It seems funny that this, albeit short, article fails to mention international contests that cross European borders. For instance, the 2018 FIFA World Cup was awarded to Russia, a bastion of regression towards authoritarianism and international malaise over the past decade. 2022 was awarded to Qatar, which recognizes neither gay rights nor Israel. Brazil, home of the 2014 Cup, is little better, having improved democratically in recent years, but continues to undermine human rights by forcibly removing settled populations for construction and aesthetics. Another event subject to controversy is the Formula One Grand Prix, most recently in Bahrain, where human rights concerns have been raised regarding the government response to protesters. Even the biggest international contest of them all is no stranger. The 2008 Summer Games were held in China. 2016 - Brazil. 2014 Winter Games - Russia.
One aspect nearly all of these contests have in common is the fact that they are awarded by committee. The sole exception is Eurovision, which automatically transfers from country to country based on the victor. Perhaps that unique aspect of Eurovision gives it some semblance of fairness that other international contest selections lack. Instead, countries should not only pledge to politically boycott awarded games, but sometimes a more thorough boycott is needed. For example, how would Ukraine have responded under threat to move the games out of Ukraine (Poland's neighbor Germany seems to have some recently-built soccer stadiums). Despite claims, politics and sports are not separate. Sport is often used to divert attention, build loyalty, and promote populism. Does it do more to make international contests seem inclusive, so long as one has the ability to fund them, whether that funding comes from economic success or economic subjugation, or does it do more to make international contests exclusive, reserved for only those nations who agree on certain basic principles, such as human rights and representative government?
I think you'd have a very difficult time trying to making international contests exclusive to nations that agree on human rights and representative government. Who decides whether a country believes in human rights or if their elections are free and fair? Russia would argue that they have elections and that any criticism of their human rights abuses by the U.S. are hypocritical (Russia and China like to point out our human rights abuses in the war on terror whenever we criticize them).
ReplyDeleteWhile the committee system might lead to less democratic states hosting important sporting events, I have difficulty imagining a better system. I think, where a country wants to send a strong enough message, boycotting the games could be an option. In the meantime, putting the spotlight on a country (ala China in 2008) is probably a good thing -- human rights abuses in China probably got more coverage during the Games than any other time since Tienanmen Square.
The question is...did that coverage do anything? The media is always a force that highlights things, good and bad, but what policy/strategy affects the way those things operate in the future?
ReplyDelete