarked on a rugby tour in south africa that summer, and that was in the wake of the riots in may or june of that year. it was one of the more effective boycotts in that it raised a huge amount of awareness on what was happening in africa and it gave a very strong impression of the united africa against apartheid. and that was one of the few successful boycotts of an olympic games to achieve

anything. if you look at the two later ones, the ones immediately following that, america and 65 other countries boycotted those games, but still many athletes from britain or australia participated in the games anyway under and only big flag or national committee, so they still attended. the americans are the only ones who withheld their athletes, punishing their athletes essentially. and it did not achieve anything in the greater scheme of things. it's aims, political aims, were ultimately a failure. but if you go back to the history of the olympics, there have been various boycotts or suggestions of boycotts. not many of them have actually achieved anything of note, anything tangible. nick: jules, is it likely this kind of more subtle approach

could work, could apply pressure on the chinese government? is it likely to make any difference? >> i would first just say china boycotted the 1980 olympics in the soviet union as well, and also china boycotted in 1964, the tokyo games. all of a sudden, they're very much changed their tune in saying these days that the olympics should not be political. they were very political for china back in that timeframe. in terms of moving forward, i think what is interesting to keep an eye on is will countries expand the diplomatic boycott to an athlete boycott? athletes are very much in the middle on this one. if you think about that, who put them there? the international olympic committee put the athletes in this very difficult position. if athletes were to lead a boycott in beijing, which i do don't anticipate but could be a building, that could be effective. if governments decide not to

send their athletes, that could be a real dud. after all, here in the united states and other countries where athletes did not go to the olympics, there is a real sour taste in their mouths. you have numerous olympians with asterisks next to their names and they have been vociferous about feeling crummy about it. but the diplomatic boycott that we see in place allows for countries to prevent china from engaging in what we call these days sports washing, using these big sports mega events to launder your international reputation on the world stage. in other words, scrub away the human rights violations and try to look legitimate on the world stage. the diplomatic boycott has been effective in talking about rights violations instead of how wonderful china is for hosting this event. nick: the thing is, macron says you should not politicize the olympics, but how can you not when you have stories of not only about the human rights abuses, but the current story about the tennis star peng suhu,

who has been censored? >> when macron says we should not intersect politics and sports, we should keep in mind that paris is slated to host the 2024 summer olympics. they might be reticent to speak out on this. the international olympic committee has said from its inception that politics and sports do not mix. but that has been a fairytale from day one. after all, the plucky french aristocrat baron di put together brokers and understood they needed support for the olympics to survive. skip ahead to 1936 when hitler used the old epics as a -- the olympics as a trampoline for his invasion of europe. think ahead to the cold war, where the olympics were a proxy battle war for the united states and the soviet union, all the way to today where it is obviously political. the olympics are political

through and through and anybody who tells you otherwise is probably milking the olympics cow with both hands. they are making their money off of the olympic games. nick: shouldn't there be more onus on the international olympic committee to manage it? and perhaps it should be not awarding big events like this to countries with say a poor track record in human rights. >> yeah, but the ioc is not a neutral broker in all of this. the 1936 games in berlin, the ioc has a track record of giving games to nations with dubious backgrounds. what is often forgotten in history is that the games after the hitler games, if you want to call it that come over going to japan in 1940, only before the outbreak of world war ii. there are other concerns other

than sports washing or what is going on in the background. a lot of nations, a lot of cities, they don't want the games, they cannot afford them. i think the bidding for the paris games was almost symbolic because a lot of countries or cities pulled out, roma being one, montreal was the other, where they had politicized it or people were saying we don't want to spend millions upon millions on these games when we need schools, roads, hospitals improved were built, or infrastructure built. they are now waiting for countries to put up their hands. nick: victor, do you think there is a split in the way the west once to deal with china? as far as this is concerned, there is not a unified approach. the u.s. top ross may not be attending, but the u.n. secretary general has been signaling he will attend the games. >> i would not say it is a split. the united states is the most

powerful country in the world, but it still is unable to get h their way all the time. there are some issues where they are not willing to go along. france is obviously saying a different thing, but i suspect the french are reacting to the previous episode where the french were displaced and the president is trying to -- i would not say it is payback, but it is trying to say something different to show its own kind of leadership within the western bloc. there are other u.s. allies who are also saying different things. if you look at the japanese and south koreans, they are pretty ambivalent about following the u.s. into this diplomatic boycott. the japanese prime minister has

said he will take the national interest in consideration. what that usually means is he is still thinking. there are voices within japan from the conservative party. they have been whipping up, using the chinese as a punching bag for the last good nine years. shinzo abe came out very strongly saying japan should join a boycott. but sheshishida wants to have a good relationship with the united states, but at the same time as mindful of those relations. he wants to prevent the relations from deteriorating. the south koreans have a different idea. they want a host of the previous games. the korean government has said that south korea has the role of a host of previous games. it is signaling it is unlikely

to join the boycott. they might be pressured. the point is that different countries might react differently to what they are proposing. nick: jules, china is pretty angry about this, saying it is going to fight back and resolute countermeasures it talks of, and countries will pay the price for their mistaken acts. what do you think that reaction will be? how do you think they can fight back? >> they have a lot of measures at their disposal given their economic power right now, as well as their influence around the world thanks to their belt and wrote initiative. they have a lot of people that have endeared themselves to china. we should not forget the fact that they have made a lot of friends over the years. economic sanctions definitely seem in the realm of possibility.

if you want to keep it inside the olympic sphere, there is the los angeles olympics coming up in 2028, which they intimated they might do a diplomatic boycott in return. one thing i think is important to put into the frame is what mr. griffin mentioned before about the role of the international olympic committee. they have all these wonderful ideas inside of their olympic charter about human rights and freedom and the dignity of the individual, which are being thrown out the window right now in their selection of beijing and their backing of beijing all the way through the olympics, given the human rights abuses that are happening there. as we move forward, it will be interesting to see whether the verbal volleys between the united states and china distract from the fact that the international olympic committee created the originals and, which is to say that giving the olympics to china even though they knew there had not been advancements in human rights since china hosted the games back in 2008. nick: ross, do you think there could be any impact on this as

far as the ioc is concerned? >> from the boycott itself, you mean? nick: yeah. >> the way the ioc operates? i don't think so. i think the ioc will go to whoever is willing to host the games and pay for the games. the ioc seems to be very selective in how they deal with protests. thinking back to the tokyo games where you had the american shot putter raven sanders. she made her protest for the black lives matter movement and even though she was threatened with action, nothing came against her for that protest, nor should there have been. but the ioc seems to be very selective in how it applies its measures in all cases. it is very willing to turn a blind eye to certain workers, certain people, certain nations. like a lot of these transnational supporting organizations, i think they are very flexible in how they adapt

or apply their policies. nick: victor, do you think ultimately this is more about the collision of two worldviews, more a reflection of a real world crisis that is ongoing right now between superpowers? >> yes and no. i am very worried about the trajectory of the u.s.-china relations because the kind of narratives we hear among the western block, and i read the papers, the kinds of things they are saying is, there is a lot of truth to it, but there are a lot of people using china as a political football. having said that, i pay attention to what is being said on the chinese side too. we see a refction of wt is being done in the western press. the chinese are actually doing it. for chinese discussion, it is exactly the same kind of

demonization going on, and that is really worrying because we have a parallel universe. i'm not sure if that is the correct term to use, but a genuine separation of the global community that is brewing. i think that is actually a big concern. nick: ross, if this does gain traction, i guess we should focus elsewhere, and that is the corporate sponsors of events like this, coca-cola and airbnb. with a be reassessing their involvement at a -- would they be reassessing their involvement? >> i can give you the honest answer and the corporate answer. the honest answer, i think that these companies are motivated by the bottom line and i don't think there is a chance they will ever ice a market as big as china. they are clear bought. they will turn the same blind eye that the likes of the ioc has turned to many countries in the past, and they will carry on regardless. a lot of these companies -- i

think the phrase is were to signaling. but at the end of the day, they will be in the winter olympics when those games happen. they will be with the ioc through thick and thin. nick: it has been a terrific discussion. thanks very much to joining us. thanks to all of our guests. thanks very much. and thank you too for watching. visit our website, al jazeera.com. you can go to our facebook page, facebook d.com/ajinsidestory. you can also join the conversation on twitter. fermi and -- for me and the whole team, it is goodbye for now. ♪

ço

♪ >> it is a project that started in 2007. it was created to celebrate the life and promote