Letters | Novak Djokovic’s legacy could be tainted by association with anti-vax movement

Readers discuss the implications of the Serbian tennis star’s refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19, and the tendency to blame Chinese lending for countries’ economic woes

Coronavirus pandemic

Letters

Published: 11:30am, 5 Aug 2022

Why you can trust SCMP

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

Novak Djokovic has become the poster boy of the anti-vax movement whether he intended to or not. However, neither Djokovic nor his entourage understand this, and this wilful ignorance will hurt his image and affect his legacy.

Most people, including those who are tennis fans, are familiar with Djokovic’s vaccine fiasco in Australia. Having refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19, he was denied entry and, when a judge restored his visa, then immigration minister Alex Hawke used his discretionary powers to cancel the visa on the basis that allowing him to stay in Australia would excite “anti-vax sentiment” in the community. He was subsequently deported from the country.

The actions of Djokovic and his entourage have since vindicated Hawke’s claims and may prompt the American and Canadian authorities to do the same as their Australian counterparts (“Unvaccinated Novak Djokovic still hopes to play at US Open”, July 31).

Djokovic has received the support of many controversial figures due to his stance on vaccination. Far-right British politician Nigel Farage visited Belgrade and Djokovic’s family during the height of his ordeal in Australia.

Robert F. Kennedy Jnr, who has consistently promoted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories about vaccines causing with autism, supported Djokovic and urged the US to let him in.

Paul Joseph Watson, a close associate of far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, chimed in during Djokovic’s stay in Australia, claiming he is a political prisoner.

The company that Djokovic keeps is decidedly at odds with his claims during an interview with the BBC in February, where he denied association with the anti-vax movement. It is also decidedly at odds with his wife Jelena’s argument with tennis journalist Ben Rothenberg after his Wimbledon win, where she said Rothenberg had created a narrative in which Djokovic was tagged as an anti-vax poster boy to fit his agenda.

The truth, regardless of whether Djokovic or his associates want to admit it or not, is that he has brought legitimacy and mainstream attention to the anti-vax movement. Despite his denials, the anti-vax community has adopted Djokovic as their figurehead.

Djokovic is a highly charismatic figure and a generational tennis talent, and is capable of attracting strong devotion from his loyal fan base. When an Australian judge initially reinstated his visa, Djokovic supporters carrying Serbian flags clashed with the Melbourne police, who used pepper spray to disperse them.

If Djokovic’s entry into the US and Canada is successful, the not insignificant amount of anti-vax sentiment will surely be excited, and Djokovic, despite the many amazing moments he has given us in his illustrious career and his many charitable acts, will not be remembered as a generational talent and an all-time great of the game, but as a anti-vax, anti-science conspiracy theorist. That would be a great shame.

Tom Leung, Tin Shui Wai

Unfair to point ‘debt trap’ finger at China

Following the economic troubles in several Asian and African countries, some Western and Japanese media have pointed the finger at China for causing “debt traps”. This is an unfair accusation, which fails to give due consideration to the circumstances that have led to the economic failure.

In the simple case of a lender and a borrower, if the borrower is unable to pay back what has been borrowed, who is at fault – the lender or the borrower?

The basic principle of giving and taking loans is that each party should look after its own interests. In this respect, China, like any other country, attended to its own interests. By contrast, the borrowers from Asian and African countries did not look after the interests of their countries.

A case in point is the recent bankruptcy of the Sri Lankan economy. Massive loans were obtained from China and other lending institutions to execute vanity projects that did not produce sufficient returns to enable solvency. How was the borrowed money used? Under these circumstances, it is unfair to point fingers at China.

A.W. Jayawardena, Kennedy Town

Post