The International Olympic Committee –IOC– has once again invoked the Olympic Truce on the occasion of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Paralympic Games, which began on March 6. It did so through an institutional statement, correct in its form and aligned with the principles of Olympism, but also somewhat surprising because of the underlying softness that only a written declaration can convey. It has little strength, little impact and does not seem to be delivered with much optimism. The message reminds that sport must be a “beacon of hope” and calls on states to facilitate the safe passage of athletes to the Games. Nothing that has not been said before. Nothing that suggests the current world is ready to listen. And nothing that makes one think it will be respected.

Perhaps this is one of the worst moments to ask for an Olympic truce given the number of conflicts burning across the world. The media focus is currently on the escalation between the United States and Israel against Iran in the Middle East, a conflict dominating headlines and geopolitical analysis. But that war -or that set of tensions- which has already left 1,200 dead is only one of many taking place on the planet today. Some receive constant attention, others barely appear on the international agenda. Yet all form part of the same global landscape marked by armed violence.

Wars across all continents

A quick look at the current map makes it clear: in Europe the war between Russia and Ukraine continues. In the Middle East multiple wounds remain open: the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the conflict in Syria, tensions between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the war in Yemen and confrontations linked to Iran in various regional scenarios. In Africa, extremely brutal conflicts persist, including the civil war in Sudan, the prolonged instability in Libya, the conflict in the Sahel affecting Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, the violence in Somalia involving Al-Shabaab, the insurgency in Mozambique, and the war in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. There are also less visible conflicts such as Ethiopia following the war in Tigray, the Central African Republic conflict or the insurgency in Nigeria involving Boko Haram.

In Asia the situation is not more stable: Afghanistan continues to experience chronic violence after the international withdrawal, Myanmar remains immersed in a civil war following the 2021 military coup and the permanent tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has never disappeared. Even in Latin America there are pockets of armed violence linked to internal conflicts or armed groups, such as in Colombia or certain regions of Mexico, even if they are described differently.

Against this backdrop, the Olympic Truce -a tradition dating back to ancient Greece- today seems more like a protocol suggested by the IOC, with no real indication that it will influence international politics. The IOC itself implicitly acknowledges this: the UN resolution supporting the truce is aspirational and non-binding. No one is obliged to comply with it. No one is sanctioned for ignoring it. And the Olympic body has no mechanisms to enforce its implementation.

Another deeper question is whether the Olympic Truce has lost strength in the contemporary world or whether the world has simply changed too much for it to have any impact. The Olympic ideal is based on the belief that sport can unite peoples, suspend conflicts and remind everyone that a common ground exists. But in a hyper-politicized and geopolitically fragmented society, sport has also become another arena of power.

The Olympic flame in political offices

Governments know this and use it. They celebrate medals as national symbols, project their image through major sporting events and, when convenient, turn sport into a diplomatic or propaganda instrument. In that context, one must ask whether there is still a truly honest Olympic flame burning in the offices of political leaders. When an athlete wins a medal, do leaders celebrate it for what it represents for their people, or for what it adds to their own political narrative? Do they see sport as a space for encounter, or simply another field of competition between nations?

Perhaps that is why the IOC’s call sounds so fragile today. Not because the Olympic ideal has lost its meaning, but because the modern world seems increasingly unwilling to listen to it. The Olympic Truce remains a powerful idea, but one that is increasingly symbolic. It is hard to know whether it will ever again have enough strength to silence, even for a few weeks, the noise of war. At times it almost seems as if a pistol would be needed to impose Olympic peace.