ECF Bans Russians

[Mick Norris]

People really should not be expected to renounce their country in order to play in a chess tournament. RUS is not Putin.

I'd disagree with your terminology, Justin. People aren't being asked to "renounce their country." Just to avoid legitimising a particular regime, by playing under its flag. There is a difference.

I completely respect people will reach their own conclusions, but to me the ECF approach feels proportionate and broadly mirrors what is being done in other sports.

There is so much that we can't do in relation to Ukraine, but avoiding "sports-washing," is surely one thing that we can do.

The trouble with that Ben, is that the sports washing has been effective, and has been going on for a long time too; Sochi 2014 and the football World Cup of 2018 being the most visible, but in chess we've been accepting Russian money, venues and sponsors for years

We're also allowing Saudi Arabia to sports wash in chess, boxing, football with Newcastle, etc

We'll play in the "human rights" football world cup in Qatar, we accept sports washing by other regimes in the middle east in our football teams

London is awash with Russian money, and lots of estate agents, lawyers, accountants, finance professionals have profited, as has the Tory party; no sign of any of them giving the money back

I'd agree the ECF is in a difficult position though

[David Sedgwick]

The flag is the country's and not the regime's.

In the case of Belarus, that is not so.

Please see the attachment as I don't seem to be able to copy and paste directly.

Flags of Belarus.pdf

[ben.graff]

People really should not be expected to renounce their country in order to play in a chess tournament. RUS is not Putin.

I'd disagree with your terminology, Justin. People aren't being asked to "renounce their country." Just to avoid legitimising a particular regime, by playing under its flag. There is a difference.

I completely respect people will reach their own conclusions, but to me the ECF approach feels proportionate and broadly mirrors what is being done in other sports.

There is so much that we can't do in relation to Ukraine, but avoiding "sports-washing," is surely one thing that we can do.

The trouble with that Ben, is that the sports washing has been effective, and has been going on for a long time too; Sochi 2014 and the football World Cup of 2018 being the most visible, but in chess we've been accepting Russian money, venues and sponsors for years

We're also allowing Saudi Arabia to sports wash in chess, boxing, football with Newcastle, etc

We'll play in the "human rights" football world cup in Qatar, we accept sports washing by other regimes in the middle east in our football teams

London is awash with Russian money, and lots of estate agents, lawyers, accountants, finance professionals have profited, as has the Tory party; no sign of any of them giving the money back

I'd agree the ECF is in a difficult position though

I agree with all your points, Mick. However, surely whatever has gone before, if now isn't the moment to finally take a stand, then when?

[JustinHorton]

The flag is the country's and not the regime's.

In the case of Belarus, that is not so.

Please see the attachment as I don't seem to be able to copy and paste directly.


Flags of Belarus.pdf

I am an instant expert in Belarussian flags, having looked at Wikipedia

However, surely whatever has gone before, if now isn't the moment to finally take a stand, then when?

When you say "finally", what do you mean though? It's not going to happen any more? We're going to cease to allow sport to be sponsored by repressive regimes or countries that have invaded or annexed others, and we're not going to let individuals associated with thosew regimes run football clubs or newspapers or fund political parties? Or is it just going to be Russia and Belarus for the duration of the war? (If the answer to the latter question is "yes", that's OK, I'm not looking for a shopping list here, but I would kind of like to know that, and I'm not likely to take the same view that I might if we really did mean "finally".)

[Matthew Turner]

The flag is the country's and not the regime's.

In the case of Belarus, that is not so.

Please see the attachment as I don't seem to be able to copy and paste directly.


Flags of Belarus.pdf

In relation to Belarusian flags, this might be of interest

https://www.chess.com/blog/CHESScom/sta ... on-belarus

[Joseph Conlon]

I've said this elsewhere, but this is a decision that is wrong both morally and practically, and contrary to some others I don't think this is a difficult issue.

It's wrong morally because individuals who happen to be Russian should not have to pretend to be something else in order to play chess. 'Russian' is a language and culture that long pre-dates Putin, Communism etc. This is doubly true in the case of juniors, for whom the parent will decide the FIDE nationality.

(this is not just theoretical - a UK-resident junior who has entered some of my Oxford events has a FIDE nationality of RUS. I suspect it is the same player John Upham is referring to)

It's wrong practically because it equates being Russian with supporting Putin, and while I can see that such as equation would be in Putin's interests right now, I can't see why it is in our interests.

Of course this is small beer compared to what the Russian state is doing in Ukraine right now, but this is after all a UK chess forum.

[Mike Gunn]

I agree that this ECF recommendation is a step too far. By all means ban Russian teams from international events but banning individual Russians resident in the UK from any ECF events is (i) ludicrous and (ii) will have zero practical effect on any decisions taken by Putin. Individual chess players are in a completely different category to oligarchs who have done deals with/ supported Putin in the past. The ECF has stated its position on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that is enough.

[JustinHorton]

However, surely whatever has gone before, if now isn't the moment to finally take a stand, then when?

When you say "finally", what do you mean though? It's not going to happen any more? We're going to cease to allow sport to be sponsored by repressive regimes or countries that have invaded or annexed others, and we're not going to let individuals associated with thosew regimes run football clubs or newspapers or fund political parties? Or is it just going to be Russia and Belarus for the duration of the war? (If the answer to the latter question is "yes", that's OK, I'm not looking for a shopping list here, but I would kind of like to know that, and I'm not likely to take the same view that I might if we really did mean "finally".)

Also - if we are "finally taking a stand", is this going to involve doing it properly, and asking who it was who took money or favours or political support from Mr Putin or his associates, when they knew very well what these people werem or are we just going to wave the past away? Because these people include the Prime Minister of the country and the governing party of the country and a great number of other parties besides.

And in chess, it includes the leading English player who actually described Arkady Dvorkovich as "an agent of the Russian government" and then proceeded to ally and work with him.

Will these people have to explain themselves? Will Nigel? Because if not, this is all humbug.

[ben.graff]

The flag is the country's and not the regime's.

In the case of Belarus, that is not so.

Please see the attachment as I don't seem to be able to copy and paste directly.


Flags of Belarus.pdf

I am an instant expert in Belarussian flags, having looked at Wikipedia

However, surely whatever has gone before, if now isn't the moment to finally take a stand, then when?

When you say "finally", what do you mean though? It's not going to happen any more? We're going to cease to allow sport to be sponsored by repressive regimes or countries that have invaded or annexed others, and we're not going to let individuals associated with thosew regimes run football clubs or newspapers or fund political parties? Or is it just going to be Russia and Belarus for the duration of the war? (If the answer to the latter question is "yes", that's OK, I'm not looking for a shopping list here, but I would kind of like to know that, and I'm not likely to take the same view that I might if we really did mean "finally".)

I'd say banning Russia and Belarus for the duration of the war (and until meaningful regime change had come about) would be a minimum. More would be better in terms of taking on other undesirable regimes, but as many of the posts in this thread rightly highlight, that does become increasingly harder for all sorts of reasons. However, I'd be uncomfortable if the fact that we cannot do everything, became a reason for not doing anything.

I completely respect all the points of views expressed here, and this will be my final post in this thread. Ultimately I think the actions taken by the ECF, ECU and FIDE are proportionate and meet the moment. The ECF is not preventing a single person from actually competing. The IOC, FIFA, UEFA and F1 are also to be applauded - as are the thirty-two Russian GMs who recently denounced the war. My thoughts are with the people of Ukraine.

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/russia ... op-the-war

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I'd be uncomfortable if the fact that we cannot do everything, became a reason for not doing anything.

What's being argued is that action taken is a both substitute for taking meaningful action and a justification for not taking meaningful action. This sort of ploy works exactly because people begin to say, "well, we cannot do everything" and "this is better than nothing", rather than asking more pertinent questions along the lines of "is it?" and "Ok, but why aren't we doing x or y too?".

Frankly, the idea that banning individual chess players from taking part under their national flag is in and of itself somehow some kind of counter to sports washing is absurd. As part of a broader range of measures - maybe. On its own? Clearly not.

[JustinHorton]

However, I'd be uncomfortable if the fact that we cannot do everything, became a reason for not doing anything.

I'd be uncomfortable if we didn't do things we manifestly could do, but prefer not to because it might be awkward.

[David Sedgwick]

I've said this elsewhere, but this is a decision that is wrong both morally and practically, and contrary to some others I don't think this is a difficult issue.

I agree that this ECF recommendation is a step too far.

So, will either or both of you be seeking support for a motion to be put to the forthcoming ECF Council Meeting to alter the decision? You have just over a week to gather the necessary support.

I think that the change most likely to find favour at Council would be to bring ECF policy into line with that of the Nordic Federations.

1. The ban by the Nordic countries did not apply to persons resident in the country or under the age of 18. The ECF could have adopted a similar approach, but have chosen not to do so.

[Mike Gunn]

I've said this elsewhere, but this is a decision that is wrong both morally and practically, and contrary to some others I don't think this is a difficult issue.

I agree that this ECF recommendation is a step too far.

So, will either or both of you be seeking support for a motion to be put to the forthcoming ECF Council Meeting to alter the decision? You have just over a week to gather the necessary support.

I think that the change most likely to find favour at Council would be to bring ECF policy into line with that of the Nordic Federations.

1. The ban by the Nordic countries did not apply to persons resident in the country or under the age of 18. The ECF could have adopted a similar approach, but have chosen not to do so.

Yes, I would be happy to that but my previous attempts to get any motion on the ECF agenda requiring support from other requisitionists leads me to think that may be a difficult thing to do.

[Chris Goodall]

[quote=JustinHorton post_id=279810 time=1646651480
Also - if we are "finally taking a stand", is this going to involve doing it properly, and asking who it was who took money or favours or political support from Mr Putin or his associates, when they knew very well what these people were, or are we just going to wave the past away? Because these people include the Prime Minister of the country and the governing party of the country and a great number of other parties besides.
...
Will these people have to explain themselves? Will Nigel? Because if not, this is all humbug.

Is there anyone out there who thinks this dirt is dirty enough to actually hurt their enemies rather than just complicating the message, but who didn't think to dig it up themselves? I'm pretty sure the interested parties will already have this in their "might come in handy" file for later.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, I would be happy to that but my previous attempts to get any motion on the ECF agenda requiring support from other requisitionists leads me to think that may be a difficult thing to do.

Is it not the case that the Gold, Silver and Bronze member representatives can act unilaterally on Council motions? A UK resident of non-ENG designation playing outside of FIDE rated events may well have found it necessary to become a Bronze or Silver member.

As far as players refusing to play against RUS or BLR players and arbiters assisting this by altering pairings, ism't that the practice ruled out by FIDE in the context of Iranian and Israeli players?