Protest the issues, not the Olympics

By: Ravi Gupta

Posted: 5/1/08

The Olympic Games belong to the athletes and not to the politicians," President of the American Olympic Committee Avery Brundage said in 1936. He was speaking in response to proposals to boycott the Summer Olympics that year in Berlin, where German Jews were excluded. But while most of us would certainly like to agree with Brundage, protests and boycotts have almost become another category of Olympic sport. And a protracted series of "knock the torch" disrupting the pre-Olympic festivities has revealed that the Olympics actually encompass a body of politics in and of itself. In fact, history shows that the Olympics have rarely passed off without controversy. But history also reveals that boycotts have done little if anything to effect a political change in the host country.

The Berlin games in 1936 were perhaps the most controversial in history. The Nazis inundated the games in propaganda. When there were protests, Brundage opposed all calls for a boycott of the Games and the United States still participated. Interestingly, the idea for a torch relay came from Nazi organizers in the 1936 Games.

Whether or not the relay will survive remains to be seen. When Barcelona hosted the Games in 1992, for the first time in 30 years there were no boycotts. But the Cold War was over and the other source of protest, the apartheid, had also ended. 1980 saw the largest boycott in history when 62 countries led by the United States didn't arrive in Moscow after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the previous year. This year, the specter of protest has risen once again, this time under the reason of China's human rights abuses and its treatment of Tibetans.

While I agree with the cause for which these people are fighting, I have trouble with the recent protests and do not support them as they relate to the Games themselves. People should not be protesting the Olympic Games but rather the political issues, like China's involvement in Darfur.

People shouldn't boycott participation in an event whose purpose is to bring about peaceful, international cooperation. But many American politicians, including presidential hopefuls Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are pressuring President George W. Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Although this might make a significant public statement to the global community, it seems unlikely that such an act would be effective in altering the injustices in China.

Current rules prohibit athletes participating in the Olympics from taking part in any political, religious or racial demonstrations before or after the competition. The stipulation was instigated to prevent the integrity of the Games from being influenced by external political agendas.

Some have suggested that a boycott of the Games entirely would send a powerful message saying that human rights violations will not be tolerated by the international community. But such an approach to injustice does not attack the issue at its roots. As Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell said in February this year, "I certainly think it's reasonable to use this window to encourage China to act as a responsible global citizen. [But] I think the boundary between government and sport is one that politicians should cross very carefully."

Why attack the Games when they themselves are not what you oppose? If you're a politician or an athlete, the best way to voice your disapproval is not tacit nonattendance. You should demonstrate your censure by showing up and upholding the ideal that the Olympic Games symbolize: the showcasing of human potential through peaceful cooperation and competition.