It鈥檚 too late to cancel the Sochi Olympics. But it isn鈥檛 too late to make sure Sochi is the last incredibly stupid choice of location for a major international sports event.
I appreciate the notion that such events ought to float above the political messes of the regions where they happen to be held, that they bring us together as humans, nothing to kill or die for and no religion too, and so on.
No host government will ever see it that way, though. Governments use athletic events to legitimize themselves and their projects. If Smalltown, Ontario, hosts a regional hockey championship, the mayor will give a quote to the local paper about how this is the beginning of great things for Smalltown and thank heavens the local council had the foresight to approve those renovations to the hockey arena.
In the lead-up to the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, defenders of that choice of location kept insisting that the Games had nothing to do with legitimizing the regime鈥檚 domestic or foreign policies. But they forgot to tell that to the regime.
One of the mascots was a Tibetan antelope, and dancers performed representations of Avolokitesvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, whom many Tibetans believe is embodied in the Dalai Lama. The political message was unmistakable: Tibet is part of China, culturally as well as politically.
At the same time, China cracked down on dissent within Tibet, where photographs of the exiled Dalai Lama are banned. The whole thing was a grand, expensive exercise in moving rugs over the bloodstains, facilitated by the Olympic movement.
The effects linger. As Chinese sociologist Sun Liping wrote recently: 鈥淭he Olympics marked the beginning, it can be said, of the ascendance of the stability-preservation regime in China. Looking back now, it might be that the Olympics were something we did that we ought not to have done.鈥�
Stability preservation is code for the opposite of political reform. The argument that the Olympics would somehow spur openness and democracy in China was na茂ve.
It was during the Beijing Games, in August 2008, that Russia went to war against Georgian forces in South Ossetia, in the Caucasus. This is the same troubled neighbourhood that contains Chechnya, homeland of Boston鈥檚 Tsarnaev brothers. Also in that neighbourhood: Sochi, the location of the 2014 Summer Olympic Games.
What could possibly go wrong?
鈥淭he Russians will use [the Boston bombing] as an excuse to up-ratchet security precautions, which were already going to be tight and ugly,鈥� says Eric Morse, who used to work on Olympic issues for sa国际传媒鈥檚 external affairs department.
Morse also describes the Games as a 鈥渕onument to Putin.鈥�
So the Putin legacy and repression in the Caucasus are two things we鈥檙e legitimizing by holding the Games there. Then there鈥檚 Russia鈥檚 foreign policy, which is directly linked to its belligerence in the Caucasus.
Commenting about Russia鈥檚 continuing support for the Assad regime in Syria, Israeli peace and security analyst Yossi Alpher said: 鈥淭he Russians find themselves in effect defending a regime that is behaving monstrously, and that鈥檚 untenable, but when you push them 鈥榳hy,鈥� you find they have a real problem with their own Islamists in Muslim areas of Russia. There鈥檚 been terrorist attacks and assassinations in recent years (originating from these areas) and when they look south toward the Arab world, they are very concerned that an Islamist victory in Syria would be exported north.鈥�
So Russia鈥檚 Syria policy, which runs directly counter to sa国际传媒鈥檚 policy, is linked to Russia鈥檚 Caucasus policy.
Any government will use sports events to legitimize something. In sa国际传媒, it鈥檚 usually money spent on transit projects or harbour developments.
In some places, it鈥檚 human-rights violations. It鈥檚 time for the countries who participate in international sports events, and the organizations that pick the winning bids, to recognize that, and think hard about what they legitimize. Let鈥檚 stop pretending the Olympics are apolitical.
