With the London Olympics only a week away, much of the attention is on the political importance of this sporting event for international relations. Sport has often been an outlet for expressing political views, settling scores and renewing bonds and world events, such as the Olympics are the biggest forum for global politics.
The London Olympics, like many events before it, has been made a political issue focusing in particular on the participation of Middle Eastern states, whose political structure has been heavily scrutinized by the international political scene. In particular nations, such as Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya have all come under close scrutiny and criticism from international players forcing Britain to respond accordingly.
Following the civil war in Libya many believed that it would be unable to put together a team to compete at London 2012, especially as the former head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was a son of Colonel Gaddafi and fled to Algeria following the Civil War. However even though Libya has put forward a small team to compete they continue to face difficulties as the new head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was abducted this week.
Saudi Arabia has seen the London Olympics being used as a forum to discuss the role of women in Saudi society and there has been an intense media focus on the decision to send, for the first time, female athletes to London 2012.
For Syria and Bahrain, however much attention is not on whether the nations could produce a team and in what form the team would be, but rather whether the team or officials should be allowed to take part in the events. For Syria the decision has been taken that any officials subject to an EU ban on travel, as a result of internal conflict, will not be allowed to attend the events, although the team itself can compete and this has been supported by the international community. However Bahrain has proved to be one of the biggest controversies. Prince Nasser bin Hamad al Khalifa is the President of the Bahrain Olympic Committee and for many, both in Britain and internationally, his involvement in London 2012 is seen as an endorsement of the actions of the Bahrain government, which has been accused of violence, repression and torture. Many have threatened action if the Prince arrives in London and political tensions over his continued involvement remain very high.
London 2012 is by no means the first Olympic games to deal with controversial political decisions. Beijing 2008 was marred by Free Tibet protests and activists who protested against China’s human rights record and attacked TV presenter, Konnie Huq, whilst she carried the Olympic torch in London. Many Olympics, particularly those in developing nations or with controversial regimes, have seen great protest by activists who resent these states being gifted such a prestigious event. Most famously, however, it was the 1980 and 1984 Olympics which highlighted the role of politics in sports.
The 1980 Summer Olympics was held in Moscow, then the capital of the USSR. This was a move rejected by officials in the USA and many other Western countries, including West Germany, Japan and Canada, who ultimately boycotted the event in protest at the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. This move by Western nations was replicated in 1984 by communist nations, led by the USSR, when the Olympics was held in Los Angeles.
However the Olympics, although one of the largest sporting events, is not the only sporting occasion in which nations play out global issues. Tours by national teams have often been used as a symbol of cross-border friendship and co-operation. Most notably this has been seen in tours by the national cricket teams of Pakistan and India, countries that have a difficult history. They have often used sport as a way to soften relations between the two presenting a forum to settle scores between the two states, without resorting to violence or military action. Following the Mumbai bombings in 2008, in which Pakistan was accused of involvement, sporting ties were cut between the two, however in recent weeks, details of a tour by the Pakistan team in India have emerged illustrating a thawing in relations.
Sport has also come under fire for its ability to over involve itself in political affairs, as was highlighted in 2012 with the Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix, when the decision was made to go ahead with the race despite calls from within Bahrain and from around the world to cancel the event in light of the crackdown, implemented by the government, on protestors. By undertaking this action Formula 1 opened itself up to criticism from international commentators and accusations that the people in charge believed sport transcended politics.
Clearly the role of sport in international politics is huge. It can be used both to encourage relations between two nations and to bring nations together on a global scale to participate in something greater than national politics, as the Olympics aims to do. Sport is intrinsically linked with politics; with participation being used as a bargaining chip and governing bodies coming under attack when the political actions of sport differ from the political actions of nations they represented or are involved with.
A Little View of the World 