;)
Just about Sport?
Posted by Claire Connelly in Politics, Sport
“This is about sport” is the convenient rebuttal from former British Olympian Paula Radcliffe to the massive protestation of the Beijing Olympics. The flame has been extinguished more than twice now, to draw attention to the Chinese government who refuses to admit Tibet their independence. Paula isn’t the only person who believes that the Olympics should be left purely to the sports men and women whose presence at the games is purely for the representation of sports and global competition. The only problem is that ever since the advent of television (if not before) it has been made clear, more than clear in fact, that quite the opposite is true.
As long as we can remember, organizers, advertisers, athletes and commentators have bombarded our television screens with sentiments of unity, and equal opportunity for all. While the first Olympic ceremony was held in Athens in 1896, both the concept and creator was French. Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin was the one who coined the phrase “L’important n’est pas de gagner, mais de participer” whose English translation is “The important is not to win but to take part”. He was inspired by the British National Olympic Games at the Crystal Palace in the UK in 1866 and wanted to bring the Olympics to the people to advance education in France including, sports and education. He wanted to give sportsmen around the world the opportunity to come together and compete, not for the sake of national egotism but so that national populations could meet each other and look outside of their own experience. As activism increases as the flame travels around the world, I do not think that “the show must go on” is the slogan to stand by in this instance. The 1972 Munich games continued disgracefully, despite the massacres of the entire Israeli Olympic team by members of terrorist organization ‘The Black Hand’. We swore never again, and yet a country that until recently had a one child policy, a country where organized religion is forbidden and where the Tibetan people were massacred and forced out of their religious country of origin – has won the bid to host the Olympic games. Human rights abuses have continued long before China won the bid to host The Olympics and shows no signs of ceasing: it was reported that Tibetan activists in the Sichuan province were gunned down just last Thursday. The people’s right to protest may not be guaranteed in China but they are in France and they certainly are here, and I believe there is no better time than now to be protesting.
The Olympic Games has always been politicized. The 1936 Berlin Olympic Games was filmed by the infamous propaganda film maker Leni Reifenstahl to glorify the Third Reich. The success of Jessie Owens at the same games is another ironical example of how the Olympic games has been used to make a political statement, or break with social convention. Two-hundred-and-one countries participated in the last Olympics – something we were all reminded of ad nauseum for the duration of the games. The opening ceremony of the 2001 Sydney Olympics was choreographed around the concept of reconciliation and discovery, to the tune of ‘ the Power of the Dream’ by Celine Dion. In Athens it was a contrast of history and modernity. And always – always, we are told of how much the game will cost, how many people will be brought to the host country as participators, administrators, trainers or spectators and exactly how much money the nation will benefit from as a result. Whoever said that The Olympics has never and should never be politicized is kidding themselves. There is an argument to be made that hosting the Olympics would encourage China to open its economy and by extension be voluntarily participating in increased global cooperation. Consequently China would be increasingly answerable to the global community and would thereby be forced to grant Tibet its independence, allow its oppressors the right to return without fear of prosecution or persecution, and curb or cease its human rights abuses to become a more democratic nation. Personally, I have found that the people that make the argument for giving China the benefit of the doubt, are those desperately avoiding ‘cynicism’ that China’s successful bid to host the Olympics and that Britain, Australia, and America’s decision not to boycott was financially motivated. We all know, because history has told us so – that money speaks louder than words, even if they come from the will of the people. That both America and Australia are so dependant on Chinese business, neither country is in a position to be bargaining with the leaders of such a robust economy. China’s economy is so strong that if were to suddenly go into a recession, we would experience a global depression so momentous, the extent of which has never before been experienced. We should be boycotting the Olympic Games. Surely if the people can end the war in Vietnam, our government will listen to us in this instance. We should not be bringing massive amounts of tourism and trade to a region that deals in oppression. I am saddened that there is little likelihood that either Australia or America will boycott the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
We are living in dangerous times, The US looks as though it is sliding slowly into a recession, both the US and Australia are desperate for a strong trade relationship with China. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Bush and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urged the Chinese government to hold talks with Dalai Lama representatives, China communicated its displeasure through diplomatic channels. There is some hope, Kevin Rudd has not yet decided whether or not he will be attending the games (though he swears that is has nothing to do with boycott and everything to do with scheduling conflicts). The spirit of protest – non-violent and effective in its imagery, is also being met with hostility and unnecessary force. This evening, anyone that was watching the late news on channel ten saw a man on a bike flying the Tibetan flag, a man that was nowhere near The Flame being tackled to the ground and beaten by the French police. Protesters in Canberra were beaten with batons and threatened with capsicum spray. Of course police and security cannot simply stand aside and let the flame be distinguished, but beatings, punching, kicking and arrests of people protesting – the form of expressing an opposing point of view in a way that advanced the cause of the Tibetan people to a wider audience is being censored by fearful Chinese trading partners. There is also a certain irony that if the games really are about sport, and only sport – why are they trying to save the flame and continue the marathon. Why even have the marathon in the first place? What symbol, what imagery are they so desperately trying to save from being extinguished?
;)
;)
;)
