This chronicle was first published in Stockholm News 2008-05-19:
In just a couple of month, the olympic games in Beijing will start. Athlets and sport fans from all over the world are preparing themselves. Some have planned their vacations to fit with the television broadcastings. For many athlets it is the peak o their career.
As I just returned from China I can witness about the excitement and eager in which people are looking forward to the games. There can be endless discussions about whether it was right or not to give the games to the biggest dictatorship in the world but that case was closed in 2001. The games will be held there, like it or not. So, should we go there? Some politicians in Sweden, for example the chairman of the Liberal Youth Organisation Frida Johansson Metso, say no.
In my eyes the debate has lost track. Some says that sport and politics should not be mixed. Well, I do not know where they have been during the last hundred years. For me it is obvious that sport and politics are connected. Just a few examples:
The olympic games in Berlin 1936 were meant to be a propaganda game for the Nazi regime and in many ways it was. Except that black runners defeated the so called “Aryan elite”
Moscow 1980; Soviet had just invaded Afghanistan and many western countries stayed home. Los Angeles 1984; most of the Soviet block stayed home because USA did the same four years earlier. South Africa was for a long time not allowed to compete internationally because of apartheid.
Israel and Kazakhstan are playing with the European teams in the soccer qualification games. Not because of geography, for sure. Want more examples? What about the ‘football war’ between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969? Or the connections between some hooligans groups and political extremists? Or the role FC Barcelona played in the struggle against Franco’s dictatorship?
No, it is a fact that sports and politics are connected. If it should be like that is another story. But it is not possible to pretend it is not. It was a long time ago since it was all about idealism. Sport is a multi billionaire business and therefore politics.
When Chinese troops are shooting at protesting monks in Tibet it is perhaps not so strange that the opinion question whether playing games there is a proper thing to do. But everything is more emotional than logical. After the tragic earthquake in Sichuan the boycott debate suddenly stopped. Now the Chinese got the sympathy. Few try to do an analyse about goals and methods. What would a boycott lead to?
First of all, ordinary people in China are not informed about what happens in Tibet. When I was there I watched CNN on my hotel room. Everything was normal until they started to talk about Tibet. Then the broadcasting stopped and the screen went black. Hardly a coincident. People would not connect an olympic boycott to events they are not aware of in Tibet. The regime would more likely use it to their advantage in the propaganda. People’s disappointment would be directed to the boycotting country, not their own government.
So many people have waited for so long time for this olympics, so let it be held. This is also the view of the Tibetan leadership, which should be taken into consideration.
So, my point is that the argument against a boycott is not that sport and politics should not be mixed. Sport can not be separated from the rest of the society. But it would still not serve any good interests to boycott. Go there and talk to people. Isolation is never good. And frankly, if we want athletes who have trained for several years for one competition to stay home, then it is hypocrisy to trade with the country.
