Journal of a Sports Commentator after Athens
Stephen Benians*
Peace on the Pitch Vs Conflict on Camera
On the 27 August the italian Enzo Baldoni was being executed on Al jazeera and on other channels, Iraq was meeting Italy on the football pitch, contesting the Bronze. This says much about both the nature of conflict today and the prime objective of the Olympic Games.
The object of the ancient Olympic Games was peace – a cease fire to guarantee safe passage to the games. It is testimony to the power of sport that the modern Olympic truce was the first unanimously adopted resolution in the history of the United Nations. The Olympic Truce demonstrated the power of sport in conflict prevention, that through it the ideal of peace is possible.
Yet the nature of conflict today has changed. We have asymmetric conflict and terrorism. Media is the key and defining weapon of terrorism so in this kind of conflict the prime locus has been uploaded from the battle ground to the airwaves. The upshot is that the games will always risk sharing real time with asymmetric struggles. So with modern conflict, will a modern
Olympic truce ever be possible?
This bitter-sweet real time that we could witness on 27th August highlights, rather than nullifies, the ideals of Olympic truce. Simultaneous violence and peace between two peoples, juxtaposed on the modern battleground of the media airwaves, only emphasises the pathos of what is possible – peaceful solutions. What we saw on August 27th is a modern permutation of the games’ ancient objective of promoting peace.
The rise of the East and the decline of Europe
Sports commentary would be nothing without statistics - and at Athens they were particularly striking. Statistically the latest olympic games have told the story of the rise of the East. But also of the decline of Europe.
If we calculate the share of the medals won by EU 15, we discover that it declined from 27% in Barcellona to 26 in Sydney and 22% in Athens. Not less sharp is the decrease if we consider EU 25 where the equivalent percentages went from 35 to 32 and 28% in 2004.
At the same time the share for the “Pacific East” (considering just Japan, China, Australia and Korea) went from 16% to 18 and 20% in Athens.
If Europe has got five out of top seven places in the “all time” medal tables of the games since 1896, in Athens only two out of top seven are from the old continent. Three out of the first five were instead from the East and we probably can argue that even USA is “Pacific East”, if we consider that more than half of the USA medallist were from California.
A shift of power is in fact happening and sports is only a reflection of a much wider evolution. The story of the movement of the “baricenter” of the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean has been said for a long time. Athens has just highlighted that it is eventually materializing in a big way.
And it is not only a question of statistics.
Iranian Hercules
Reza Zadeh Hossein lifted a world record in the weight-lift for Iran’s first medal and of course it was golden. It was 162.95 kilos - the weight of a nation’s identity.
It is not the statistics and medal count that’s important, it is the dreams. Even if it is through just one victory, the games give expression to a nation’s dream and identity. On an individual level, through identification with the athletes, you can have your place in the world. On a national level, the country can show its strength and pride and in a safer way than marking its territory with nuclear weapons. For those who fall foul of commercial, political and cultural global processes, it is almost as if ‘one is enough’ – one medal is all the more poignant a way to say that “another world is possible”, as Vision’s introduction pointed out too.
Should we speak of Olympic success in terms of ‘number of medals? There is the argument that the Olympics are dominated by the language of hegemony or capitalism: “China has the most therefore it is the best. USA has the most golds so it is the most powerful.” Etc.
So where did you come?
It is rather comical and typical that the EU responded, “We came top”. If the EU wants to demonstrate citizenship it should realise it already has one, albeit complex, divers end fluid. The EU should find out how to communicate this citizenship - rather than impose an institutional definition which contrives a common demos with common dreams, as it suggested doing with a common sporting flag. Iran came top of the table on this alternative index based on the real values of the Olympics: a chance for a conflictual nation to prove its worth in a peaceful way and fuel its peoples’ dreams. The EU came bottom.
The Bolton Man
Amir Khan parades the silver medal in his hometown of Bolton in the UK with the well deserved pride of a young athlete. “…And Bolton has not had much to cheer for over its history” , read the newspapers.
If the Olympic games cannot work above the national level, they certainly work on the local. When Amir khan, the 17 year old silver medal winning boxer from Bolton, paraded his medal in his home town it meant more to the locality than the UK (though the national recognition was of course very strong). “Can he do it? Yes he Kahn” punned the US commentator, several times over. Bolton Man was praised by the French, the US, the Dutch and many other commentaries in a way that is not seen often as national TV tens to concentrate on its own athletes. Through Amir, Bolton found its place in the world and rediscovered its pride. Harnessing global opportunities, such as the Olympic games, for the interests of local communities suggests that the Olympics are one large glocal forum as well as a meeting of nations. At least for those who wish or are able to compete.
Amazon and Indians
Some are not able to or do not wish to compete.
There are anomalies in the symbolism of the games. India secured its only medal in shooting, but it was only when I noticed them compete in the 4x400metre relay final, no thanks to the commentator who did not mention them once, that I realised how absent they were in Athens. Obvious for being inconspicuous. Yet India represents a fifth of the world population! Why the discrepancy?
Is it the wider problem of lack of funds or infrastructure to promote sport in national political priorities? Or perhaps Indian culture does not provide for its athletes to participate fully. I won’t make a general statement about Indian culture but it raises the question of whether the games exclude certain cultures. For in India, tight fitting and revealing clothing is certainly a social taboo especially for women. If in order to train and then compete you need to make a social and cultural compromise, such as wearing the tight running suit, it renders incomplete, or bitter sweet, the ideal of celebrating the worlds diversity through the common language of sport. Through speaking this language do you dilute your identity or feel ashamed?
Not all wish to speak the language of sport, at least not with the grammar required for modern international competition. Or should such ‘cultural flat-earthers’ just put such complications behind them and simply ‘progress’? If so, whose victory is it? Enlightened thinking that maintains divers cultures or a western liberal cultural hegemon?
And what of the Indigenous Olympics of the Amazonians, also held in July in Brazil? A people of many tribes rather than a nation, they cannot compete in the IOC Olympics, and in any case they prefer not to as it would dilute their identity. So they established their own games. Perhaps the Roma and the Palestinians should initiate ‘Stateless Olympics’, a cultural equivalent of the Paralympics in a globalised world? Or perhaps the Olympics should adapt to them.
Guilty verdict - in trial by mass media
The Greek gods of sprinting were out of the final of the two hundred metres sprint. Those who did run were delayed and disconcerted by the jeers from the mainly Greek crowd. It’s good that this was featured in worldwide TV coverage rather than being ‘audio-sterilised’. There should be no safe place for the prejudiced. Let them feel the weight of the world watching them, let mass media incriminate and then hopefully convert the malicious to better sportsmanship and human decency. It was wrong to jeer the predominantly US athletes just because their own Greek champions were absent, whatever the reason. The fact that those in the terraces are bad losers does not reflect upon Greek culture since terraces have been known to be ‘self selecting’ in the past – those who feel wronged want to go and heckle. Whereas the racial chants of the UK football terraces are filtered out for TV consumption, this Olympic spectacle was was not a sterile package – it was warts and all. Let the hecklers be ashamed and realise where the fault lies. They should not blame or heckle the lucky or competent who are competing on the day, they should realise that what blighted their athletes was just bad luck, circumstance, drugs, the god of motorbike accidents, call it what you will. Not just Greece suffered trial by mass media. A Belgian advocate maintained in front of TV cameras that the paucity of Belgium’s medal count was because if its own internal divisions – “Belgians (or at least the sport politics of the country) place greater importance on the Flems beating the Walloons and viceversa, than training as a united national team”. But as ever with mass media, there was no defense.
Middle Kingdom reclaims its place. The rise of East and the decline of Europe
It is important to remember that the Olympic Games today is not only a matter of sport but also an indication of political importance in international competition.
It was the 1936 Olympics in Berlin that seemed to inaugurate the mixing of sport and politics and in particular in Berlin, race also. Games sports became intertwined with politics and race. Adolf Hitler prepared his teams as best he could to dominate the games.
It was the USA who stole the day with Jesse Owens' four gold medals.
Japanese victory in the marathon in 1936 was an important moment - it was able to demonstrate its prestige among top nations in sport. Japan then wanted to follow German footsteps by hosting the Games which was only eventually possible in 1960. Ever since, Japan’s share of medals has been climbing, most notable in Athens.
It was clear that success at the top level sport generated and reinforced national pride and self respect.
Deng Xiaoping began his far reaching reforms in 1979. We are mostly aware of his economic reforms yet these he included sport also making it a national priority. Consequently we saw, after the 1980 games, China climbing the ranks of world sport.
China, like Japan wanted to reflect in the Olympics that it was a leading world power and not an ‘also ran’ of the global political and economic race.
And its position at the top of the table in Athens reflects its economic strength currently and potentially. It is the most powerful tool of public diplomacy that nation states have and the one that translates most quickly to traditional diplomatic power.
The importance it places on the soft public diplomacy tool of sport reflects today its trend to build its real power through softer, cooperative and multilateral means. This clearly contrasts with the US’s savage unilateralism.
Beijing is pushing for regional political and economic groupings it can dominate, like a proposed East Asia Community that would cut out the United States and create a global block to rival the European Union.
China is subtly attracting Africa as a partner in the world, thus undermining Europe’s development policies of conditionality: reform and then we open markets and deliver aid. China is investing hugely in Ethiopia for instance, delivering the badly needed and wanted investment without such stringent conditionality as the EU might impose. Why? Its aid policies reflect its desire for other countries to back its top foreign policy priority: its claim over Taiwan. Chen Gongyuan, an expert from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, says "In the political and diplomatic arenas, China will make more efforts to support African countries to protect their rights, to fight against unilateralism in international affairs, and to struggle for a new international political order. African countries can support China on the Taiwan issue and human rights issue." Also China’s equivalent of the Foreign Legion is sent to Sudan to guard the oilfields to which it attaches much strategic importance. Where the US values the currently strategic middle east for its oil, China is looking ahead and safeguarding its future energy by getting Africa, and its oil, onside. By the time the world is aware of it, Europe and the US will not be able to have much influence over Africa.
Should China, as it is predicted, become the most powerful nation on earth, I have the feeling that it will not burst on the scene with media pomp and heavy handed power. It will be more passive , just quietly and confidently obtaining what it wants with foresight and multilateral stealth, without falling into the trap of alienating the world as the US has done. This soft power requires sport to back it up – to show its ‘equality’ among the world’s nations on the Olympic field, to, show its values and sportsmanship.
The US is now disregarding the world and its opinions, just as the old Middle Kingdom did. China it seems has learned and is poised to take back its predominant position, this time not just in its won eyes but in those of the world. As with the ancient Middle Kingdom, the US presumes it will always be dominant and can afford to be introvert, unlistening. Perhaps the next medals table may be a warning of what is to come.
Will the US decline in the medal tables as it places less importance on sport as a source of strength ad recognition in the world, instead relying on its military might to maintain its predominance? Perhaps this is already happening. One of the sports so dear to America is basketball. It reflects the capitalist structure of the US, with the highest paid sports professional in the world. Yet the dream team had a nightmare in Athens. Other ‘lesser’ nations stole their limelight. In Beijing we can expect the bullish US in silver medal position and the Red Flag angering it on the top step of the podium. Sport it seems is a key ally and of multilateralism in global power games. Perhaps this is why the EU was so keen to claim it came top in the medals table. This was a hollow claim of course and reflects its lack of real potency in foreign affairs.
Bruxelles, September 6th 2004
* Stephen works for the “The Centre", the Brussels based think do tank (www.thecentre.eu.com). For Vision he collaborates to some projects in the European research area.
PREVIOUS PAGE |
