Jul 31 2008
Red Rover, Red Rover, Send… Sarkozy Right Over?
A lot of fuss has been made over which heads-of-state are attending the Beijing Olympic Games and which are not. Many people are equating their attendance with an endorsement of the Chinese government. In light of the March conflict in Tibet and reports of activists being jailed in the run-up to the Games, there have been calls for state leaders to boycott. Others feel that Olympic boycotts will not effect political change. So, in the final count, who will be in the stands?
Some leaders agree that attendance is tantamount to supporting the Chinese government’s recent actions, which they refuse to do. Thus, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus will not be seen among the spectators.
But other heads-of-state believe that not attending would be, in the words of President George Bush, “an affront to the Chinese people, which may make it more difficult to be able to speak frankly with the Chinese leadership.” Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda echoed Bush’s sentiments. Both will be in attendance at the opening ceremony, making the younger Bush the first sitting American President to attend an Olympic Games abroad.
Because of the politicization of attendance, some leaders have felt pressured to justify their absences. Neither German Chancellor Angela Merkel nor Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be at the Games, but both have had to explain that their absence is not out of protest—apparently, their schedules as world leaders are already booked.
In a complicated variation on that theme, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is obliged as the representative of the next host country (London 2012) to attend the closing ceremony, but he will not be attending the opening ceremony. British Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg has somehow construed this as doing “the right thing,” meaning withholding endorsement of the Chinese regime. Brown’s spokespeople said he never planned to go to the opening, but that he is “not boycotting.”
And then, of course, there is France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in March made his attendance contingent upon Chinese concessions regarding the Dalai Lama and human rights abuses. However, at the recent G8 summit in Japan, Sarkozy dramatically announced that he would be attending the Games. This sent both the EU and China into uproar: the EU Parliament, which supported a boycott, does not want him to go and, after his grandstanding, the Chinese do not want him to come.
Most recently, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has announced his attendance, but he felt no need to explain himself.
Is attendance at these Games necessarily a political statement?
In the words of Hein Verbruggen, chairman of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) coordination commission, “there is a very thick, fat red line between” politics and sports. According to the IOC, the Olympics are an apolitical event. As such, attendance should not be understood as a statement for or against the Chinese government.
But historically, the politicization of the Olympics is the rule, not the exception. Remember the Black Power salutes by sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico City in 1968, the 1980 U.S. boycott of the Moscow Games following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Soviet boycott four years later in LA.
In each case, the focus was on the athletes, even if in some cases governments dictated their actions. At least the athletes themselves were the either the agent or the medium for politicization of the Games. This year, the athletes are being relatively ignored. Team Darfur, a group including over 130 Olympic athletes, has called for a ceasefire in Darfur and encouraged Steven Spielberg to withdraw as the Olympics’ artistic director. While the press briefly noted Spielberg’s withdrawal, the roll call of dignitaries has since replaced stories of athlete activism.
No fewer than 40 countries are sending representatives to Beijing with positions equivalent to or higher than Secretary of State. But the Games are about the athletes. If there is a political point to be made, let them be the ones to make it. After all, some people might just enjoy the Games – Bush is bringing his family, all of who reputedly love the Olympics.