The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the about section.
On Friday, March 10, the International Fencing Federation (FIE) held an Extraordinary Congress and voted to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes, teams and officials to once again participate in international fencing events. This gives Russian and Belarusian fencers the ability to participate in qualifying events ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympics.
This vote came a mere 104 days after the original FIE vote to exclude Russian and Belarusian fencers after the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian military. The status of the violence caused by the Russian invasion has not changed since the original vote, leading many to wonder why the FIE made this decision.
“[A]fter 77% of the members of this same body voted to extend the ban,” said Phil Andrews, the chief executive of USA Fencing—the organization that has expressed the most vocal opposition to Russia and Belarus’ return to international competition—in response to the FIE decision, “what has changed in those 104 days?”
Despite dissent from powerful organizations like USA Fencing, the vote passed with clean margins: 89 to 46 in favor of Russian and Belarusian individuals returning to competitions, 85 to 51 in favor of their teams returning, and 88 to 48 in favor of allowing officials to attend FIE events once again.
Immediately following the FIE decision, organizers in Poland, Denmark and Germany all cancelled their respective FIE events, including two women’s foil World Cups that would have counted towards Olympic qualification. The Polish Fencing Federation (PZS) wanted to require all “players and collaborators” attending the World Cup in Poznan to sign a statement declaring “that they oppose the aggression of Russia and Belarus against Ukraine, and they are not current professional soldiers nor do they work in any other security organs of either of these countries” (Reuters). The FIE, however, would not allow the PZS to follow their own internal procedures for allowing fencers to participate. In response, Poland cancelled the event. Many such instances are likely to occur because of the FIE’s controversial decisions.
I have been fencing for more than half my life and I have a keen interest in global politics, which makes a situation like this incredibly close to my heart. Regardless of the moral arguments against Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, the fact that the FIE reversed their decision to ban Russian and Belarusian fencers despite the unchanged status of the war means that the initial decision was mere virtue signaling; the FIE does not actually care about the violence done against Ukraine by Russia and Belarus, nor did they ever.
My own disagreements with the FIE decision are not based on morality. Many countries, including the United States, commit awful crimes against other nations, and their athletes are not punished. I am not personally against Russian and Belarusian fencers being able to fence in international events because—even if some of those athletes are sponsored by the Russian military, as many Russian fencers are—I believe the actions of one individual cannot properly account for the social institutions that made them commit those actions. Banning Russian and Belarusian fencers because of their ties to their countries’ military is ridiculous. A more consistent approach would be to ban any fencer, from any country, with ties to their military. The moral argument for banning Russian and Belarusian fencers is flawed and makes apparent the bias of American fencers against Russia in particular.
No, my disagreement with the FIE decision lies from a logistical standpoint. Many nations, like Germany, are not allowing Russians and Belarusians into their borders at all, no matter where their allegiances lie. If a fencing event absolutely requires fencers from Russia and Belarus to be able to participate, but those fencers are not even allowed into the country, then the event legally cannot be held there. This gives an unfair advantage to countries that have expressed allyship with Russia and Ukraine, which expresses favoritism on the part of FIE for countries that do not align with the majority.
The entire situation is a controversial and delicate one, but FIE’s apathy to it is made clear by their very quick turnaround when nothing has actually changed.