The argument over whether it is right to use sporting to push home a political point has been raging ever since I was at junior school.
I’m old enough to remember the 1968 controversy when ‘coloured’ cricketer Basil d’Oliveira – fresh from making a superb 158 in the final test against the Aussies – was scandalously dropped from the England team about to tour South Africa, for instance.
Two years later, a younger and better Peter Hain first made a name for himself by leading the Stop the Seventy Tour campaign against the Springboks’ rugby side, while 1980 saw a 64-country boycott of the Moscow Olympics.
More recently, the England and Wales Cricket Board has again been the focus of attention, this time with demands that it refuse to play in Zimbabwe.
Throughout the last 40 years, one repeated refrain has been heard on occasions like these: ‘keep politics out of sport’. It has been notably selectively deployed, though, depending on a commentator’s evaluation of the regime in question.
Old school rightwingers had significantly fewer problems with South African apartheid than Soviet communism, while for the fellow travelling left, the priorities were the other way round.
Now the question is back in the headlines, after Steven Spielberg yesterday quit as ‘artistic adviser’ to this summer’s Beijing Olympics. This is supposed to be a protest against the Chinese government’s complicity with the mass slaughter in Darfur.
What brought that sudden outburst of political principle on, I have no idea. It’s not as if he didn’t know what was happening before he signed the contract.
Meanwhile, eight Nobel peace laureates have banged out a letter to China’s ostensibly Communist government, calling on it to bring its mates in Khartoum into line.
Their cause is, I believe, a right one. There’s a strong case to be made in favour of external military intervention in Sudan, if that it takes to stop a slow motion rerun of Rwanda.
I’m only surprised that the liberal Hollywood and massed ranks of the beneficiaries of dynamite largesse are getting wound up over Africa rather than Tibet. It seems that concern for the Roof of the World is like, so 1999, darlings.
Inevitably, calls are growing for an Olympics boycott. That would amount only to gesture politics, Olympics minister Tessa Jowell pictured - effectively told The Times this morning.
Spare me the moral grandstanding from the woman who paid off her mortgage on the proceeds of the bung her old man copped for money laundering on behalf of Silvio Berlusconi.
As a paid-up business-friendly New Labourite, Ms Jowell cannot be expected to say anything that could effect the profitability of what is now more of an extended commercial sponsorship opportunity than a meaningful sporting event. It's the same logic that leads the government to turn a blind eye to BAE Systems' sustained bribery of the House of Saud.
Incidentally, I presume your generous family friend’s pay TV stations will be among those televising the proceedings, Tessa?
Be that as it may, the main thrust of Ms Jowell’s argument is absolutely right. Boycotting the Olympics would be a gesture. But then, gestures - without any illusions about likely outcomes - are sometimes not just worth making, but mandatory.
UPDATE: Hak Mao puts this one nicely over at Drink Soaked Trots.
Posted at 14:33, 14 February 2008
Comments (32)
'There’s a strong case to be made in favour of external military intervention in Sudan, if that it takes to stop a slow motion rerun of Rwanda'
Yeah, because there haven't been enough Western 'humanitarian interventions' waged against Muslim countries recently have there? And they do tend to work so well don't they?
Get a grip, Dave, ffs.
Remind me again, Snowball. What's the death toll now? 400,000? And your solution is? Or are Muslim governments exempt from being brought to book for mass slaughter?
It's the SWP who need to get a grip. From that article:
"Around 200,000 people have died in Darfur in the last three years and around two million have been displaced. This is the result of fighting between government forces and rebel groups."
A bit like saying:
"Around 6,000,000 people have died as a result of the fighting between the Nazis and the Jews"
What disgusting apologist shite.
So who excatly do you propose to intervene? British and American soldiers? Aren't they going to part of the problem rather than the solution? Yet another "crusade" for "western" values?
And as far as the Olympics are concerned, socialists shouldn't be supporting competitive sport and all the big money that it entails, whether its in Beijing or London.
"socialists shouldn't be supporting competitive sport"
Why not?
The main point being the big money it entails.
Thought we were about cooperation instead of competition?
Don't have much of a problem with amateur sport. Its the big money rampant professionalism which I have a problem with.
As you in E10, do you really think the Olympics coming to your patch is a good idea? If so why?
In theory, I've nowt against the Olympics coming to our part of town; in practice I suspect it'll be an over-hyped, expensive con run by the same talentless unaccountable quangocracy/PFI consultant-ocracy that already stomps too loudly across the London landscape.
Do you really think all sport should be amateur? Because amateurism is a sure way of keeping something the preserve of the priviledged. I prefer properly and equitably regulated professional sport myself (ie not what we have now, not remotely).
I just don't think winning or losing something should be a reason whether you continue employment or not. If you can think of a way round this Ill reconsider.
Do you think that the people who kick a ball around on Hackney Marshes or play cricket in Victoria Park are priviledged?
Of course not, but it's from those sorts of backgrounds that most professional footballers come.
I think that if you're going to have spectator sports - and watching sport, communally, in crowds is a lot of fun (as well as a pain in the arse sometimes) - then money will be involved, and therefore should be used to remunerate the participants.
How this money is used should be subject to much greater and more equitable regulation than it is currently, but I don't see a way round this, given where we are now.
You still haven't answered the question whether whether a worker wins or loses a game or games should determine whether he continues in employment or not? Isn't it performance related pay which we are generally opposed to?
If we (the British Imperialists) play any part in stopping any slaughter whatsoever in Darfur,my son will be orgainsing a boycott of the London Olympics
The 'keep politics out of sport' refrain might be conducted at an even higher volume during the Olympics in China as I've heard athletes are being made to sign a contract saying they won't criticise the brutal regime there.
not only should the world be pressurising China to exert influence on the Sudanese government to resolve the conflict in Darfur, but also we are forgetting Chinese imperialism when in the 1950s they coerced, attacked and finally annexed Tibet by force
we seem to have forgotten that Chinese rulers have taken over a neighbouring country, brutally suppressed any opposition in Tibet, moved in millions of Chinese settlers and rule Tibet as puppet regime.
and when China takes over the United States' role as the world superpower China will not be constrained by any constitutional niceties or a concern for public opinion, when the Chinese ruling class is at its apex they will plunder countries, suppressed dissent and crush any opposition.
Paddy Garcia:
"You still haven't answered the question whether whether a worker wins or loses a game or games should determine whether he continues in employment or not? Isn't it performance related pay which we are generally opposed to?"
Given that in competitive sport (is there any other kind?) winning is the sole objective, then of course pay (or indeed employment at all) will be performance-related. It is absurd to think that any team would continue to employ and field a demonstrably weak player.
(When I say that winning is the sole objective I do not mean to say that playing for pleasure is irrelevant. It is just that, say, in football if you do not try to score more goals than your opponent you are not actually playing football. Perennially losing teams continue at the amateur level, they may be resigned to losing, but they do try to win. Been there, done it.)
Professional sport is something of a special case, where performance is fairly easy to determine, and individual performance is all. This is nothing like the conventional working environment where individual performance is subject to many variables and the judgement of more senior managers.
Would your objections to performance-related pay extend to piece-rate working, Paddy? Would you object to the sacking of a worker who was generally, despite training, incompetent?
Since the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused more deaths and refugees than the conflict in Sudan, shouldn't Socialists be campaigning for a boycott of the 2012 London Olympics?
Boycotting the Olympics would be a gesture.
I'm sorry Dave, I do like your blog, but that's bollocks. I live in China and I know boycotting the Olympics hits the Chinese authorities where it hurts: prestige and face. A broader boycott - and here it's up to individuals too - could really influence the Chinese govt greatly. It won't happen of course, not because its gesture politics, but because so many are moral cowards.
The sight of so many governments and individuals eagerly cooperating with this repellent Communist regime disturbs me, and only confirms them in their view that the West, for all its talk of human rights, is just is cynical as they are.
Gesture politics, my ass. Where is your backbone?
Your point about Tibet is a good one. Why did people sign up to promote the Olympics in the full knowledge of what China is doing in Tibet and how they are destroying freedom of speech through the Internet?
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
People seem to forget that the South Africa sports boycott was not just based on general disapproval of the Apartheid regime, but justified by the D'Oliveira episode and the fact that it was the South African authorities who brought politics into sport by maintaining racially selected teams and segregated stadiums. Hence teams which played South Africa were complicit in the system.
The argument became a bit more tenuous when applied to Zola Budd, an individual South African athlete brought over to undermine the boycott, if you ask me the press set this one up and the left fell for the bait.
The use of the South African exmple is problematic when cited to argue for a sport boycott of Israel.
Not because the Israeli oppression of Palestinians is less real than that of black people in apartheid South Africa (though the set-ups are different), but because there is no "Apartheid" in Israeli sport, Palestinians who are Israeli citizens play in the soccer league and the national side (just as they vote in elections and sit in the Knesset). A more valid argument might be made from the treatment of Palestinians under occupation and siege, for instance soldiers opening fire on youngsters playing football, the Palestinian team being held up from leaving to play in the Asian fixtures, and the national stadium in Gaza being destroyed. But there was a chance to take this issue up more positively last year when a Palestinian under-19 team was invited to play over here, and denied visas by the British
government. Unfortunately campaigners lost the opportunity to make a big issue of this and win support from ordinary "fair play"-minded football fans because they were too busy distributing boycott Israel leaflets before the England match which most people probably ignored anyway.
Regarding China, and the Spielberg case, to be fair, it may be unfair to blame China for the Darfur atrocities when other governments have also supported the Sudanese regime (as they supported Saddam Hussein when he gassed Kurds, not complaining till it suited their policy to raise it later). But it is legitimate to let them know their attitude is not OK. And Spielberg deserves credit for deciding to turn down a money-making opportunity on principled grounds, even if he did take time to decide (so what?). That is more than
the British and US governments and most businessmen would do. Quite the contrary, as we have seen.
One last point. When Schindlers List was on the SWP and its Anti-Nazi League did everything to boost the film, not to mention shaking their collecting tins outside the Leicester Square cinema. Schindler was not an all-out anti-Nazi, but was credited with doing what he could to
save some lives. Spielberg can't be blamed for
trying in his own way to do something for what he believes right.
Is Benji's comment the least self-aware of all time?
Incidentally, George Galloway has consistently supported the occupation of Tibet.
But David mentions Rwanda - what he forgets is that THERE WAS A Western military intervention!
Under the figleaf of the UN, the French intervened in order to defend the dying Hutu power regime against the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front who were fighting to bring the genocide to an end.
And let's not forget a country which has twice as many refugees as Darfur and a million people dead. You can almost imagine some well-meaning liberal saying 'we need some Western intervention', only this was Western intervention! 'cos I'm taking about Iraq.
Many exiles I have spoken to from Darfur out of despair, but the West only intevenes when it is in it's interests and any intervention would be shaped by a very un-progressive agenda.
Indeed, when I met with a member of the Sudanese Justice and Equality group, he argued that he would only favour a UN intervention in the context of an agreed just peace process (in order to force it's implementation) but such a scenario is fictituous
CP wrote:
it may be unfair to blame China for the Darfur atrocities when other governments have also supported the Sudanese regime
WHICH other governments? most of the Arab League?
and why unfair?
until recently China had consistently blocked any meaningful resolution at the UN, China has emboldened the Sudanese ruling elite (knowing full well that they had China on their side) and been happy to ignore the atrocities in Darfur as long as they got the oil
so no, it isn't being unfair
and it's good to remember that rapacious ruling classes don't only exist in the West
Modernityblog and Letters From A Tory both believe that we should boycott the Beijing Olympics because of China's (utterly unacceptable) occupation of Tibet, yet both were vigorously opposed to the UCU's proposed boycott of Israel, which was suggested for similar reasons. Is it not hypocrisy to suggest we sanction China via sport while arguing a "keep politics out of academia" position?
yes, i wonder why are you singling China out, modernity? Anything to do with the fact that its full of yellow people?
HTGL wrote:
Modernityblog ...both believe that we should boycott the Beijing Olympics
where exactly did I say they should be a boycott of the Beijing Olympics?
you won't find it, because I didn't write it
I was pointing out that China (post WW2) has a long, nasty history and that many people either deliberately choose to ignore it because such facts are decidedly inconvenient and do not suit their current political outlook or that they are ignorant of the topic
I would hope that human rights are universal and applied equally in Britain, Europe, Tibet and the Middle East, but my views might be in a minority here
How come nobody blames the Darfur rebel groups who started the conflict and now refuse to take part in any peace talks?
The confusing mish-mash of groups is listed here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7039360.stm
"where exactly did I say they should be a boycott of the Beijing Olympics?"
Well, what *was* the upshot of all your pompous verbiage, then?
Personally, I find your repeated singling out of China rather suspicious.
I too find the singling out of China suspicious, if predictable.
As to Galloway supporting the Chinese occupation of Tibet, he's quite right. Tibet was, for most of its history, a part of China; ALL serious histories of Tibet agree that the the Chinese re-occupation removed an exceptionally brutal feudal regime, the monks being a savagely parastitic elite. The lot of the average Tibetan was greatly improved. There were some excesses and brutalities during the Cultural revolution, but things have changed - the Chinese government is paying to have destroyed temples restored, and the Tibetan culture is now more valued and respected. There seems to be some evidence that Tibetans are second-class citizens in their own country, but they are still better off than previously.
Independence is NOT an option for Tibet; it's either Chinese occupation or American occupation - they could become an adjunct to a US military base, and I doubt that would improve the lot of the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama is an aristocratic right-wing nut who has supported EVERY vile action of US imperialism. The sources of the Ganges and Brahmaputra are in Tibet - doews anyone think it would do anything for 'world peace and stability' for the US to be sitting on them?
Yeah but Hamish, don't you think that what the Tibetans actually want is a factor here?
Y'know, right to self-determination - in either Leninist or Wilsonian colours, as you like it - and all that.
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the people you call 'second class citizens in their own country' want independence. That, for me, is decisive.
most objective observers would content that China is a separate country from Tibet
Hamish wrote:
There seems to be some evidence that Tibetans are second-class citizens in their own country, but they are still better off than previously.
Independence is NOT an option for Tibet; it's either Chinese occupation or American occupation - they could become an adjunct to a US military base, and I doubt that would improve the lot of the Tibetans.
some evidence? there is plenty of bloody evidence and you know it
and why shouldn't Tibet be independent, it is spurious to suggest that the Americans have any strategic interest in Tibet, talking about clutching at straws
but in fact the nub of your argument that the Tibetans, although second-class citizens, are still better off than they were, is the argument used by imperialists to justify their exploits in Africa/Latin America etc "civilising the natives, improving their lives"
the very same argument articulated by imperialists is being used to justify the Chinese retention of Tibet
and what a disgusting argument it is
OK Dave & co - 'the Tibetans want indepence'? How do you know? Have they been polled? I think you mean that some campaign groups CLAIM that the Tibetans want independence. What do you know about these campaign groups - who ultimately funds them? What is the evidence for their claim to speak for the people of Tibet?
Last I heard, even the Dalai Lama was now only asking for more autonomy within a federation with China. That may have changed again - his position changes according to US foreign policy.
Maybe the people of Tibet DO want independence, but I don't feel confident that anyone writing here has any solid information to that effect. It's often remarked on that there is a desire, in certain US circles, to break up China, to make it a less powerful competitor - fomenting dissent amongst China's many nationalities and minorities is a strategy. Most of the Free Tibet campaigns are CIA fronts.
I haven't come across any source that I normally regard as credible who contradicts the picture I gave in my last post, but if anyone can post a link or suggest a book that gives a different picture, and is seriously credible...
Background on Tibet.
It was no Shangri-La for the serfs.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html