Olympic Games and International Politics - Essay Example

?In the 30th Olympic Games that were held in London, England in a lot of emphasis was paid on the security of the athletes and to ensure that everything went well without any disturbance. Different schools of thought have come up with different arguments in favor and against the large amount of money that is spent on the security of the participants in these Olympic Games which specifically includes the athletes. The few school of thoughts that have been more prominent are the realist, liberal, and critical theorists. The realists are those who believe that the most important determining factor of international politics is the self-interest that is nations will only cooperate or be in conflict with others if it is in their interests. The liberal theorists believe that there should be equality for all, while critical theorists critically analyze the mechanisms determining international politics. The liberal theorists believe that the facilities and entertainment offered in the Olympic Games should be available and accessible to all the sections of the interested community. They believe that the fact that the organizing committee has reserved some features exclusively for the athletes and sponsors’ representatives only is unjust and should be available to local community as well. (Boykoff & Tomlinson, 2012) The liberals have argued the fact that since the inception of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the 1890’s (known as some other association at that time) was formed as a body consisting of elites only which included lords and princes, and these were the people who would vote and decide the fate of the Olympics. This process then started to include more stakeholders in this decision making body but still only a select few that is the big businessmen who would control the commercial aspect of the games. Even today, the voting process is not completely impartial and the votes have been allegedly to be biased with the help of bribery and other benefits to nations who involve in such corruption. Other than this, the security measures taken to protect the Olympic Games involves huge costs which will have huge economic costs as well as psychological ones. The army soldiers deployed in London in areas near the Olympic venue even exceeds the number of British soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. This highlights the fact that the locals have not been treated as equals because the majority of these soldiers are deployed for the security of athletes and organizers’ representatives and not the locals. The realist theorists can present an argument to this according to their beliefs. The realists argue that the security of the nation and in this case, the security of London is much more important for the good of the nation than sending out more troops to Afghanistan. Sending more troops to Afghanistan will benefit the world overall by fighting the terrorists and keeping them at their home rather than letting them enter into their countries for terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the soldiers deployed in London for the security of the Olympic games is much more important to the nation as it has higher stakes attached to the credibility of England and London to host such a major and prestigious event. Since the reputation, injection of finances and tourists, and credibility of the nation and British government was attached to these games, it is only fitting that the security measures are taken for the good of the country itself. Since the realist theory believes that self-interest has to be the first priority, in this case the security of the nation is more important as self-interest has to take priority. (Dowling, 2012) The realists also argue that in case of an aerial strike with the help of a ground-to-air missile, there may be some damage caused to the residents living in the locality where the incident occurs. However, the damage caused by this will be collateral damage and one that cannot be avoided or rather should not be given the fact that this collateral damage will be much less compared to if the terrorists come up with an aerial strike on the 80000-seater stadium. To contradict this, the liberals argue that the lives of the potential collateral damage are just as valuable as those who will be affected by an aerial terrorist attack. Given that all the lives are equal, the local residents should have the equal chance to live as much as the spectators and athletes should have. When it comes to the critical theorists, they believe in the rationality of the decisions that are taken. The critical theorists will argue that the Olympic truce can be very beneficial to the people involved. In the old times, the Roman communities would get involved in a truce and agree that the people will not harm each other when they are travelling to host city. Similarly, the tradition of the truce is still in existence even today although in a different form. The involvement and participation of almost all the countries of the world in the Olympic Games implies that the involved countries have agreed to be involved in the truce whereby they will not hurt the communities of other nations during the course of the Olympic Games. (YouTube) This will be argued by the critical theorists because the involvement in such a truce cannot harm the member of any community and can only lead to benefits to the people. Since the benefits far outweigh the costs of such a truce, the critical theorists will be in favor of this. In addition, the critical theorists would present the argument that installing anti-aircraft guns and missiles might be a good idea because it will send out a strong message to the terrorists that the home nation is ready militarily, mentally and tactically to counter any possible attack. This may lead to no attack at all from the terrorists and a peaceful Olympic event. Personally, I prefer the liberal approach to the Olympic Games given the fact that they present a fairer and just view of the events. People including the locals deserve to have a chance to view the Olympic torch relay and to have a similar access to the stadiums as the authorities’ representatives have. Also, the main authority of the Olympic Games is built upon a combination of elites so it is unlikely to address the issues of the normal people. Therefore, the liberal arguments appear to be the most convincing to me and something which must be taken into consideration when developing the program design of the next Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Read More