SHOULD SPORT AND POLITICS BE MIXED?

Is this an intimidating game of hide-and-seek or the revival of a centuries' old tradition? A determined pursuit of the Olympic torch was launched in many countries which were honoured with the privilege of hosting a stage in the journey of the "sacred torch". For many of those disgruntled with China's policy on Tibet, including Tibetans, the symbol of the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics became a target of their wrath. The elaborate and exciting show has thus turned into a bedevilled race, already reduced in scale on several occasions, just to be on the safe side. 

Everything began in the ancient Greek town of Olympia, where the ceremony of igniting the Olympic torch was accompanied by mass protests. In Paris, the torch was dropped on several occasions and hidden in a special bus. It was once nearly grabbed from the hands of a female athlete in a wheelchair. The police in London also had to provide close protection for the Olympic symbol. The passage through San Francisco was short and resembled a special CIA operation in its complexity. In India, which is home to about 100,000 Tibetans, 15,000 law enforcers were in charge of preserving public order during the race and the avenue along which the "sacred torch" proceeded was fenced off by metal wire. These are just a few examples of the challenges to the torch's advance along the streets of the largest cities around the globe. 

Tensions ran so high that, at one point, the International Olympics Committee said it planned to cancel the torch procession in future. Nonetheless, the journey resumed and the world asked itself once again if sport should ever be mixed with politics. 

Representatives of European political and public organizations, and even some heads of state, have talked about a possible boycott of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. 

It is worth noting that the attitude of some politicians towards the Beijing event is rather inconsistent, with some saying they will attend the closing ceremony but not the opening ceremony. But is there a big difference? If one is talking about a boycott, the issue should be treated with the gravity which was displayed by the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Regardless of whether any given world leader will attend the Beijing Olympics opening, that country's athletes will take part in the tournament. No one is seriously talking about boycotting the Games. This is exactly the way this issue should be treated, as we are talking about sport, not politics. The Olympics opening ceremony is not a political summit. It is the precursor to a real demonstration of the physical perfection of the human body: dexterous movement, healthy spirit and physical fitness - qualities that many overly politicized residents of big cities obviously lack.

As mentioned above, a boycott of the Olympic Games for merely political reasons has already taken place - during the Cold War. A number of Western countries, led by the U.S., refused to attend the opening ceremony and take part in the competition held in Moscow in 1980, in protest at the Soviet military incursion into Afghanistan. Retaliation followed. Athletes from (then) Socialist republics, led by the USSR, refused to participate in the Olympics held in Los Angeles four years later. But there were also other examples, including those involving China. However, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rightly said, in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that "the boycott of the 1980 Olympics ultimately accomplished nothing except the 1984 boycott of the Olympics". Moreover, it deprived us all of thrilling events and potential new records, as the true purpose of the Olympics is for athletes from around the world to gather to compete in a tournament in which the fittest win. And if the spirit of the Olympics can be undermined by political interests, even justified ones, then these activities become, by definition, meaningless. Athletes come together to show their prowess in running, swimming, jumping, etc., not to evaluate the good or bad qualities of the host country. Some may not agree with this, and may cite as an example the 1936 Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin, which were not boycotted. 

What if those games had been boycotted though? First of all, it is pointless to speculate conditionally about history events. Second, we are living in the 21st century, the age of the internet and satellite television, which means boycotts or coordinated political gestures are unlikely to produce any result. Everyone today has their own opinion and expresses it freely via the internet - on various web blogs and in comments on news websites. Besides, if a given country will not respond to UN resolutions, tough economic sanctions and, at times, even the use of force, will it be moved by a boycott of the opening of the Olympics?

At the same time, one could not help wondering about the potential impact of a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Would it help to solve the Tibet issue or just make things worse? Could it have a reverse affect, i.e. provoke China into a hard line and a further toughening of its domestic and foreign policy? What would be the result of the public humiliation of a huge country which would probably see such a move, not as advocacy for human rights, but as an attempt to pose obstacles on its way to success? 

The Beijing Olympics means a lot to the Chinese. They also see it as a unique tribute to their country, a tribute to its ancient history and the place it occupies on the global stage. The "empire", with its rapidly expanding economy, is confidently taking on the role of a superpower. They say that, in time, China could displace the United States on the world stage. 

As we know, economics rules in politics. In relation to a boycott of the Beijing Olympics this can be clearly seen in the example of China and France. For example, some media reports said that most Chinese, in reaction to news that French companies are providing financial aid to the Dalai Lama, said they would stop going to the French-owned stores Carrefour, Louis Vuitton and The Body Shop. Although this kind of action is used quite often in international practice, it works every time. 

As mentioned above, economic considerations always dominate the game. There were even proposals to invalidate the multi-million-dollar contracts signed during French President Nicolas Sarkozy's official visit to China. A number of media reports circulated that the supermarket chain Carrefour, fearing heavy loss, had issued a statement making it clear it had no intention of blocking the Olympic torch.

We will not go into detail about the root causes of the Tibet issue. Many acknowledge that China is taking overly tough and completely unreasonable action against Tibet and that the Chinese government is fundamentally wrong. Beijing rejects the allegations, saying it is fighting separatism at home. But all this has no bearing on sport. The Tibet issue, just like any territorial dispute, should be treated with caution, and raising it during the Olympic Games is definitely not the right time. 

The USA is setting a good example in this respect. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier that she "sees no use in a boycott" and that "the Olympics are pure sporting events". Thus the plans for President George Bush to attend the opening ceremony in Beijing have not been changed. It remains for us to hope that the Games will proceed in a spirit of fair and honest competition, and will not be marred by political bickering.