plik

��The International Journal of the History of Sport Vol. 25, No. 13, November 2008, 1689 1706 Sport, Politics and International Relations in the Twentieth Century Relationship between Sport and Politics Before a brief discussion about the relationship between sport and politics it might be useful to mention some of the definitions that have been given to the terms sport and politics , both of which are, however, difficult to define precisely. Allison defined the term sport as the institutionalization of skill and prowess , [1] while Jay provided a more comprehensive definition of sport being an institutionalized competitive activity that involves vigorous physical exertion or the use of relatively complex physical skills by individuals whose participation is motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors . [2] As for the term politics, Millar suggested that politics is concerned with the use of government to resolve conflict in the direction of change or in the prevention of change , [3] while Leftwich claimed that politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies, not just some of them . [4] One of the common clich�s associated with sport is that sport and politics should not mix , while the regularity with which athletes, administrators and politicians express the preference for a clear distinction between the two is evident from the widespread feeling that these involved in sport should aspire to high ideals and not to the intrigues of politics. [5] A common-sense view of politics and a broad knowledge of history, however, suggest that the politics of sport exists to a considerable degree. What needs explanation is the assertion by sports representatives and politicians that sport is quite separate from politics and does not raise political issues. Sport and politics cannot be isolated. Three interrelated conceptions of politics need to be noted in order to expand upon this point. The first is the idea that politics is simply a term for the matters involving governments. In this sense, a matter becomes political when the state is involved. The significant point is that in some ways governments are inevitably involved with sport. Sport is subject to the laws of the state, although it sometimes seeks special treatment. [6] A second related view of politics is that it involves issues of power, control and influence over people s behaviour. The view of politics as power is a reminder that sport has its own internal political struggles even when governments are not directly involved. Throughout the world sport is controlled by international and national ruling bodies that are considered to have the same jurisdiction as the state in sports ISSN 0952-3367 (print)/ISSN 1743-9035 (online) � 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09523360802367281 1690 P. Kissoudi matters, while the international bodies are non-governmental organizations. These bodies have power over sport. They determine the rules, access to competition, the structure and rewards of competitions, the acceptability of technology innovation and so on. Sports federations and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) operate on the basis that they recognize only one ruling body in every state. In the second half of the twentieth century, the IOC took several years to decide how to handle matters concerning the sports associations of China, North and South Korea and those of East and West Germany. Recognition of any sports body inevitably provided recognition of the regime within which that sports body operated. In the case of South Africa, however, its social and economic system, which did not allow sport to be practised in accordance with the IOC s rules, was the official reason for excluding it from the Olympic movement in 1970. [7] Thirdly, there is no doubt that sport is capable of bringing together a large number of people and that increasingly it has played an important role in trans-national relations and has been recognized as a major social and cultural institution. [8] Modern sport emerged from the efforts of individuals and private groups and in this sense it is a social innovation that has its roots in the emergence of a new form of sociability. [9] Sport is recognized as a social and political phenomenon. In the last third of the nineteenth century its supporters could hardly have imagined that sporting events would have a great impact on public opinion and would become an instrument of international policy. Sport, sports associations and sports representa- tives had not been recognized as potential actors in social and cultural life, economics and politics. Moreover, in Europe, for historical reasons relating to the constitution of the nation state, it was not sport but gymnastics, shooting and military instruction that had priority. The gymnastic societies became the pedagogical and political instruments for the formation of national identity. During the 1920s, however, sport began to attract national and international interest, particularly in Europe. [10] It is believed that sporting victories by a national team improve and reinforce the image of the competing state and display the superiority of its political regime. During the 1930s a small portion of the French public were fascinated by authoritarian regimes due to the fact that Italian and German athletes achieved success and in doing so enhanced national prestige and pride as well as that of their respective political regimes. More importantly, the freezing or banning of sports events between national teams exemplifies the political usage of sport as a means of reprisal and/or disapproval. [11] For instance, in September 1919, the French football team, following the injunction of British sports federations, refused to meet the Swiss team since it had played a match against the Germans. The aim was to influence public opinion and consequently to change the foreign policy of the government. There were however cases where a crisis in sport did not result from political tension between competing states. In 1910, for example, the Union of French Societies of Athletic Sports (USFSA) broke off relations with the International Football Association (FIFA) and banned its members from playing against any teams that were affiliated to FIFA. In addition, the conflict that was generated by rugby early in Sport, Politics and International Relations 1691 the 1930s separated France and Britain and led to cool relations in matches played in the Five Nations Tournament. A football match in 1936 between Holland and Germany was cancelled a few days before the marriage of Princess Juliana, successor to the Netherlands throne, to the German Prince Bernard de Lippe, for fear of anti- German demonstrations. This fact motivated the Reich to break off sports relations with the Netherlands. In the same way, the French government banned its national football team from meeting Italy and Portugal in 1937 and Germany in 1938 for fear of provoking popular protest even though the Germans stated that the French footballers would be protected against any nationalistic and aggressive action. [12] Since sport can be easily integrated into government projects, such policies are commonly inspired and put into action by ministers. A government may give instructions to its representatives, such as the minister of sport or even the presidents of the national sports federations. This therefore poses the problem of the independence of national sports bodies from governmental policy or that of the meddling of politics in sports affairs. [13] One characteristic example of government use of sport to promote its own political ideology was Hitler s use (or abuse) of the 1936 Olympics. Hitler was especially interested in using the games to promote the Nazi ideology of Aryan supremacy. The 1936 Olympics, with its magnificent new sports facilities, were intended to glorify the Nazi regime and divert the attention of the world from the political situation in Germany. Only a year before, Hitler had passed a number of laws that took away many of the rights of Jews in Germany. Thousands of Jews had already been beaten, tortured and killed in concentration camps. Anyone who criticized the Nazis was imprisoned or executed. [14] Hitler s government devoted considerable resources to the training of German athletes, who won 89 medals that is, 23 medals more than the athletes of the United States of America and over four times as many as any other state. This is why the performance of Jesse Owens, an African-American athlete, was so important in the 1936 games. Owens s four gold medals and world records challenged Hitler s ideology of Nordic supremacy. [15] Nazism represented an extreme right-wing form of government, organized to advance an aggressive nationalism. Among its manifestations was a commitment to rid Germany of any Jewish presence and an attempt to propagandize the supremacy of the race. The anti-Semitism that characterized Nazism also affected sport. In 1933, when the boycott of Jewish business came into effect, the organizing bodies of sport were also required to exclude Jewish performers and officials. Two years later there was a complete segregation in German sport, something that contradicted the Olympic ideals. In the United States of America, an abortive boycott campaign targeting the proposed 1936 Olympics failed to gain support. Nevertheless, the Germans headed the medal table in 1936 and demonstrated that they were administratively capable, generous, and peace-loving people. [16] After the Second World War, athletes from the Soviet Union were involved in increasingly frequent international sports events, which provided an even more effective means for broadcasting the achievements of the Soviet Union and its satellite 1692 P. Kissoudi nations. It was no secret that the Soviet Union used its Olympic successes as a propaganda instrument for the Communist sports ideology. States such as Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia also showed similar intentions. In the Soviet bloc countries, participation in international events was exclusively a matter for their respective governments, which not only planned the nature and level of involvement but also ensured that the teams were well prepared for a positive outcome. National prestige had priority. [17] In addition, the Soviet government also used sport to emphasize the importance of teamwork, collectivism, comradeship, hard work and progress. On the other hand, in the states of Western Europe, sport was used to display the association between success and hard work and instead of emphasizing collectivism and common prosperity stress was laid on individualism and the achievement of excellence through competition. [18] Regardless of political system, sport was often utilized to provide people with a sense of purpose and real-life examples were used to reaffirm and strengthen the dominant political ideology of the country. Many people believe that the Olympic Games foster and promote the ideals of sport. However, in 1956 six national teams withdrew from the Melbourne Olympics. Some did so in protest against the Russian invasion of Hungary and others in protest against the Anglo-French invasion of Suez. This action prompted Avery Brundage, former IOC president, to comment that these countries show that they are unaware of one of our most important principles, namely that sport is completely free of politics . [19] On the other hand, there are many people involved in sport who recognize that seeking to insulate sport from politics is a pious hope. McIntosh has observed that if sport was to influence politics it would be hardly conceivable that the interaction should be in one direction only and that politics should have no bearing at all upon sport . [20] The interweaving of sport and politics is evident at international, national and regional levels. History shows that governments have used international sports events, especially the Olympic Games, to pursue their own interests rather than understanding, friendship and peace. Statements made by politicians substantiate this pursuit of national interests rather than unity. In 1964, Bobby Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States of America, said that it is in our national interest that we regain our Olympic superiority, that we once again give the world visible proof of our inner strength and vitality . [21] Some of the emerging industrial states have also recognized that hosting the Olympics was a good opportunity to make known worldwide their readiness and ability to participate in international sports and trade activities. Tokyo spent millions of dollars to host the 1964 summer games and Seoul spent much more to host the 1988 summer games. The Olympics have been widely used as an international stage on which states can gain international recognition and display power and resources. [22] Sport and politics impinge on one another. Sport creates politically usable resources, while in modern times governments have seen sport as an important agent of political socialization. Association with success in sport can be an important Sport, Politics and International Relations 1693 political resource. President John F. Kennedy began the practice of American presidents telephoning to congratulate victorious athletic teams. Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Britain was probably the first prime minister to associate his government with sporting success. The holding of government receptions in honour of winning teams, attendance at sporting events and the bestowing of honours on athletes were all evident during the tenure of his 1964 70 government. Even Margaret Thatcher could not resist being photographed with the British football team or taking part in the draw for the Scottish FA Cup. [23] In his electoral address in 1968, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, combined sport with culture in order to promote the cause of Canada s unity; an issue of great importance at that time. [24] Richard Nixon promoted sport for personal political ends during his presidency from 1969 to 1974, [25] while Gerald Ford, his successor, wondered in 1974: Do we realize how important it is to compete successfully with other nations? Not just the Russians, but many nations are growing and challenging. . . . A sporting triumph can be as uplifting to a nation s spirit as a battlefield victory. [26] These statements illustrate how sport was clearly connected with national and international politics, especially in the cold war era following the Second World War. In 1978 and 1982, when Argentina and Italy respectively won football s World Cup competition, General Vileda of Argentina and Italy s President Sandro Pertini were both keen to associate themselves with their country s success. [27] The connection between sport and politics was so widely recognized that Peter Ueberroth, president of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, concluded in 1984 that we now have to face the reality that the Olympics constitutes not only an athletic event but a political event . [28] When a government promotes sports activities that people enjoy and value, it improves its image in the eyes of its citizens. That s why many politicians present themselves as sports enthusiasts. They publicize sports events and associate themselves with high-profile athletes and teams that have been successful in international competition. For instance, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, former president of the United States of America, used sport to his political advantage. Prior to the 1984 election, his campaign staff hinted at a connection between his first four years in the White House and the United States success at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. The claim was that he had restored American pride and position in the international political arena. Reagan tried to enhance his reputation as well as that of the American political system by implying a connection between his presidency and the gold medals won by the American athletes. He also invited national champions to the White House for press conferences and photographs; thus attracting extensive national media coverage. [29] Although there have always been politicians who have seen the political benefit of associating themselves with winners, there have also been those who have asserted faith in the capability of sport of bringing people together and of creating unity which transcends differences in religion, class, race and nationality . [30] The 1694 P. Kissoudi Olympic movement draws on this ideal. However, governments have been involved in a number of sports issues that have arisen at international level. When in 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the USA and other Western states responded by suggesting a boycott of the forthcoming Olympic Games, which were scheduled to be held in Moscow in 1980. The British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, announced her government s support of the American initiative. Strong opposition came from politicians and governing bodies of sport, who argued that although sport and politics could not be separated, sport should not however be utilized as a political weapon. In 1988, cancellation of the winter tour of India by the British cricket team was the consequence of the Indian government s dissatisfaction with the policy of both the Test and County Cricket Board and the British government towards apartheid in South Africa and towards those cricket players who insisted on playing there. This issue also threatened to disrupt the 1990 Commonwealth Games in New Zealand. [31] In a foreign policy context, sport has been used in specific situations for a certain purpose. China and Cuba initiated sports meetings as a means of revealing the desire for relations with the West while, as already noted, many states expressed disagreement with the apartheid policy by discouraging sporting ties with South Africa. Several countries showed their disapproval of the invasion of Afghanistan by pressuring their Olympic Committees not to send teams to the Moscow Olympics. East Germany used sport and international matches to secure recognition from peoples, if not directly from governments. To make friends with the Third World, the Soviet Union and other Communist states sent coaches and other sports assistance as part of their foreign policy. [32] The involvement of governments in sport reflects in part an ideological view of the role of the state in society. In the developed West, sport is considered to have a role in character-building and the instilling of virtues of self-control, discipline and fair play. It is increasingly recognized as a means of promoting good health. In the former Soviet Union and other Communist states sport was seen as having many roles. It was seen as a vital means of maintaining people s health and preparing them for military service but, perhaps more significantly, it was seen as a tool for foreign policy. [33] In truth, such states have seldom put understanding and good fellowship ahead of their own interests. The demonstration of superiority through sport has been given priority. Powerful industrial countries are not the only ones that have used sport to promote national interests. For instance, many nations lacking international political and economic recognition at international level have used participation in the Olympics as part of their quest for international recognition. They have used international athletic meetings as a stage to show that their athletes and teams can be involved and sometimes even defeat athletes from states economically superior to their own. [34] Furthermore, the place of sport in people s consciousness demonstrates that a sense of national dignity, in which the governments have an interest, is enhanced by national sporting success such as that of Italy in the 1982 football World Cup. Sport, Politics and International Relations 1695 One of the roles of sport in countries of the Third World is to promote a sense of national identity in these states, which are often troubled by tribal or religious divisions. In 1984, the West Indian cricket team s defeat of England was seen as an event that contributed greatly to West Indian prestige in the international arena. The conflict with the Tamils in Sri Lanka stopped (at least for a short time) when in 1984 the Sri Lanka cricket team played and put up good performances against England. For a small state, the success of a prominent sports team is a way of reminding the world of its existence. For many governments, sport is too important to be ignored. In consequence, they want to oversee every sports group that represents the country at international level. The national anthem is played and flags are prominent at the opening and closing ceremonies of Olympic and other major sporting events as well as at medal presentations. [35] In fact, sport is a key instrument in the domestic and foreign policies of many governments and is also a factor in the promotion of the state s image both regionally and internationally. The utilization of sport as a means for the improvement of international relations began to interest the international academic community in the early 1980s. In 1981, a research paper entitled Approaches to the Study of Sport in International Relations was published by H. Kyrolainen and T. Varis at the Research Institute for Peace in Finland. This research paved the way for a close investigation into the relationship between culture, sport and foreign policy. [36] This relationship concerned sports historians, sociologists, anthropologists and many other scholars. According to Shaw and Shaw, sport is part of politics. [37] They substantiated their position by arguing that in both politics and in sport all those involved aspire to improve their social prestige and for this reason they endeavour to secure resources. The significant role sport can play in transnational relations motivated all those involved in it to participate in international congresses and seminars and to publish papers in scientific/academic journals. [38] On the other hand, it has often been suggested that sport does not contribute to the promotion and consolidation of peace and that it in fact reinforces nationalism. [39] The idea that sport both transcends and integrates local, regional and national communities is an argument that has appeared in many forms. The notion that sport has some intrinsic property that rises above and displaces whatever major or minor social divisions there may be has often been perceived as one of the major reason for staging international sports events. In the late 1970s, Sylvanus Williams, Nigeria s Minister of Sport, stated that sporting achievements not only united the people but were also a measure of a nation s greatness. The winners are seen not only to legitimate the nation within the international arena but also to create a positive image of the nation. [40] Outlining the Positive and Negative Roles of Sport in Transnational Relations The establishment of unity and understanding between peoples should be among the main goals of sport. That sport should bring nations of the world together has been 1696 P. Kissoudi emphasized since the revival of modern Olympics. More importantly, the potential impact of sport upon transnational relations has never been summarized more clearly than in the statement by Alan Reich, former official of the State Department of the USA. In 1974 Reich pointed out that sport opens doors to societies and paves the way for contact, cultural, economic and political ; and that sport provides an example of friendly competition and two-way interchange which characterizes and leads to other types of friendly relations between nations . [41] Nevertheless, many examples of the mesh between politics and sport suggest that when sport and politics intertwine it is sport that has its values undermined and exploited. There are some examples, however, of a mutually beneficial relationship where sport has been a positive force for improving international relations. Sports meetings that are politically well-intentioned can help communication and cooperation between states. In October 1927 the Hellenic Amateur Athletic Association organized competitions between athletic teams from Bulgaria and Greece, two traditionally antagonistic states. That sports meeting was the first peaceful contact between the two states since the Great War and the 1925 frontier incident. The meeting was first proposed by Petko Zlatev, a representative of the Bulgarian Sports Association. Zlatev stated with optimism that Greece and Bulgaria, neighbouring countries, which aspire to create friendly relations in the future, should make every effort to establish sporting relations that are capable of creating and promoting good fellowship between peoples . [42] Clearly, sport was recognized as a source of goodwill and cooperation and was promoted by both the Greek and Bulgarian sports associations. It was hoped that the sports meeting might play a positive role in the improvement of trans-national relations. The common reality, of course, is that when an athletic meeting is staged, political friendship seldom receives priority as the demonstration of national superiority is the main priority of the competing parties. [43] Notwithstanding this, in the 1930s the Balkan Games did provide a rare example of how an athletic event was used to bring together antagonistic nations. The games increasingly became a source of goodwill and did help to minimize tension between the participating states. The athletes were encouraged to perform with an emphasis on individual participation. Spectators, sports representatives and journalists focused on the achievements of the athletes as individual rather than national successes and on symbols emphasizing conciliation, friendship and collaboration. Time and again, statesmen such as Eleftherios Venizelos, the Greek Premier (1928 32), as well as Bulgarian, Rumanian, Yugoslav and Turkish politicians and diplomats stated that the greatest service the games rendered to peace in the region was that they brought athletes, diplomats and government representatives together to seek and advance channels of communica- tion, conciliation and cooperation. [44] In addition, the Balkan sports representatives who represented their country at the games acted as diplomatic representatives, both formal and informal, in the effort to improve relations between nations. The mere fact that sport was capable of bringing together the Balkan peoples in an amicable Sport, Politics and International Relations 1697 atmosphere was an achievement in itself. The games increasingly became a means of cultural exchange and a stimulus to the improvement of regional performances by which means the Balkan nations raised their self-esteem. Furthermore, sport has been used to bring about political transformation in a state. Such a goal of course, cannot be achieved very often. Nevertheless, the long- term boycott of sports competitions involving South African teams did make an important contribution to the overall effort to break down the apartheid policy. Racial apartheid in South Africa was established in 1948 and efforts to isolate that country s sports teams date back to the late 1950s. These efforts were increasingly organized to the point that there was an effective global boycott in the 1960s. The boycott was associated with bitter conflicts in several states. [45] However, it took on an increasingly symbolic form throughout the world and reminded people of the racial oppression in South Africa. It also put pressure on white South Africans to consider their government s policy of racial discrimination. Eventually, in the early 1990s, racial barriers started to be removed and the African National Congress, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, made sport an integral part of everyday life through which he could promote the suppression of racial discrimination. Thus changes in sport became a symbol of the need for changes in several parts of South African social life. [46] In the early 1970s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and China, which had initially been attempted through table tennis matches (later described as ping-pong diplomacy ) is a classic case in point. The matches were designed to emphasize involvement rather than the competitive success of one nation over the other. They were organized to bring the countries together and not to establish superiority or reaffirm national prestige, either in the eyes of the international community or the people of the competing states. For this reason, the symbols associated with the event and the media coverage focused on unity and the skills of the athletes while the victories were attributed to the athletes themselves rather than to the states in which they were born or trained. The result was that the table tennis matches provided opportunities for contact and understanding between the two countries. [47] In addition, the later Goodwill Games were founded after the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympic Games in an effort to bring elite athletes from all over the world together in a forum that emphasized unity through sport. The games were designed to reduce the increasing hostility between the sports communities of the United States of America and the Soviet Union. They were initiated in Moscow in 1986 were then held in Seattle in 1990 and were accompanied by art exhibitions, concerts and conferences. This was a meritorious attempt on the one hand to allow people from different countries to meet and discuss world issues in a conciliatory atmosphere, while also encouraging proposals for effective solutions. Although there is no information about the impact of these events on the political domain, they were promoted and covered in a way that downplayed political differences and nationalism. [48] 1698 P. Kissoudi The following is one more example of the positive role of sport in transnational relations. When Seoul was selected to host the 1988 Olympics serious political obstacles emerged. The Korean peninsula had been divided since 1945; a consequence of the cold war, with South Korea unrecognized by the Soviet bloc and firmly tied to the West. North Korea was correspondingly close to the Soviet bloc and estranged from the West. The absence of relations between South Korea and the Soviet bloc gave rise to the fear that the Soviet Union and its allies might boycott the games. The president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch, handled the difficult situation with outstanding diplomatic skill. He showed the Soviet Union that the IOC had done all it could do to satisfy its ally s demands and so allowed the Soviet Union to participate in the games without loss of face. This was what the Soviet leaders possibly wished to do in any case, for by boycotting the Los Angeles Games of 1984 it had already negatively affected some of its Eastern Europe friendships. To do so again might have a further negative impact on them and also on some Third World allies. The Olympics were an important catalyst for the improvement of relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. [49] A more recent example of sport as a source of goodwill and conciliation was the marathon race held in Berlin on New Year s Day in 1990. The race followed a route that weaved its way through both east and west Berlin, thus symbolizing the unification of East and West. [50] Each of the above examples shows that with careful planning sport can be used to promote good fellowship and peace between peoples. Furthermore, up to 1991, the United States Information Agency funded the Sports America Programme through which coaches, trainers, administrative experts and sports equipment were sent to states that lacked the resources to develop sports programmes on their own. In addition, coaches from developing countries were invited to the USA so that they could work with American coaches and learn from them. The participants in the programme worked with other volunteer groups in the United States as well as with national and international sports organizations in order to assist developing countries to establish sports programmes for disabled elite athletes of both sexes. [51] Turning to the negative role of sport in international relations, it could be said that from their inception the modern Olympic Games have been marked by political conflicts. In 1896, the Germans showed hostility to the games, since they were seen as a riposte by the French for their defeat in the Franco-German war. [52] In early 1908 the national team of Finland, then part of Russia, refused to march in the opening ceremony of the Olympics under the Russian flag and chose to march as a separate group without a flag. The 1936 Olympics were exploited by Hitler and the Nazis to promote the virtues of National Socialism and the supposed superiority of the Aryan race. [53] In addition to the Olympics, in the first half of the twentieth century other major sporting events had been utilized for political confrontation. To mention merely two examples from soccer, Germany was invited to Britain in 1935 to play a match at Tottenham Hotspur s White Hart Lane ground. Arrangements were finalized by late August, but the British government did not become aware of the event until Sport, Politics and International Relations 1699 September, when the Home Office received a request from a German steamship company for permission to land supporters at Southampton. Media coverage focused on the negative reactions of various anti-fascist, Jewish and left-wing groups towards the idea of entertaining a team seen as representing a regime guilty of serious excesses against the church, the Jews and the labour movement. [54] The invitation resulted in protests from trade unions, who demanded that the match should be cancelled because of the offence that might be given to the large local Jewish population of north London. The forthcoming match raised policy issues for the British government. The Home Office was alarmed by fears of unrest, even riots, consequent upon the presence of some 10,000 German spectators. [55] Finally, the fact that the match had already been arranged and publicized urged the British government to assume that it would go ahead. [56] In a subsequent international game in 1938, this time in Germany, the British team was instructed to give the Nazi salute as the German national anthem was played before the match. After the 1936 Olympics, no summer Olympic Games escaped political incident. The defeated states of the Second World War, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, were excluded from the London games in 1948. [57] The negative role sport could play in transnational relations was stressed by George Orwell when in 1945 he commented on the visit of the Moscow Dynamo Football Club to Britain. Orwell wrote that sport is an unfailing cause of ill-will, and . . . if such a visit as this has had any effect on Anglo-Soviet relations, it could only be to make them slightly worse than before . [58] Moreover, Holland, Egypt, Iraq and Spain boycotted the 1956 Olympic Games in protest against the British and French invasion of Suez. The Chinese stayed away because the Taiwanese had been allowed to compete. Taiwan then claimed to be the true Republic of China, but the Hungarians surprised everybody by deciding to go to Melbourne in 1956 despite the fact that Soviet troops had invaded the country earlier that year. [59] As previously noted, the statement sport is completely free of politics was made by Avery Brundage, president of the IOC, in the same year in response to the withdrawals referred to above. The Melbourne protest was part of a general pattern established long before 1956 and which has continued up to the present day. The absence of countries from major international meetings, either as a demonstration of protest or due to their exclusion, has been a usual feature in the history of the Olympics. In addition, in 1964 South Africa was suspended and later expelled from the Olympic movement (in 1970). [60] In 1966, during the football World Cup finals held in Britain, NATO first opposed the presence of the North Korea national team in a NATO country and then opposed the flying of the North Korea flag and the playing of its national anthem. [61] Soccer provides many examples of sport being used as forum for government propaganda or as an arena for international politics. There is the example of the defeat of Honduras by El Salvador in a World Cup qualifying match in 1969, being the spark that turned the growing hostility between the two countries into open war. [62] Zimbabwe, formerly Rhodesia, a country that adopted a system similar to 1700 P. Kissoudi apartheid, was barred in 1972 having made a unilateral declaration of independence from the Commonwealth. [63] New Zealand maintained sports links with South Africa despite global opposition. Consequently, in 1976 more than 20 African nations boycotted the Montreal Olympics in protest at the participation of New Zealand. [64] Olympic boycotts have since proliferated. Taiwan also withdrew after it was refused permission to compete as China . [65] The most tragic example of the Olympic Games being used for political purposes occurred in 1972 in Munich when eight Palestinian terrorists occupied the Israeli team s quarters and demanded the release of 200 Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Negotiations proved fruitless and ten Israeli athletes were killed. A day s mourning followed before the competitions resumed. Reasonably, there was considerable thought that the remaining events should be cancelled but the outgoing president, Avery Brundage, decided that the games should go on. Since then, matters of security have become a major preoccupation of the Olympic Games organizing committees. [66] In 1980, following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (in late 1979) the British government put considerable pressure on its athletes not to participate in the Moscow Olympics. [67] The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, exhorted British athletes not to go but the British Olympic Association went ahead. [68] President Carter s proposal for a boycott of the Moscow games was also a consequence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The president seemed to have decided that a boycott would be a way of showing disapproval of the Soviet action. He and his advisers, however, were surprised when their suggestions, made only a few months prior to the Olympics, that the games should be moved elsewhere or that an alternative games should be held, received little support. There were of course arguments on both sides. On the one hand, many sports representatives resented American interference and thought it wrong to deprive athletes of the supreme athletic event for which they had been training for so long. On the other hand, the government of the United States thought it improper to back sporting collaboration with a country that had invaded Afghanistan and believed that the athletes should not shrink from bearing their part of the burden. [69] For political reasons, China sent a limited delegation of 200 athletes and Yugoslavia did not send any at all to the same games. [70] Speciously pleading anxiety over their athletes security, the Soviet Union and its allies (except Romania) did not participate in the 1984 Los Angeles games, [71] while in 1988 Cuba stayed away from the Seoul games after the South Korean government had refused to share events with North Korea. Almost every Olympics has been associated with some form of political issue that has prompted boycotts. [72] Sport is not invariably a source of international goodwill. Quite the reverse! Not infrequently in the twentieth century, sport has pointed up political confrontation. To take merely one example; a serious political problem arose in 1982 when Hu Na, a Chinese tennis player from the People s Republic of China, applied for political asylum in the United States. Following the ping-pong diplomacy , sport had promoted conciliation between the two countries. Nevertheless, during the period Sport, Politics and International Relations 1701 when the Americans were considering the asylum application of Hu Na, China cancelled bilateral cultural exchanges due to take place in 1983 and withdrew from involvement in international meetings that were scheduled to be held in the United States. [73] Racial or ethnic prejudice has also been a source of international confrontation. The offensive behaviour of Austrian supporters during the football match between Algeria and Austria, which resulted in the elimination of the Algerian team from the 1982 World Cup, had a negative impact on Austrian-Algerian relations. After a formal protest by the Algerian ambassador, some of the Austrian fans were compelled to apologize to the Algerian embassy. An embarrassing situation was minimized. [74] In a more recent case, catcalls by Greek supporters against the players of Southern Serbia, who had won the Pan-European Basketball Championship held in Athens in 1995, raised tension between the competing states. To retrieve the situation, Carol Papoulias, the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, handled the problem personally. [75] The above are merely the tip of a sizable iceberg! Nevertheless, the positive or negative role of sport in international relations is dependent, to some extent, on how the sports meetings are organized and promoted. When there is emphasis on competitive success in terms of the national affiliations of athletes and medals won, then there is little chance for the development of friendly relations either regionally and/or internationally. Throughout the world, states are ranked, to an extent, according to the interest their governments take in sport. There are some states where sport is fully integrated into the political system and has thus become an important instrument in government policy, while there are others in which sport is organized by non- political organizations and is supposedly free of political interference. Some efforts have been made in many Western countries to exclude politics from sport. However, there are political implications in modern sport that are unavoidable. In a world where success in sport is regarded as a measure of national vitality and prestige, it is difficult to avoid the fact that sport has become the tool of politics. On the other hand it is generally accepted that sport builds character and serves as the basis for group unity and solidarity. It is also believed that, regardless of the differences in political or economic systems, sport is positively linked to people s lifestyle. [76] The idealistic view of sport has some of its roots in Greek antiquity. It relates sport to physical perfection and sees athletic endeavour as the individual striving for physical or bodily perfection. One variant of this view is the concept of physical and mental harmony or the concept of the healthy mind in the healthy body. The apolitical view is that sport is a world of its own. It is full of fun and excitement but it has nothing to do with the real world and should be shielded from it. The keeping of politics out of sport presupposes that existing sporting organizations are non- political and oppose any external interference apart from government funding. [77] More significantly, international sport is often the tool of diplomacy. The state looms large where national image is concerned. International sport has always been a battle for national self-pride, a war without weapons . Newly independent states have 1702 P. Kissoudi devoted much energy and resources to sport as a way of establishing themselves on the international stage. Communist countries consciously adopted a policy of achieving superiority by outstripping Western countries in Olympic performance a goal that was achieved successfully. The relationship between sport and nationalism has rested upon a number of arguments including the following: . sport is inherently conservative and helps to consolidate nationalism, patriotism and racism; . sport has some inherent property that makes it a possible instrument of national unity and integration; . sport helps to reinforce national consciousness and cultural nationalism; . sport has contributed to political struggles, some of which have been closely connected to nationalist politics and popular nationalist struggles. In fact, sport has often been involved in the process of nationalism as a national reaction to dependency and it contributes to a quest for identity through nostalgia, mythology, and invented or selected traditions. [78] Sport does, however, have a positive contribution to make to world affairs. Sports meetings/events encourage people from different countries, colour, religion and cultural background to come together in a spirit of friendship and goodwill. In the 1930s the Balkan Games provided a rare example of sport being utilized to bring together antagonistic states in an atmosphere of unity and understanding. Against a background of complex, confrontational national issues and athletes who were unable to compete successfully in sport in Europe, the Balkan Games emerged as an attempt to import sport into politics in the interests of regional peace, stability and conciliation. In addition, any consideration of these games should be set in the context of the emergence of modern sport in the region. Notes [1] Allison, Sport and Politics , 5. [2] Coakley, Sport in Society, 17. [3] Millar, The Nature of Politics, 16. [4] Leftwich, What is Politics?, 63. [5] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 5. [6] Taylor, Sport and International Relations , 29 30. [7] Ibid., 30 3. [8] Happel and Kramer, The Objectives of Sport and International Understanding , 108 10. [9] Hoberman, Sport and Political Ideology, 20. [10] Arnaud, Sport a Means of National Representation , 3 4. [11] Ibid., 11. [12] Ibid., 8 12. [13] Ibid., 8. [14] Langley, Sport and Politics, 8. [15] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 1 2. Sport, Politics and International Relations 1703 [16] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 352. [17] Natan, Sport and Politics , 206. [18] Coakley, Sport in Society, 365 6. [19] Quoted in Guttman, The Games Must Go On, 96. [20] McIntosh, Fair Play, 140. [21] Coakley, Sport in Society, 365 6. [22] Ibid., 369 70. [23] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 9. [24] MacIntosh et al., Canadian Government Involvement in Sport, 21 6. [25] Collins and Nixon, The Psychic, Political and Moral Uses of Sport , 77 84. [26] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369. [27] Allison, Sport and Politics , 6 13. [28] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369 70. [29] Ibid., 367. [30] Allison, Sport and Politics , 14. [31] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 1 2. [32] Taylor, Sport and International Relations , 39. [33] Ibid., 40. [34] Coakley, Sport in Society, 369 70. [35] Ibid. [36] Kyrolainen and Varis, Approaches to the Study of Sport in International Relations , 55 88. [37] Shaw and Shaw, Sport as Transnational Politics , 386 99. [38] Stolyarov and Sanadze, The Role of International Sporting Ties , 38 46. [39] Galtung, The Sport System as a Metaphor , 10 6. [40] Jarvie, Sport, Nationalism and Cultural Identity , 69 70. [41] Quoted in Coakley, Sport in Society, 368 9. [42] Manitakis, 100 Chronia Neoellinikou Athlitismou, 539. [43] Holsti, International Politics, 25. [44] Official statements made by Greek politicians and Balkan diplomats about the political role of the Balkan Games in the area were published in Newspaper of the Balkans, 24 Sept. 1929; Northern Greece Messenger, 22 Sept. 1929; Northern Greece Messenger, 5 Oct. 1930; Newspaper of the Balkans, 6 Oct. 1930; Northern Greece Messenger, 6 Oct. 1930; Les Jeux Panbalkaniques , in Donation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, l�re Conference Balkanique, 404 5; Spanoudi, Les Premieurs Jeux Balkaniques , 28; Northern Greece Messenger, 6 Oct. 1931; Eleftheron Vima, 5 and 6 Oct. 1931; Eleftheron Vima, 10 Oct. 1932; Macedonia, 10 Oct. 1932; Eleftheron Vima, 12 Oct. 1932. [45] Lapchick, The Politics of Race and International Sport, 55 9. [46] Coakley, Sport in Society, 377. [47] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8. As an outcome, table tennis provided the opportunity for positive communication between the two nations and the occasion was used for political ends. See Sage, Power and Ideology in American Sport, 18. [48] Coakley, Sport in Society, 372. [49] Hill, The Politics of the Olympic Movement , 96 7. [50] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8. [51] The funding of the programme stopped in 1991 since some American officials were not convinced that sport was an effective vehicle for public diplomacy. See Coakley, Sport in Society, 376. [52] Hill, The Politics of the Olympic Movement , 86. [53] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 7. [54] Beck, Scoring for Britain, 181; Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8. 1704 P. Kissoudi [55] Beck, Scoring for Britain, 182 4. [56] Ibid., 184; Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 8. [57] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 352 3. [58] George Orwell, The Sporting Spirit , Tribune, 14 Dec. 1945. Orwell also stated that I am always amazed when I hear people saying that sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only the common peoples of the world could meet one another at football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet on the battlefield. Even if one didn t know from concrete examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one could deduce it from general principles. . . . At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe . . . that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue. [59] Langley, Sport and Politics, 19. [60] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 349 53. [61] Howell, Made in Birmingham, 171 2. [62] Houlihan, The Government and Politics of Sport, 7. [63] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353. [64] Taylor, Sport and International Relations , 33. [65] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353. [66] Hill, The Politics of the Olympic Movement , 92 3. [67] Taylor, Sport and International Relations , 33. [68] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353. [69] Hill, The Politics of the Olympic Movement , 94. [70] Ibid., 115 16. [71] Toohey, The Politics of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics , 109 16. [72] Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 353. [73] Pendleton, Deuce or Double Fault? . [74] Luschen, Sport, International Conflict and Conflict Resolution , 47 56. [75] To Vima, 9 June 1995. [76] Mangan, Prologue , vii. [77] Whannel, Blowing the Whistle, 24 5. [78] Ibid., 24 5, 78. References Allison, L. Sport and Politics . In The Politics of Sport, edited by L. Allison. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986. Arnaud, P. Sport a Means of National Representation . In Sport and International Politics The Impact of Fascism and Communism on Sport, edited by P. Arnaud and J. Riordan. London: E & FN Spon, 1998. Beck, P. Scoring for Britain: International Football and International Politics, 1900 1939. London: Frank Cass, 1999. Cashmore, E. Making Sense of Sports, 3rd edn. London: Routledge, 2000. Coakley, J. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies, 3rd edn. St Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing, 1986. Collins, R. and M.R. Nixon. The Psychic, Political and Moral Uses of Sport . Journal of Sport History 10, no. 2, (summer 1983): 77 84. Donation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, ed. 1�re Conference Balkanique. Documents Officials. Athens: Dotation Carnegie pour la Paix Internationale, 1931. Sport, Politics and International Relations 1705 Galtung, J. The Sport System as a Metaphor for the World System . In Proceedings of the International Symposium Sport The Third Millennium (Quebec City, Canada, 21 25 May 1990), edited by F. Landry, M. Landry and M. Yerles. Saint-Foy: Les Presses de l Univerite Laval, 1991: 10 16. Guttman, A. The Games Must Go On: Avery Brundage and the Olympic Movement. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984: 108 10. Happel, D. and R., Kramer The Objectives of Sport and International Understanding . In Proceedings of the Congress Sport and International Understanding , (7 10 July 1982), edited by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984. Hill, C. The Politics of the Olympic Movement . In The Changing Politics of Sport, edited by L. Allison. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993: 84 104. Hoberman, M.J. Sport and Political Ideology. London: Heinemann, 1984. Holsti, K.J. International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, 6th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1992. Houlihan, B. The Government and Politics of Sport. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Howell, D. Made in Birmingham: The Memoirs of Denis Howell. London: Macdonald/Queen Anne Press, 1990. Jarvie, G. Sport, Nationalism and Cultural Identity . In The Changing Politics of Sport, edited by L. Allison. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993: 58 83. Kyrolainen, H. T., Varis. Approaches to the Study of Sport in International Relations . Current Research on Peace and Violence 4, no. 1: 55 88. Langley, A. Sport and Politics. Hove: Wayland Publishers Ltd, 1989. Lapchick, R. The Politics of Race and International Sport. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1975. Leftwich, A. What is Politics?, Oxford: Blackwell, 1984. Luschen, G. Sport, International Conflict and Conflict Resolution . In Proceedings of the Congress Sport and International Understanding , (7 10 July 1982), edited by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984: 47 56. MacIntosh, D. C. Franks and T. Bedecki. Canadian Government Involvement in Sport: Some Consequences and Issues . In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, vol. 7, edited by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986: 21 6. McIntosh, P. Fair Play: Ethics in Sport and Education. London: Heinemann, 1979. Mangan, J.A. Prologue . In Sport in Europe: Politics, Class, Gender, edited by J.A. Mangan, vol. 1. London: Frank Cass, 1999: vii. Manitakis, P. 100 Chronia Neoellinikou Athlitismou: 1830 1930 [ A Hundred Years of Modern Greek Athleticism: 1830 1930 ]. Athens: n.n., 1962. Millar, J.D.B. The Nature of Politics. London: Duckworth, 1962. Natan, A. Sport and Politics . In Sport, Culture and Society. A Reader of the Sociology of Sport, edited by W.J. Loy and S.G. Kenyon. London: Macmillan Company, 1969: 203 10. Pendleton, B. Deuce or Double Fault? The Defection of Tennis Player Hu Na: A Study of China- United States Sport Diplomacy . In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, vol. 7, edited by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986: 13 20. Sage, G. Power and Ideology in American Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1990. Shaw, T. and S., Shaw. Sport as Transnational Politics: A Preliminary Analysis of Africa . In Sport and International Relations, edited by B. Lowe. D. Kanin and A. Strenk. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company, 1978: 386 99. Spanoudi, M. Les premieurs jeux Balkaniques , Les Balkans I, no. 2, (Nov. 1930): 28. Stolyarov, V. and L., Sanadze. The Role of International Sporting Ties in Strengthening Peace and Understanding Between Nations . In Proceedings of the Congress Sport and International Understanding , (7 10 July 1982), edited by M. Ilmirinen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984: 38 46. 1706 P. Kissoudi Taylor, T. Sport and International Relations: A Case of Mutual Neglect . In The Politics of Sport, edited by L. Allison. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986: 27 48. Toohey, D. The Politics of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics . In The 1984 Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, vol. 7, edited by G. Redmond. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1986: 109 16. Whannel, G. Blowing the Whistle. The Politics of Sport. London: Pluto Press, 1983.

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
J N Straus The anxiety of influence in twentieth century music
Balancing Disappointment and Enthusiasm Developments in EU?lkans relations during 2003
exploring the social ledger negative relationship and negative assymetry in social networks in organ
International trade in ICT goods and services
Functional Origins of Religious Concepts Ontological and Strategic Selection in Evolved Minds
Lindner, Marks Pleistocene and its stratigraphy in Poland
Shwartz and Greenberg Sisters in Fantasy (v1 0) [html]
Images and Impressions Experiences in a Tomb in the Kilmartin Valley
No Man s land Gender bias and social constructivism in the diagnosis of borderline personality disor
Injuries and overuse syndromes in competitive and elite bodybuilding PubMed NCBI
2012 vol 07 Geopolitics and energy security in the Caspian region

więcej podobnych podstron