Braden StokesWhat to do about the Olympics
May 16th 2008 09:00
Recently, I heard from some friends that they were planning their own personal protest of the Beijing Olympics: they simply aren't going to watch it. World leaders, too, have signalled their disapproval of China's treatment of Tibet, by declining to attend the opening ceremony. There have even been calls for countries like Australia to boycott the Games altogether. All this controversy raises the difficult issue of when, how, and to what extent, politics and sport should mix.
On one side, there is the argument that to allow politics and sport to mix in this way is to undermine the Olympic spirit itself. Sport is a means through which individuals and countries can put aside their differences for a few short moments. Drawing political differences into such an event can only serve to ruin one of the few chances for community and communication some nations may have. Furthermore, a boycott would unnecessarily punish the athletes who may only have one chance (or at best very few chances) to compete at an Olympic Games. Similarly, it would punish the Chinese people (who want to see the Games) for their government's actions.
However, the Olympics is always undeniably political. Every country which hosts the Olympics (or any major sporting event, for that matter) uses it as a vehicle to present its best features to the world. Why do you think homeless people were miraculously housed for the duration of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games? Clearly, China will be keen to show off its best attributes to attract tourism, investment and simply to show the world the China that it wants them to know. It would be remiss of the international community to go along with this kind of self-promotion, as though they believed (for the duration of the Olympics) the story the Chinese want to tell about themselves. If the focus on the world is going to be on China, it should be on the whole of China - including Tibet. Some kind of protest or non-co-operation then seems entirely appropriate.
However, are we simply treating China as an easy target because their mistreatment of the Tibetans seems so public, deliberate and institutionalised. What kind of position would we leave ourselves in if we were to boycott or protest every sporting event staged in a country which committed human rights abuses? Are we going to stop competing with or in the USA because they lock people up without trial in Guantanamo Bay and execute intellectually disabled Texans (excluding the one's they make President!)? Would we have felt it was fair if countries boycotted the Sydney Olympics because of Australia's mistreatment of our Indigenous people? I dare say if we applied such a standard, international sports would grind to a halt.
So what, then, is the solution? To put it simply, I don't know. However, I don't think the solution is to boycott the Games. Firstly, it is rather a blunt, dismissive gesture, and secondly, it commits us to a standard we could never maintain. Perhaps the approach taken by the Prime Minister is the right one: positing Australia as a friend, but a friend which can tell their friend when they've got it wrong. If the Olympics is to be conducted as removed as possible from politics, perhaps the best approach would be for the athletes to compete, but for Mr Rudd and other world leaders to decline their invitations to the opening ceremony.
On one side, there is the argument that to allow politics and sport to mix in this way is to undermine the Olympic spirit itself. Sport is a means through which individuals and countries can put aside their differences for a few short moments. Drawing political differences into such an event can only serve to ruin one of the few chances for community and communication some nations may have. Furthermore, a boycott would unnecessarily punish the athletes who may only have one chance (or at best very few chances) to compete at an Olympic Games. Similarly, it would punish the Chinese people (who want to see the Games) for their government's actions.
However, the Olympics is always undeniably political. Every country which hosts the Olympics (or any major sporting event, for that matter) uses it as a vehicle to present its best features to the world. Why do you think homeless people were miraculously housed for the duration of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games? Clearly, China will be keen to show off its best attributes to attract tourism, investment and simply to show the world the China that it wants them to know. It would be remiss of the international community to go along with this kind of self-promotion, as though they believed (for the duration of the Olympics) the story the Chinese want to tell about themselves. If the focus on the world is going to be on China, it should be on the whole of China - including Tibet. Some kind of protest or non-co-operation then seems entirely appropriate.
However, are we simply treating China as an easy target because their mistreatment of the Tibetans seems so public, deliberate and institutionalised. What kind of position would we leave ourselves in if we were to boycott or protest every sporting event staged in a country which committed human rights abuses? Are we going to stop competing with or in the USA because they lock people up without trial in Guantanamo Bay and execute intellectually disabled Texans (excluding the one's they make President!)? Would we have felt it was fair if countries boycotted the Sydney Olympics because of Australia's mistreatment of our Indigenous people? I dare say if we applied such a standard, international sports would grind to a halt.
So what, then, is the solution? To put it simply, I don't know. However, I don't think the solution is to boycott the Games. Firstly, it is rather a blunt, dismissive gesture, and secondly, it commits us to a standard we could never maintain. Perhaps the approach taken by the Prime Minister is the right one: positing Australia as a friend, but a friend which can tell their friend when they've got it wrong. If the Olympics is to be conducted as removed as possible from politics, perhaps the best approach would be for the athletes to compete, but for Mr Rudd and other world leaders to decline their invitations to the opening ceremony.
| 93 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
