|
Issue No.12 Spring 2003
Serious
Sport
War minus the shooting
By Cameron Mitchell
Since the First World
War, international sporting events have often been accompanied by ostentatious
pageantry and flag waving demonstrating jingoistic support for certain
political ideologies. Most notable are the Olympics. These games are no
stranger to political intrusions. The 1936 ‘Hitler Games’ certainly
failed to prove his theory of racial superiority, but nonetheless the
Nazis somewhat subjugated these Olympics to exhibit political strength
to the rest of the world.
Popularity
Sport is certainly popular. A powerful tool for any political system.
The modern Olympics were established in France as an attempt to rejuvenate
the spirit of its youth (after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian
war) and to develop international links between Europe and the United
States. Despite the claims by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
that they avoid political undercurrents the two frequently collide.
Indeed, the IOC’s founder, Baron de Coubertin, expressed that all
institutional creations "develop according to the customs and passions
of the moment” and asked, “If politics infiltrate the heart
of all problems how can the Olympics, 'muscularism' itself, escape?”
They can’t. Participation in the Olympics is tied to important issues
such as international diplomacy and political recognition.
Politics diffusing into sport is inevitable. Whenever there is a government
there will be policies - whether it be for sport, education, transport
or health. But the function of the government is to promote sport not
to manipulate it. The IOC actually stirred the mix through their global
advertising campaign “celebrate humanity”. This in effect encouraged
governments to exploit the Olympics under the guise of defending humanitarian
rights.
Tactics
The United States’ Government disgracefully boycotted the 1980 Moscow
Games as a tactical strike against communism and the invasion of Afghanistan,
urging other governments to coalesce. British athletes had to fight parliamentary
intervention, but they could not compete under the Union Jack. Their morale
was kicked further when Margaret Thatcher snubbed the games as a “charade”
and that “medals won at Moscow will be of inferior worth”.
The Iron Lady’s tirade was considered hypocrisy by many governments
due to the brutal image that half the world’s media portrayed of
Britain’s conduct here in Northern Ireland. Bloody Sunday, for example,
was deplored by many across the globe. But does that mean these governments
should boycott British games as a political statement? Surely there are
more meaningful routes for governments and international communities to
assert condemnation. The sporting boycott against the old apartheid regime
may have helped isolate the South African Government, but these proceedings
were determined through a sequence of international consensus. Including
economical, cultural and academic injunctions.
Morals
More recently, leading politicians, including Tony Blair, advised the
English Cricket Board to boycott their opening World Cup match in Zimbabwe
as a moral stance against the controversial regime of President Robert
Mugabe. Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, told BBC Radio Four that, “Cricket
has a special kind of ironic status. Cricket is about celebration and
it is also about creating an impression of normality. It is offensive
to create a sense of normality in Zimbabwe when seven million people are
starving”. She added, “I, and others in Government, think it
is unwise for them to go”.
But
while our Government challenges sporting relations with Zimbabwe they
encourage the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. China’s human rights
history is just as execrable as that of Zimbabwe. Amnesty International’s
chilling statistics reveal that there have been 19,000 executions over
the past decade. And the Tiananmen Square massacre still lingers in recent
memory.
But will the Olympics really help China reform? Or will they reward a
murderous, reprehensive government reinforcing a repressive campaign against
Tibetans, members of the Falungong spiritual movement and the Muslim Uigur
minority?
Chinese communist officials will certainly seek political dividends by
hosting the 2008 Olympics. However, this should not disqualify China,
since every other nation that hosts the games receives political benefits.
Robert Mugabe may have also gained financially through the England cricket
match in Harare. But it is the athletes themselves who suffer from boycotts.
Although the Olympics receive extensive media coverage the games are incapable
of altering social and political landscapes.
The one lesson we learned from Berlin, Sarajevo, Moscow and Los Angeles
was that sport should not be exploited for political ends. Sport is about
providing opportunities for all, particularly the younger generation.
Boycotts have no part in this generation building.
|