In a world where conflict has become a grim constant, from Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Iranian government’s crackdown on dissent to Hamas’ hostage-taking, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and mounting tensions between China and Taiwan, the question remains: can an event, even as monumental as the Olympic Games, truly ease such divisions?

The philosophy of peace through sport has long been central to the International Olympic Committee’s mission. In Ancient Greece, the Olympic Truce paused hostilities so athletes and spectators could travel and compete safely. Today, the United Nations General Assembly revives that tradition before every Games with a symbolic resolution calling for conflicts to halt.

In practice, wars rarely pause and disputes seldom fade. Yet the Olympic ideal continues to serve as a reminder of a different vision for international relations. Although the truce carries no legal weight, the Games have occasionally created space for quiet diplomacy. At the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics, for example, athletes from North and South Korea marched under a unified flag. That symbolic gesture preceded rare dialogue between the two governments.

The Olympics can also influence global narratives. Images of athletes from rival nations embracing or sharing a podium often resonate far beyond the stadiums, sending messages that political speeches cannot. Such moments humanise those on the other side of a conflict and stand in stark contrast to headlines dominated by hostility.

Give peace a chance

It would be naïve to view the Games as a cure for geopolitical crises. UN calls for peace are non-binding, and the political will to suspend conflict rarely aligns with the Olympic calendar. The Games themselves have sometimes been a stage for confrontation, as with the Western boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the Eastern Bloc’s boycott of Los Angeles in 1984.

Sporting boycotts, in particular, often deepen divisions rather than ease them. By turning sport into another arena for political conflict, they remove one of the few remaining spaces where adversaries can meet without the constraints of diplomacy. Boycotts can inflame nationalism and strengthen hardline positions. While the isolation of apartheid-era South Africa was a rare case where sporting sanctions contributed to an effective global pressure campaign, history shows that such measures more often harden rifts than build bridges.

Even when the Games proceed peacefully, they cannot erase the causes of war. At best, they can soften the tone of global discourse for a short time. What they offer is a narrow window, a brief shift in the world’s focus from battlefields to playing fields. If that opportunity is seized by political leaders, civil society, and international organisations, it can help spark dialogue, reduce tensions and, however tentatively, build connections.

The responsibility does not rest on sport alone. Without genuine political will, the Olympic flame cannot extinguish entrenched animosities. But it can remind the world that there are still places where competition replaces violence and where, even if only for a moment, solidarity eclipses enmity.