No Boycott

As long as individuals compete in the Olympics as representatives of nations, the games will never be above politics. But President Carter and the United States' allies would set a dangerous precedent by deciding to single out their athletes as pawns among the players of international politics.

Even if other nations follow the U.S. initiative, the boycott remains an inappropriate way to protest the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. It would expand, rather than isolate, the Afganistan incident; it would unnecessarily escalate tension between the United States and the Soviet Union--through one of the few forums that still holds hope for increased international cooperation.

Of couse a large-scale boycott would hurt Soviet prestige, but there is not the least indication a slap in the face will deter future adventurism on the Soviet Union's part. Once a precedent is set, who will draw the line in the future as to the host nation's appropriateness? Further, moving the Olympics would force the Soviet Union to preserve its prestige by withdrawing from the Olympics. Thus, the result would be the same as a boycott--limited participation in an event whose purpose is to provide a worldwide forum for competition.

There is no doubt that the Soviets will use the games as a political tool, as many countries have in the past. The United States, however, has to consider whether a weak, destructive, and ineffective objection to Soviet aggression is worth the potential loss to the nation's athletes.

A boycott would more severely damage the welfare of the athletes than the prestige of the Soviet Union.