Globalist Olympics Blog

The International Olympic Committee awarded the Summer Games to Beijing in 2001 under the conditions that the government reduce pollution and increase protections of human rights. Beijing “promised” the International Olympic Committee (IOC) blue skies and press freedom. Many critics accuse Beijing of breaking their Olympic promises. But as the Beijing Games continue in spite of criticism, a future host country is committing violence far worse than censorship. Olympic promises are easy to break—is the IOC going to learn this lesson before the 2014 Games in Russia?

The 2014 Winter Olympics are going to be in the Crimean resort town of Sochi. Sochi is Putin’s favorite ski resort. He became personally invested in the bid, traveling to Guatemala City in July 2007 to pressure the IOCinto voting for Sochi over Pyeongchang, Korea, 51 to 47. This is the first time Russia will host the Winter Games. 

The Sochi bid victory was awarded on some explicit and implicit conditions. Besides “guaranteeing” snow and “no traffic jams,” Putin also personally promised the IOC that increased tourism would not damage the nature preserves in the area. More significantly, the Sochi bid chief Dmitry Chernyshenko called the prospective Games “a key moment in Russian history” because “the Games will help Russia transition as a young democracy.” Russia promised democratization as a selling point in its Olympic bid.

The idea of the Olympics serving as a democratizing power originated with the 1988 Seoul Games, which aided South Korea’s transition out of autocracy. This rationale was applied to China with Beijing’s bid. A 2001 Op-Ed piece from the New York Times argued, “The United States and the I.O.C. should do what they can to turn the 2008 Summer Games into a force for constructive change in China. The long-term interests of advancing democracy and freedom there can be served.”

But it is unclear whether the Olympic Games have in fact influenced China’s political development.

When, in early August, reporters discovered China continued to block certain websites in violation of its promise to grant “unfettered” Internet access, the IOC negotiated with the government but issued no public condemnation. Ultimately, the IOC settled for half-measures, removing the block from Amnesty International site but keeping politically sensitive pages off-limits. Settling on issues like freedom of information does not encourage democratization but rather affirms that stubborn host countries can get their way.

Jacques Rogge, president of the IOC, has said that he is engaging the Chinese government in “invisible diplomacy” over human rights issues. He believes that outspoken criticism will not work and that respectful engagement is more effective. Unfortunately, because it is “invisible,” the effectiveness of Rogge’s efforts is impossible to judge. He claims that he is making progress, but no one outside of the opaque Chinese government can measure his success. It is likely that this late in the game he is winning only lip service.

The lack of backbone the IOC has demonstrated in the case of China reveals that the Olympics are not necessarily a force for “constructive change.” Nor do host countries necessarily honor their promises. Fortunately for the IOC, because of China’s substantial progress on fronts like human rights and global cooperation, the stakes in 2008 are insignficant compared to those in 2014.

Sochi is 15 miles away from the border between Russia and Georgia, which the Russians violated only a week ago with tanks. Russian “peace-keeping forces” killed thousands. Last month, the CEO of British Petroleum’s Russian joint venture BP-TNK was unlawfully chased out of the country in a move to push out Western partners. In 2006, journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in an elevator. The prime suspect: Putin’s thugs. The motive: Politkovskaya’s criticism of Putin’s regime. These are just some of Russia’s more sensational violations of human rights and international law, but they are by no means isolated abuses.

As long as the IOC fails to enforce promises made by host countries, awarding the Games to Sochi signals international acceptance of Russia instead of public disapproval of its shortcomings. Russia is able to say whatever it likes during its bidding process in full knowledge that it will never uphold its promises. The Olympics then become a stamp of approval on a pariah regime.

Is it realistic to advocate withdrawing from Sochi? That would be an incredible insult and might incite further retribution from Russia. But the longer the IOC does not criticize Russia—and perhaps withdraw—the more difficult it will be to apply pressure in the future. The IOC’s alternatives will be increasingly limited, a lesson the Committee should learn from Beijing.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS