Sport as the Tool of International Diplomacy - Essay Example

Sport as the Tool of International Diplomacy Introduction The history of the Olympic Games dates back to the times of Ancient Greece. Over a period of more than 10 centuries, the Olympic Games had been an essential element of the daily reality in Ancient Greece. The revival of the Olympic Games by Pierre De Coubertin had to mark the beginning of the new era in the development of the world sports. From a merely sporting event, the Olympic Games gradually turned into an effective tool of international politics and the instrument of international diplomacy. Throughout their history, the Olympic Games could either serve the source of a reliable peacemaking ideology or provoked serious political conflicts and turned into the means to express national or international disagreement with particular political ideas and ideologies. Based on what the Olympic Games tell us, it would be fair to assume that the Olympic Games had been equally successful and unsuccessful in mediating world affairs; regardless of particular successes or failures, the Olympic Games can be fairly regarded as an essential component of international diplomacy and political decision making in the present day world. The Olympic Games and peacemaking ideology It should be noted, that the idea of the Olympic Games as a peacemaking mechanism and the mediator of world affairs is not new. Since the earliest years of the Olympic history, sports activities and the Olympic Games served an effective driver of diplomacy and a reliable instrument of international political decision-making. The history of the Olympic Games dates back to 776 B.C., when the first Olympic Games were held in Ancient Greece (Toohley & Veal 24). Since that time, Ancient Greece had spent more than 10 centuries with the Olympic Games as the center of its sports activity and the culmination of its political and military decision-making. At that time, the word combination “Olympic Games” was not directly associated with the world “peace”; however, the period during which the Olympic Games took place was the period of “truce” – the time during which the host city territory was inviolate and competitors, visitors, and participants, regardless of their origin or their relationships with the host country could enter and leave the territory without any problem (Toohley & Veal 26). In this sense, the Olympic Games in Ancient Greece set an example for the generations that followed: sports had to be regarded as the tool of promoting peacemaking activities and ideologies and never leave any room for military rivalry, political disagreement or conflict. Nevertheless, even at the times of Ancient Greece did violations of the truce ideology take place. A few writers on military tactics even recommended that countries and visitors use the Olympic Games as a convenient time to attack the audience or the sportsmen (Toohley & Veal 26). The revival of the Olympic Games at the end of the 19th century was not accidental. At that time, the peacemaking ideology dominated the humanistic thinking in Europe and worldwide peace was the central element of the political decision-making (Hoberman 97). Numerous countries of Europe actively engaged in a variety of peacemaking activities and founded numerous peace organizations. Pierre de Coubertin’s idea to revive the Olympic Games followed the general ideological trends and reflected the public striving to use sports as the source of peacemaking ideas all over the world. A talented pedagogue, Coubertin sought to establish peace between states and nations and viewed sports as the best support of his ideas. Coubertin was correct in that “wars break out because nations misunderstand each other. We shall have no peace until the prejudices which now separate the different races shall have been outlived. To attain this end, what better means than to bring the youth of all countries periodically together for amicable trials of muscular strength and agility?” (Hoberman 103). Surprisingly or not, but eighty percent of the founding members of the International Olympic Committee Congress in 1894 were the members of peacemaking organizations; five of them later received Nobel Peace Prizes (Hoberman 44). As a result and under the influence of the discussed peacemaking intentions, the Olympic Charter came to reflect the peacemaking moods of the public and the founding majority. Of the nine fundamental norms of the Olympic Charter, Article 3 and Article 6 are, probably, the most important. The former promotes the importance of effective cooperation between the Olympic movement and other organizations for the purpose of promoting peace; the latter presents the basic goal of the Olympic movement as the basic contributor to the creation of a better, peaceful world by means of educating people through sport and avoiding any form of discrimination (Hoberman 44). The Olympic Charter associates the Olympic Games with solidarity, fairness, and friendship and turns the Olympic movement into the symbol of international agreement and understanding (Hoberman 45). The need to promote peace and agreement was one of the basic reasons why the cooperation between the Olympic Committee and the United Nations organization became possible: The General Secretary of the UN in 2000, Kofi Annan could not but recognize that Olympic ideals and United Nation ideals are similar and common – they include fairness, tolerance, and equality which ultimately lead to common peace between nations (Hoberman 47). These, however, are theoretical notions and assumptions the founders of the Olympic movement made about how they would like to see the Olympic Games and what they would want to achieve by means of sports. The basic question is in whether the Olympic Games had been effective in mediating world affairs. The Olympic movement: An effective instrument of international diplomacy Based on what the history tells us, the Olympic Games had been a relatively good instrument of mediating world affairs. Throughout the last century, the Olympic Games regularly established themselves as a tool of diplomacy (Espy 3). Countries send their athletes and sport delegations abroad and thus establish the first basis for the development of further diplomatic relations or create conditions necessary to make such relations more effective. Simultaneously, the decision to cancel an Olympic visit is considered as the expression of dissatisfaction and displeasure with specific policy or ideology (Espy 4). The history of the Olympic Games witnessed numerous examples of how different countries used their chance to in the Olympic Games as the instrument of establishing closer relations with potentially “useful” parties and future allies. For example, the participation of China and the United States in the Olympic Games of 1976 marked the beginning of the long-severed political and diplomatic relations between the two (Espy 10). For the purpose of the better international relations, countries can also apply to flattering and concessions in sports. For example, in its striving to normalize international and diplomatic relations with Cuba, the United States once sent a basketball team much weaker than the one it could potentially create, to give unprofessional sportsmen from Cuba to win the match (Espy 11). Objectively, all countries recognize that the Olympic Games are an excellent instrument of managing international relations and resolving various international conflicts. However, not all states are willing to recognize this fact openly. In 1958, the United States press wrote that Soviet sportsmen were a reliable factor of the Soviet foreign policy and an effective tool of the soviet propaganda (Espy 4). The Soviet Union was among the first to recognize that its foreign successes in sports worked to establish and promote effectively its diplomatic missions and trade relations (Espy 4). In 1975, the Soviet Union supported diplomatic relations with more than 80 countries and nearly 25,000 Soviet athletes actively participated in various kinds of international contests and competitions abroad (Espy 4). In distinction from the Soviet Union, the United States had more and better resources to send its athletes abroad; as a result, the American international ties and relationships were much broader than those of the Soviet Union (Espy 18). Despite those diplomatic developments and the concept of peace as the central idea of the Olympic movement, it was not until the beginning of the 1990s that the countries participating in the International Olympic Committee recognized truce as the final rung to climb during the Olympic Games and the Olympic Games themselves as the basic social contributor to peace (Coubertin 396). In 1993, numerous countries supported the idea of the International Olympic Committee and adopted a resolution regarding the observance of truce during the Olympic Games. The need for such resolution was, probably, justified by the numerous facts of violence and conflicts during the Olympic Games. Very often, countries used the Olympic Games to express their disagreement and rejection of the certain policies and international political decisions. Nevertheless, the Olympic Games continued to serve the instrument of the international peacemaking. The truth is in that sports are inherently neutral and politically unbiased. Countries of the world used to view the Olympic Games as an essentially a form of cultural exchange (Espy 4). However, where international art exhibitions aim to familiarize the international community with the best works of the international art, the Olympic Games and other international sport competitions effectively exhibit each state’s economic, social, and even military strength. The more professional sportsmen a country is eager to send to the Olympic Games, the more chances it has to win the competition and to prove that it has resources necessary to compete in the international diplomacy field. Espy is correct when saying that competition in the Olympic Games usually parallels to the competition in the political arena and the field of international diplomacy (6). However, as long as sports remain politically neutral, the intensiveness and significance of the competition between athletes during the Olympic Games are not even close to that in the political and diplomatic fields. Sport in general and the Olympic Games, in particular are an effective way for the countries which participate in the contest to indicate and manifest various shades of their political intentions and to deliver their political message to the parties concerned (Espy 5). The effectiveness of the Olympic Games in mediating world affairs is easy to see through “the number of people who watch and participate, the increase in media attention over the years, the passions aroused worldwide on behalf of the competitors and, most convincing, through the international relations over time” (Espy 5). The best proof to the fact that the Olympic Games have already become an effective tool of mediating world affairs is the growing professionalism of the sportsmen who in the Olympic Games. Since 1896 when the first modern Olympic Games took place, sport has gradually turned from the contest of amateurs into the contest of professionals. More importantly, professionalism of sportsmen has become the key to the international and diplomatic success of the countries that send their athletes to take part in the Olympic Games. At times when Pierre de Coubertin established the first Olympic Games, sports were nothing but a form of extraneous pastime and athletes that participated in the Olympic Games did so only to display and prove their love toward sports (Hoberman 61). Today, countries invest significant resources in training their athletes, and even the smallest victory of the country’s athlete during the Olympic Games is fairly regarded as the event of the national significance. Take a look at the recent winter Olympic Games in Vancouver that took place last winter and became a good test to the consistence and professionalism of the international sportsmen. Here, the tragic failure of the Russian team turned into the topic of the hot public discussion. As long as Russia is considered as one of the most rapidly developing world powers and a country seeking to position itself as the world leader, such failures during significant sporting events damage significantly the country’s political and diplomatic image. BBC called the last Olympic Games in Vancouver “Russia’s Olympic humiliation”. A country that cannot train its athletes well and compete successfully during the Olympic Games that take place every four years cannot have good chances and opportunities to mediate its conflicts and affairs in the international diplomacy scene. In case of Russia, “over the past 10 years Russian government has spent millions of dollars on new training programs. Now people are starting to ask why there is nothing to show for it” (Wingfield-Hayes). Just before the Olympic Games, the Russian propaganda actively persuaded the Russian public that the coming Olympic Games in Vancouver would become an effective triumph of the Russian team and another proof of Russia’s political, military, and ideological superiority in the world (Wingfield-Hayes). The truth is in that the participation in modern Olympic Games is closely linked to the so-called factor of international prestige. Any state will do everything possible and impossible to participate and stand out at the Olympics (Espy 7). For example, the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico were well-known for the existing tension in the 1500 meter run, with the American Jim Ryun and the Kenyan Kip Keino as the basic competitors (Espy 7). The Kenyans knew that their athlete had all chances to win the golden medal and developed a complex (although honest) strategy to outperform the competitor. The other Kenyan participating in the race was asked to be the “rabbit”, i.e. to set a fast pace and to sacrifice his personal triumph for the sake of the triumph of Kenya (Espy 7). The aim of the strategy was to make Ryun commit himself to the fast pace from the very beginning of the race and to drain himself so that Keino could become the winner. Keino, on the contrary, would maintain his normal pace and reserve enough energy to make the final victorious shot at the very end of the race (Espy 7). As a result, Keino and Kenya won the golden medal, leaving Ryun the second (Espy 7). The victory became an effective step of prestige for Kenya and a reliable driver of the economic and political relations between Kenya and the rest of the world. Even the structure of the Olympic Games is similar to the way the national and international systems of diplomatic relations are being constructed. The Olympic Games are structured around separate nation-states; athletes represent their nation-states and the national Olympic committees are organized around these nation-state boundaries (Espy 9). The International Olympic Committee resembles a large organization, similar to the United Nations, which sets the pace of the Olympic movement, monitors the professional performance of the countries in the Olympic movement, and resolves the conflicts between nation-states which can either be limited to sport disagreements or reflect the general position of the state in the political and diplomatic arena (Espy 9). Throughout the history of the Olympic movement, the structure of the Games evolved and replicated the development of the international politics – from nationalism and feudalism to international and, finally, transnational organizational formations (Espy 10). Like in the Olympic Games, the nation-state continues to be the primary actor in the international diplomatic arena. However, the pendulum gradually shifts toward globalization and the development of transnational political solutions. Unfortunately, not always were Olympic Games the arena of the peaceful representation of the international political interests. The history of the Olympic Games witnessed numerous instances of the political disagreement and even political bias in sports. The first Olympic Games in 1896 were nothing but the manifestation of the sport spirit and the striving of the countries to unite themselves in a common athletic drive. With time, countries came to realize that the Olympic Games were an excellent instrument of showing their displeasure with the world of politics or the participation of particular countries; moreover, the Olympic Games became a convenient object of the terrorist intentions, where large numbers of victims had to show the world the seriousness of the political and diplomatic ambitions of particular delegations. The Olympic Games: the instrument of violence and aggression The history of the Olympic Games is usually divided into the period before the Second World War and the period after it. Authors in the Olympic studies call the period after World War II as the time when the political dualism and the growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped the moods of the international athletes and reflected through the failures and successes of the Soviet and American athletes during the Olympic Games (Houlihan 80). Unfortunately, many people forget that even before the beginning of the Second World War, the Olympic Games had already been the instrument of the massive political manipulation and the reflection of the dramatic political changes in the international diplomatic arena. The 1930s were marked with the dramatic rise in the nationalistic moods in Germany. The political victory of the Nazi party in Germany and the idea of the Third Reich captured the hearts and minds of numerous Germans and turned the Olympic Games into the means to pursue the Nazi cruel ideals. Germany had been granted the right to hold the 1936 summer Olympic Games before the Nazi were voted into office (Hart-Davis 32). Yet, the choice of Germany as the host of the summer Olympic Games in 1936 was nothing but a reconciliatory gesture of the International Olympic Committee in its striving to (a) develop better political relations with Germany and (b) be able to control the development of the Nazi moods and opposition in the country (Hart-Davis 32). Even before Nazism turned into the major political trend in Germany, the Olympic Games had already been the essential component of the political decision-making in the world and the best way for countries to manifest their dissent with the important international political decisions. At that time, Hitler openly expressed his scornful attitudes toward the idea of the Olympic Games: he was confident that the idea of participating in the contest with non-Aryans was at least insulting for Germany (Hart-Davis 33). Hitler’s political apparatus regularly condemned international sports and sport competitions for the growing number of Belgians, Frenchmen, Jews and Niggers who, according to Hitler, infested the Olympic Games and turned them into a sort of infamous festival dominated by non-Aryans (Hart-Davis 34). It was not before winning office that Hitler changed his moods radically. No, Hitler did not come to recognize the idea of the international sports as a contest of professional athletes in the pursuit of the international peace and stability. On the contrary, the Olympic Games for Hitler turned into an effective tool of promoting the idea of the Third Reich (Hart-Davis 34). “Hitler decided to make the Olympics a showcase for the extraordinary emphasis the Nazis placed on male physical conditioning and strength, adding a mythic link to ancient Greek supermen” (Hart-Davis 35). Nazi Germany engaged in capture of all sporting facilities in the country, to exclude the Jews from the competition and to turn sports into some kind of brand mark of Nazi Germany and its anti-Jewish moods. By the beginning of 1935, Jews in Nazi Germany were deprived of citizenship and were not allowed to shop in German stores (Hart-Davis 44). They lacked access to the basic foods and services; Germans were forbidden to shop in stores that belonged to Jews (Hart-Davis 45). The Olympics became an excellent way for other countries to display their disagreement with the Nazi policies. Boycotting the Olympic Games became a popular decision in other countries’ striving to protest against discrimination of Jews and other nationalities in Nazi Germany. Countries like the United States, France and Great Britain argued that the 1936 Olympic Games were an effective propaganda of the Weimar Republic, while the host of the Olympic Games (Germany) was the country of the profoundly totalitarian regime (Hart-Davis 47). The American ambassador in Germany expressed active opposition to the Olympic Games in Germany. The American Federation of Labor claimed the Olympic Games in 1936 to be illegitimate and to go against the basic principles of humanism (Hart-Davis 47). Seventy five thousand of members of the German American league signed a petition that asked to remove the Games from Berlin (Hart-Davis 48). The American Athletic Union received thousands of individual protests against the U.S. participation in the Olympic movement in Germany (Hart-Davis 48). Eventually, the Games were kept in Berlin; however, by that time, the Olympic Games in Germany had already become the vehicle of the mass disagreement with the Nazi politics and policies – the Olympiad was no longer an instrument of mediating the world affairs but turned into the driver of the international political conflict. The head of the International Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, proclaimed that the Olympic Games had nothing to do with politics and political disagreements did not have to be brought in sports (Hart-Davis 56). Meanwhile, Hitler proclaimed that German sports were impossible without politics and was not going to include Jews into the German Olympic team (Hart-Davis 56). The only Jew representing Germany in the Olympic Games of 1936 was Helen Mayer, who declared her decision to defend German Olympic interests in order to regain her German citizenship (Hart-Davis 56). The Germans did not follow the basic requirements of the Olympic Committee and sought to create a false picture of wellness and political stability in the country. Germans were asked to limit their egg-eating, to ensure that international guests all over the world had everything they needed to feel good (Riordan & Kruger 20). Meanwhile, just half an hour away from the future Olympic site, a large concentration camp Orianeburg held Jews, Communists, Catholics and Freemasons (Riordan & Kruger 20). Despite the fact that Helene Mayer was only second, Germany won 33 medals during the contest and became the leader of the 1936 Summer Olympic Games. That was the triumph of the Nazi ideology and the Nazi political mind. Simultaneously, just for a brief period of time, the Olympic Games turned into the central element of the German foreign and domestic policies: the German political apparatus had to remove anti-Jewish slogans and signs and, more importantly, had no other choice but to reconcile with the victory of the Jewish sportsmen that represented other countries (e.g. Hungary) (Riordan & Kruger 21). Whether the Olympic Games promote peace depends on how each particular host country views such peace and what each particular host country is willing to do to meet its peace goals and objectives. The cases of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games and the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 prove that the Olympic Games have a potential to be an important tool of the international political decision-making. That, however, does not mean that the Olympic Games always serve the peaceful needs of the global population. Terrorism and boycotts can be an effective form of expressing protest against the basic principles of the international politics and the division of the political forces in the global diplomatic field. That the Olympic Games can be used as a vehicle for registering approval or disapproval of particular international policies is a well-known fact (Coakley & Dunning 219). Sometimes, the Olympic Games become the sign of re-admission of some states to the international community (Coakley & Dunning 219). Like the hosting of the Olympic Games by Tokyo in 1964 marked Japan’s return to diplomatic respectability, the Summer Olympic Games in Munich in 1972 had to “indicate West Germany’s status as a trusted member of the ‘West’ and to help to lay the ghost of Nazism” (Coakley & Dunning 219). Unfortunately, the purposeful re-admission of West Germany to the international diplomacy and politics could not happen at once. Moreover, as the host of the 1972 Olympic Games, Munich could not foresee the consequences of its participation in the Olympic movement. What happened several days before the beginning of the Olympic Games in Munich turned Munich into the city of blood and violence for years ahead. On the morning of September 5, 1972, eight Arab terrorists stormed into the Olympic village, murdering two Israeli athletes and seizing nine more athletes (Riordan & Kruger 49). The aim of the terrorist attack was to demand the release of almost 200 Palestinians from the Israeli jails (Riordan & Kruger 49). The negotiations proved to be unsuccessful and the terrorists headed for the Munich military airport; at the airport, three Palestinians and all nine of the hostages were killed in a bloody gun battle between the terrorists and German sharpshooters (Riordan & Kruger 50). Although the athletic competition was suspended for one day, the head of the International Olympic Committee took a difficult decision to proceed with the Olympic Games (Riordan & Kruger 50). A variety of the athletic achievements during the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich was overshadowed by the tragic loss of the Israeli athletes in the battle between Palestinians and the German police. The Olympic Games of 1972 did not resolve the ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel but, on the contrary, added fuel to the never ending line of violence between the two countries. What was considered as peace by Palestinians turned out to be a tragic loss of human lives for the rest of the world. Since 1972, politics has become an integral component of the international Olympic movement which grew into massive discontent with the totalitarian decisions of the Soviet Union during the Moscow Olympiad in 1980. From the outset of the Soviet Olympic movement, it was clear that the Moscow Olympic Games would be closely associated with the realm of politics (Hazan 110). The political propaganda was too massive and too obvious to be ignored as Moscow sought to promote its foreign policy goals (Hazan 110). In no way was Moscow violent or aggressive toward its competitors. On the contrary, the vision of peace was the central ideal of the Moscow Olympic Games in 1980. The only problem was in that Moscow did not promote peace and stability per se, but tried to re-interpret the vision of peaceful diplomatic relations in socialistic terms. In other words, peace for the Soviet Union was associated with the failure of the major capitalist regimes all over the world (Hazan 110). Moscow was constantly struggling for peace everywhere in the world, even where there was no military conflict involved (Hazan 110). The Soviet Union continued to claim that it would fight for peace as long as there was at least one nonsocialist regime in the world (Hazan 110). Although the Olympic Games in Moscow had to establish and promote cooperation, friendship, and peace between countries, the Soviet Union expected that hosting the Summer Olympic Games would add value to the process of purification of the world’s political atmosphere (Hazan 111). Soviet athletes and political activists regularly emphasized the role of the Olympic Games’80 in the Soviet struggle against racism, apartheid, and neocolonialism all over the world (Hazan 111). As a result, the Olympic Games in Moscow did not unite but, on the contrary, further divided the world into the two large camps: that of capitalism and that of socialism. The well-known boycotting of the Moscow Olympiad by the United States became the culmination in the evolution of the Cold War intentions between the two states. The specific intentions of the boycott are still a matter of the hot political debate. The Soviet Union was confident that the American boycott was a form of disgraceful farce, which the United States wanted to use, to influence the Soviet foreign policy and to add weight to their adventurous plans in the Middle East (Hazan 133). The discussed boycott could also become an effective way for America to prevent the Soviet Union from turning the Olympic Games into a huge political success and gaining international prestige (Hazan 133). The theme of Afghanistan was intentionally avoided by both states, although, as professionals in politics believe, the Soviet intervention with the Afghan territory became the cornerstone in the relationships between the two countries which, ultimately, led America to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980. Regardless of the goals of the boycott, it failed to disrupt the stability of the Olympic movement in the Soviet Union, and the Olympic Games took place in Moscow in 1980. These simple examples show that the Olympic Games often fail their mission as the vehicle of peacemaking and stabilization in the international politics. As long as countries view the Olympic movement as a convenient form of expressing their political dissents, the Olympic Games will continue breaking the political silence and turning political opponents into rivals and even enemies. Despite these difficulties, the Olympic Movement has a potential to become an effective mediator of world affairs and peacemaking in the world; the only question is in what the global community must do to prevent escalation of violence and political disagreement and the ongoing politicization of sports. Conclusion The revival of the Olympic Games in 1896 marked the beginning of the new stage of political and human relations in the world. The Olympic Games of 1896 became a landmark in the development of the humanistic and peacemaking intentions and had to turn into the vehicle of global stability. Throughout their history, the Olympic Games had been associated with the notions of friendship, camaraderie, political agreement, and non-violence. Countries used their participation in the Olympic Games to re-assert themselves in the international diplomatic community and to gain additional political weight in the basic international decision-making processes. However, as sports gradually integrated with politics, more and more countries came to use their participation or non-participation in the Olympic Games as an effective form of expressing their dissent with particular political decisions and even regimes. At times, the Olympic Games turned into a scene of violent and bloody fight for political stability and justice. The Olympic Games can successfully promote peace; the problem is in that different countries view the notion of peace differently. The Olympic Games have a potential to become an effective mediator of world affairs. To meet this goal, the global community must decide how to prevent escalation of violence and the ongoing politicization of sports. Based on what the history tells us, the Olympic movement was and remains an essential component of the international diplomacy and political decision-making, and whether the Olympic Games are successful in promoting peace and stability largely depends on whether the global community can develop a single coherent vision of peace and avoid physical violence in the process of resolving the most acute political issues. Works Cited Coakley, J.J. & Dunning, E. Handbook of Sports Studies. SAGE, 2000. Coubertin, P. Olympism: Selected Writings. Lausanne, 2000. Espy, R. The Politics of the Olympic Games: With an Epilogue, 1976-1980. University of California Press, 1981. Hart-Davis, D. Hitler’s Games: The 1936 Olympics. London: Century, 1986. Hazan, B. Olympic Sports and Propaganda Games: Moscow 1980. Transaction Publishers, 1982. Hoberman, J.M. Sport and Political Ideology. Heinemann, 1984. Houlihan, B. Sport and International Politics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994. Riordan, J. & Kruger, A. The International Politics of Sport in the 20th century. New York: E&FN Spot, 1999. Toohley, K. & Veal, A.J. The Olympic Games: A Social Science Perspective. CABI, 2007. Wingfield-Hayes, R. “Russia’s Olympic Humiliation’, BBC.co.uk. BBC, 25 February 2010. Web. 06 August 2010. Read More