Lessons from the Beijing 2022 Olympic Saga
The latest edition of the Olympic Games of the modern era is set to begin in a few days. We are, of course, referring to the Winter Olympics that takes place in Beijing, China, effective 3 February 2022.
In the space of a mere 14 years, China, once considered a major pariah of sorts in global politics, will host its second Olympic Games, having hosted the Summer Olympics in 2008.
Since its inception, those who have been credited with being the founding fathers of the modern Olympic movement, have constituted something of a mixed bag.
The movement itself, whilst shrouded in the perpetuated mystique of ‘Olympism’, has often appeared, even to the most casual of observers, as a sort of ‘glee club’ dominated by a grouping of wealthy individuals, mostly white and European.
Some may well suggest that while some efforts have been made to include people of colour and other ethnic groups, the organisation may well still be characterised as being largely Eurocentric in almost all aspects. We may well consider that the very culture of the modern Olympic movement is based on European ideals.
Over the decades of its existence, the Olympic movement has reflected the capacity of the fundamental principles of the very order that gave rise to European expansionism in the 15th century, eventually transitioning into conquest, slavery and colonialism. Where once advanced armaments were the choice of persuasion, the concept of ‘Olympism’, the handiwork of the seemingly avowed wealthy philanthropists of the day, has proven a far more effective persuasive tool.
In many respects, the IOC’s membership is perhaps characteristic of the much-maligned North-South economic divide that international economists have forever discussed. It is representative of the centre-periphery theoretical perspective that was characteristic of the critical analyses of those who took the time to research the dreadful experiences of European expansionism and its consequences.
Olympic posturing
The decision to host yet another edition of the Olympic Games in China, in short order, may well be seen as more of a reflection of the growing wealth, power and influence of the Asian nation in global politics and the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) own thirst for enhancement of its coffers and appearance of global positioning. It is not, as some may naively wish us to believe, reflective of a commitment to the Olympic ideals and values.
Human rights activists across the globe have highlighted the human cruelties that continue to be spawned. In many parts of the world, including western societies, we are replete with examples of a social disadvantage being imposed on population segments, starting with the indigenous peoples. We are aware of the plight of these groups in Canada, the USA, Central and South America and the Caribbean, Australia and the rest of Oceania as well as Asia and Africa.
Today, we are a far cry from the days when, in 1977, Heads of Governments of the Commonwealth stood together to approve the Gleneagles Agreement that insisted upon the cessation of all sporting ties with Apartheid South Africa. They noted in the Agreement that it was “the urgent duty of each of their Governments vigorously to combat the evil of apartheid by withholding any form of support for, and by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams or sportsmen from South Africa or from any other country where sports are organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.”
Sam Ramsammy, later an IOC member, is credited with being perhaps the lead and most renowned strategist in the commitment of sport to bringing attention to and, ultimately, the demise of apartheid in South Africa.
One is uncertain as to why the IOC has, since then, been decidedly timid in confronting abuses of one sort or another in rich and powerful nations of the world.
A state of denial
There may well be reason enough for the IOC to have taken the cautious route of being faithful to its own fundamental principles by carefully researching/investigating the reality of life in China amidst the challenges brought to light, over the years, by human rights activists. But it appears that this has never been one of the fundamental features of the organisation’s modus operandi.
Eager to enhance its own international stature and seemingly driven by leaders, eager to locate themselves in global history, the IOC has pursued a path that some may deem hugely self-righteous, masquerading, perhaps, as a bastion of global peace and harmony.
Perhaps not enough time has been taken, over the period of the IOC’s existence to analyse the impact that it has had on the aforementioned noble objectives in the nations to whom it so graciously afforded the right to host its Olympic Games.
What, for example, did the Olympic Games of 2008 do for the human condition of the peoples of China following the 2008 edition of the Games and now?
The Olympics held in Berlin during the Hitler years proved nothing in respect of universal peace and harmony. Things remained the same between the warring factions across the globe until Hitler was defeated on the battlefield. So much for the contribution of the Olympic movement to world peace.
Indeed, while Hitler paraded his concept of white supremacy Jesse Owens found that at home, in his native USA, his participation in and achievements at the Berlin Olympics, remarkable and historic as they were, did nothing to ameliorate his circumstances as a black man. Racism continued unabated.
The Olympics of 1980 did nothing to end the challenges facing nations under the grip of the then Soviet Union.
While then IOC President, Juan Antonio Samaranch, traipsed the world to coordinate a collective approach to resisting any possibility of a boycott of the Games of 1988 in Seoul, South Korea, little attention was paid to monitoring the profound corruption that was taking place in the race to win the bid to host the Winter Olympics, eventually won by Salt Lake City.
One is left to ponder whether there would have been any action taken by the IOC had the media not unearthed and revealed the deep-seated nature of the unsavoury practices.
The much-vaunted Olympic Truce has meant nothing to the very nations that the IOC consistently boasts sign up to prior to each edition of the Games. There has not been any cessation of the hostilities between the nations in conflict around the world yet each time the Olympics are held the IOC heralds their contribution to world peace.
In the more recent past, it is also commonplace for mention to be made of the increased viewership of the Games; perhaps a veiled reference to increased income from a broader set of revenue streams.
The IOC is still perhaps unable to come to terms with the vehement popular rejection of Boston’s populace of being part of the bidding process to host the Summer Olympics of 2024. It was a veritable slap in the face, a rejection of the ‘standing orders’ of the modern Olympic movement.
Racism
Over the past few years, we have witnessed the systematic rise of white supremacy which perpetuates racism.
In some countries, it is now commonplace to see the rise in antisemitism, alongside that of racism.
Seemingly oblivious to the negative impact that these phenomena have on the human condition of the targeted peoples, it is not surprising that the IOC’s focus has necessarily been on what we may consider the outcome of social and political conflicts – refugees – offering sport as something of a palliative rather than something much more substantial. The institution and its leadership seem to ensconce themselves in the philosophical traditions that have apparently come to be a characteristic feature of the organisation.
It is about protectionism, perhaps at all costs.
Protecting its highly proclaimed image, almost at all cost, the IOC found the strength to take action against those who found reason to raise clenched black fists at the Olympic Games in 1968 rather than speak out on the conditions in the USA under which the same athletes had to try to eke a living and train, to be able to attend the Olympic Games that enriched the coffers of the proprietors of the quadrennial sporting spectacle.
Lewis Hamilton, the lone black athlete in one of the richest, high-profile sports on the planet, has used his engagement to make certain that the world becomes increasingly more aware of the challenges posed to a certain segment of humanity by pervasive racism. Even as he has come to dominate the sport, there appear to be others at pains to find a new ‘great white hope’ in the sport. We have had this in boxing as well as in other sports.
In almost every sport where blacks have risen to prominence, there are efforts aimed at doing whatever is necessary to produce white athletes who can justify the sustainability of white supremacist thinking.
Globally, we are witnessing the almost untrammelled resurgence of white supremacy, driven in large measure by politicians who are eager to lead the charge and reconfigure the years of gains made by the oppressed peoples of the globe who have been consistently humiliated as being incapable of developing themselves and patronised as ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘developing’ without an indication of when they could advance. The current resurgence is not in any way subtle. Instead, it is nakedly presented and justified.
It’s all politics
The rationale being regurgitated is that the IOC is non-political. This is a most laughable concept when applied to this institution since it is forever engaged in the political gamesmanship that guarantees increased profitability with each edition.
As is the case with FIFA following the organisation’s scandal that saw several executive members arrested and charged, the IOC lost no major international or TOP sponsor as a result of the Salt Lake City scandal that saw several of the organisation’s members losing their membership status.
The China debacle regarding the top female tennis start, Peng Shuai, has left the IOC looking pathetically weak. The latter’s comments have been, however, consistent with the critical analysis presented in this Column.
Coming on the heels of the losses incurred with the pandemic’s intervention in the Sumer Olympics of 2020 and on the eve of China’s scheduled hosting of the Winter Olympics, the IOC found itself having to engage in a political ‘jig’.
Critical analyses of the IOC’s inaction may well be only best explained by reference to its timidity, spurred by the ‘almighty dollar’ and less by a commitment to the lofty values it spouts from every available sport podium.
If the IOC’s treatment of Peng Shuai’s case is not an international political role play, then what is it?
Inaction in a matter such as the one here referenced, the case of Peng Shuai, is as political as having insisted upon an independent investigation and proclamation of the findings.
Had the IOC shown some ‘spunk’ it would easily have engendered some measure of credibility. Instead, it chose the route of pandering to the ‘monied interest’.
That the IOC’s leadership may well have spurned the FIFA proposal for a Biennial Football World Cup instead of the traditional quadrennial event as being evidence of going after money and power could only be treated as political ‘poppycock’.
FIFA’s leadership may well now look at the IOC and ponder whether it is a case, as we say in Vincentian circles, of ‘the pot calling the kettle, black’.
