Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Touchy Subject

The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.



A difficult time we are in: has been so many years since the Olympics were held in a controversial location we are not entirely sure what to do about it? Maybe we should remember the mission of the games...I know some people are leary of China, mostly out of pure ignorance, having no clue what goes on in the "Far East." [Its scary to not know] But well, these games are filling with touchy debates about things that have little to do with the games.

England is currently working on the Team Members Agreement, in which they want athletes to agree not to make politically sensitive comments or gestures during the games. Supposedly this is either because England is afraid of tarnishing its business relationships with China, or perhaps a more sinister fear that something might happen to its athletes should they speak harshly of their hosts. Of course Human Rights activists are upset about such a move, as it is their intention to use the games as a time to highlight China's human rights violations, and lack of intervention in Darfur, and suggest that moves like the possible anti-political speeche clause in the TMA is not only a violation of the freedom of speech, but also shows cowardice on the part of the UK in facing the ongoing problems in China.

Now Steven Spielberg has pulled out as an artistic advisor (i guess that means no aliens in the show this year) citing his conscience can't allow him to participate, when their are global catastorphies and human rights violations going on. [There is a little known film with animated puppets called "Team America" that sheds some interesting light on the role of actors and movie types in politics]

I'm not sure why we think that on one hand we can award the games to a country, and then think that is excuse enough to chastise and criticize the country into changing to be more like US. Who are we anyway?

While it is clear that it is probably problematic to force athletes or anyone to agree to be a-political during the games, perhaps it is an unfounded fear. The amount of physical, mental, emotional focus that an athlete needs to put into competing at an Olympic Game, should be enough, why would a government want to deliberately add more pressure to athletes by giving them reason to fear their behaviour could have them booted off the team. It's understandable, many democratic governments are nervous about what will happen when China welcomes the world this summer, but let's not forget the spirit of the games, and the motivation for reviving and for participating in them. It is not the athletes who need to be signing agreements to just play their sport... really its a move that creates unnecessary tension for athletes without doing anything to either promote open political dialogue with China about its human rights record...Further, why are we suddenly so concerned and putting all this pressure on China? Because the games are going to be there? That's silly. Human rights are an ever present and ongoing concern, YOU DON'T NEED A REASON TO BULLY SOMEONE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. They are on their own, sufficient reason.

I'm glad Mr. Spielberg has a conscience. But how does his pulling out from participating in the games in any way going to benefit those persecuted in China, or the outrage that rages on in Sudan? If anything his actions further alientate the West and close means of creating meaningful and productive paths of communication.

There was an interesting debate about Canada's business relationship with China, maybe a year ago. Canadians were up set that we were doing business with a country with human rights violations (which i think is a bit posh to begin...but anyway). In the debate, the minister said we cannot do anything about problems in another nation,if we have no relationship with that nation. If we are not friends or partners in some respect, how can we even begin to talk about a nations problems.

But then it is in the Olympic charter that the mission of the Olympic movement is to place sport at the service of humanity, and thereby promote peace, to act against discrimination. So i guess its difficult (my new favourite word). Perhaps it is right to tarnish the sport in favour of the other political agendas that are catching fire on all sides. Perhaps.

1 comment:

THE EMERALD ISLANDER said...

The integrity of the Olympic Games of the modern era was compromised the first time in 1936, when the free countries bowed to Hitler during the games of Berlin.
The second time was 1980, when the games were awarded to Moscow. (At least some countries boycotted this time...)
The third time the Olympic principles were - literally - sold out was 1996, when the centenary games were given to Atlanta instead of Athens (because Coca-Cola paid a large sum of money for it).
And since the Olympic movement has not learned anything from the past, they awarded the 2008 games to Beijing, knowing quite well what is going on in China.
There is no excuse. In my opinion, the Olympics have had their time, and they should be abolished. But of course this won't happen because too many people make now too much money from the games.
In ancient Greece the Olympic games took place every four years in the same place - Olympia - and there was no competition, bidding war and massive building boom all the time. If it is really for matters of sport, we should designate a single venue for it and leave it at thet. But then again - which country would get this venue? It is a vicious circle by now, and I have lost all interest in it years ago. I concentrate on human rights issues, regardless of sports and Olympics.