World Climbing: How a Unified Motion Prevented a Vote on Israel, Russia, and Belarus

On Thursday, July 23, national climbing federations were supposed to vote on whether Israel, Russia, and Belarus should be suspended from World Climbing. But according to information obtained by Vertige Media, World Climbing first presented member federations with the substance of three motions submitted between July 2 and July 8 by Cyprus, the United States, and Australia. It then combined them into a single unified motion, which was put to the General Assembly and adopted. As a result, the country-by-country vote that had been planned for months never took place in its original form.

© Climbers for Palestine

For months, World Climbing had been preparing for an unprecedented vote. On July 23, its member federations were scheduled to cast anonymous, nonbinding votes on three separate recommendations: one to suspend the Belarusian federation, one to suspend the Russian federation, and one to suspend the Israeli federation. The vote had been pushed in particular by Ukraine and by the group Climbers for Palestine, following a months-long campaign that we have covered in detail. But in the days leading up to the meeting, three new motions upended that plan.

Three Motions Become One

On July 2, 2026, World Climbing received a motion from the Cyprus Mountaineering, Climbing and Orienteering Federation, or CMCOF, signed by its president, Pavlos Georgiades. The motion explicitly called on the July 23 Extraordinary General Assembly to “refrain from proceeding with the proposed recommendations concerning the suspension of National Federations.” It also asked the Assembly to endorse as World Climbing’s official position the Executive Board’s February decision lifting the suspensions of Russia and Belarus. The motion cited recent amendments to the Olympic Charter that strengthened the principle of political neutrality.

Six days later, on July 8—the deadline World Climbing had set for motions to be considered admissible—two nearly identical motions arrived. One was submitted by USA Climbing, the sport’s national governing body in the United States, and signed by its president, Marc Norman. The other came from the Australian federation.

Their procedural request went further: remove the three country-specific motions from the agenda and replace them with a single general motion that named no countries. The new motion would recommend that the Executive Board adopt a “principles-based framework” for future decisions concerning the institutional participation of national federations.

That framework would not require the board to take any particular action. It stated that the Executive Board “may” suspend a federation if it finds that the organization has violated World Climbing’s statutes, but it would not obligate the board to impose a suspension—or to refrain from doing so.

Vertige Media reviewed both documents. Each relied on the same argument: World Climbing’s governance should be brought into line with the recently amended Olympic Charter, which emphasizes the political neutrality of sport. The motions also sought to prevent the General Assembly from becoming, in the words of the Cypriot motion, “a forum for geopolitical disputes rather than a body dedicated to the development of climbing.”

According to our information, World Climbing did not put the Cypriot motion and the joint U.S.-Australian proposal to separate votes. Instead, it first presented the substance of each proposal to its member federations, then merged them into a single unified motion. That motion was subsequently put to the Assembly and adopted.

In practical terms, the planned vote on the suspension of Belarus, Russia, and Israel did not take place in the form World Climbing had announced for months. Member federations were not asked to consider each country separately and issue a suspension recommendation to the Executive Board.

Instead, they approved a text recognizing the reinstatement of Russia and Belarus as World Climbing’s current position while establishing a general, country-neutral governance framework for future cases. Under that framework, the Executive Board alone has the authority—but not the obligation—to suspend a federation.

According to our information, World Climbing also announced that, regardless of the vote’s outcome, the Executive Board could refer allegations that the Russian, Belarusian, and Israeli federations had violated World Climbing’s statutes to a disciplinary commission. It did not specify which commission would handle the matter.

That announcement opens another route for addressing the allegations documented in particular by Climbers for Palestine—one that could prove slower and less public.

“Yes. I can say it right here, right now. It is absolutely certain. [...] So if it is 50.5 percent, we will follow it”

Marco Scolaris, president of World Climbing, about the vote

The Last-Minute Twist

On July 10, two days after World Climbing received the American and Australian motions, World Climbing president Marco Scolaris sat down with us for an interview in Chamonix. Asked whether the upcoming vote could be trusted, he answered unequivocally: “Yes. I can say it right here, right now. It is absolutely certain. [...] So if it is 50.5 percent, we will follow it.”

At no point during that portion of the interview did Scolaris mention the Cypriot motion, which had been received eight days earlier, or the American and Australian motions, which had arrived two days earlier and were addressed directly to members of the Executive Board, including Scolaris.

Two weeks later, those same motions—combined into one—made his commitment irrelevant. Without a country-specific vote, there is no longer any question of whether the Executive Board would follow a suspension recommendation supported by 50.5 percent of the federations.

On Thursday, July 23, shortly before the Extraordinary General Assembly began, Vertige Media sent World Climbing a series of questions. Had Marco Scolaris personally reviewed the motions submitted by the United States on July 8, Australia on July 8, and Cyprus on July 2 before our July 10 interview? Did he know about them when he assured us that the Executive Board would follow any suspension recommendation receiving 50.5 percent of the vote? If so, why did he not mention them?

Had the Executive Board or its legal advisers determined that the motions were procedurally admissible? And had the Executive Board communicated with the American, Australian, or Cypriot federations about the substance of the motions before they were formally submitted?

At the time of publication, World Climbing had replied: “We are currently holding the Assembly. This will take time.” It later added: “We will issue a statement as soon as possible.”

What Comes Next?

For Ukraine and Climbers for Palestine, whose campaign led to the Extraordinary General Assembly being called, Thursday’s outcome represents a procedural setback.

The group had argued that the Israeli federation should be suspended based on documented violations of its obligations under World Climbing’s statutes. Instead, it is left with a general framework that names neither Israel, Russia, nor Belarus, along with the possibility of a referral to a disciplinary commission whose scope, membership, and timeline remain unknown.

We will continue reporting on the matter as soon as World Climbing provides more complete answers or releases its promised statement.