In a dramatic and unprecedented move, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has officially terminated all dialogue with Indonesia regarding its bid to host the 2036 Olympics, following Jakarta’s refusal to grant visas to Israeli athletes competing in the 2025 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships.
The decision, confirmed by the IOC Executive Board, marks one of the most severe rebukes ever delivered to a potential Olympic host and signals the uncompromising enforcement of the Olympic Charter’s principle of non-discrimination. The crisis originated earlier this month when Indonesia denied entry visas to the Israeli gymnastics team, including Olympic champion Artem Dolgopyat, for the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Jakarta. The Indonesian government cited its long-standing foreign policy of non-recognition of Israel and domestic political pressures to support Palestine.
Despite repeated appeals from the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) and the IOC, the stance remained unchanged, prompting the IOC to step in decisively. In a strongly worded statement, the IOC reiterated that “all eligible athletes, teams and officials must be able to participate in international competitions without discrimination.” The Committee emphasized that the host nation bears the direct responsibility to uphold this principle and that political considerations cannot override the Olympic Charter.
IOC’s Punitive Response: Ending Dialogue and Imposing a Hosting Freeze
Following internal consultations, the IOC Executive Board voted to end all dialogue with the Indonesian Olympic Committee (KOI) concerning the 2036 Olympic Games and the 2030 Youth Olympics. The decision effectively eliminates Indonesia from contention and halts all future IOC-affiliated event discussions. Furthermore, the IOC has issued a recommendation to all International Federations (IFs) not to host any events in Indonesia until the government provides “adequate guarantees” that athletes from all nations regardless of political recognition will be allowed entry. This recommendation, while not a formal ban, carries significant weight across global sport and is expected to isolate Indonesia from the international sporting calendar.
This approach allows the IOC to target the hosting privileges rather than the athletes thereby maintaining the rights of Indonesian competitors to participate internationally while holding the government accountable for its political actions.
A Historical Déjà Vu: The Shadow of 1962
For historians of sport, this episode evokes strong parallels with the 1962 Asian Games in Jakarta, when President Sukarno’s government similarly denied entry to athletes from Israel and Taiwan, leading to Indonesia’s suspension from the IOC. The country responded defiantly by creating its own event, the Games of the New Emerging Forces (GANEFO), as a political counter to the Olympics. More than six decades later, the pattern has repeated itself this time with the same ideological justification and global consequences. While the 1962 punishment excluded athletes, the 2025 sanction strategically targets Indonesia’s ability to host, reflecting the IOC’s modern emphasis on governance integrity over geopolitical sympathy.
Indonesia had entered the 2036 race as a serious contender. The bid was centered around Nusantara, the country’s upcoming new capital, envisioned as a sustainable, futuristic city designed to showcase Indonesia’s growth and modernization. Hosting the 2030 Youth Olympic Games was meant to be the stepping stone toward securing the larger 2036 event. With the IOC’s termination of dialogue, that vision has effectively collapsed. The decision is not merely symbolic it undermines years of planning, billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, and Indonesia’s aspiration to position itself as a regional leader in global sports diplomacy.
The fallout also extends to the Indonesia Arena, a state-of-the-art venue built partly with future Olympic readiness in mind.
Indonesia’s refusal was not a bureaucratic error but a calculated political act. Coordinating Minister for Law and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra confirmed that denying visas to Israeli athletes was consistent with Indonesia’s “commitment to supporting Palestine.” The move was widely celebrated domestically, underscoring how deeply ingrained the policy is within Indonesia’s political landscape.
However, for the IOC, such a stance is irreconcilable with its principles. The Olympic Charter explicitly mandates political neutrality, and host countries are expected to temporarily suspend diplomatic restrictions for the duration of international competitions. The IOC’s decision thus sends a clear signal: sovereignty cannot be used to justify exclusion in Olympic sport.
A New Landscape for 2036: India, Qatar, Turkey, and Chile Step Forward
With Indonesia’s elimination, the race for the 2036 Olympics now tightens among the confirmed bidders — India 🇮🇳, Qatar 🇶🇦, Turkey 🇹🇷, and Chile 🇨🇱.
- India remains the only nation to have officially submitted its bid. Backed by a massive market, strong political commitment, and growing infrastructure development, India’s position strengthens considerably after Indonesia’s exit.
- Qatar, with nearly 95% of its facilities already in place from the 2022 FIFA World Cup, remains a formidable contender, though concerns about summer heat and human rights persist.
- Turkey brings strategic geographic appeal, bridging Europe and Asia, but continues to grapple with political volatility and economic challenges.
- Chile, an emerging dark horse, offers stability and experience from hosting the 2023 Pan American Games, representing South America’s renewed interest in Olympic hosting.
Indonesia’s withdrawal effectively reshapes the regional balance, enhancing India’s standing as the primary democratic Asian bid while giving Qatar and Saudi Arabia greater room to assert financial strength.
The fallout from Indonesia’s failed bid provides a powerful precedent. The IOC has made it unmistakably clear that non-discrimination is non-negotiable. A single act of exclusion even at a non-Olympic event can permanently end a nation’s Olympic ambitions. The IOC’s evolving policy framework prioritizes compliance over capability, ensuring that political interference is met with immediate disqualification rather than prolonged negotiation.
For nations with restrictive foreign policies or unresolved diplomatic disputes, the message is unambiguous: universal athlete access is the price of entry into the Olympic Movement.
Indonesia’s Olympic dream has fallen victim to the enduring tension between sovereignty and sporting universality. The refusal to issue visas for Israeli gymnasts may have reinforced domestic political legitimacy, but it came at the expense of a historic opportunity to host the world’s greatest sporting event. The IOC’s decision, though severe, reaffirms the integrity of global sport where athletes must not be punished for politics.
For Indonesia, the 2036 setback may echo the lessons of 1962: that in the world of Olympism, principles of inclusion outweigh policies of exclusion.
