Conflict Competence

As the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games approach, the global conflict has come down to the forced choice of boycott the Games to express displeasure at the host country’s human rights record, or ignore the politics of the host country and enjoy the Games. It’s either sports and politics don’t mix, or politics enters everything including sports. A forced choice is a dichotomy, meaning that there is a contradiction between the two options. Whenever I’m faced with a dichotomy I ask: what are my other choices? Dichotomous thinking is “either/or” and that ignores the creativity of problem solving. Good problem solving resists dichotomies.

Here’s an article I wrote on another way of thinking about sports and politics that resists the either/or dichotomy. Thanks to my colleague Barbara Benoliel for her input.

Boycotting the Beijing Olympic Games:

Sports and Politics Make Not So Odd Bedfellows

What started as a murmur is becoming a movement urging a boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games, or, at the least, the opening ceremonies. The counterargument, that politics has no place in sports, has also become louder. The decision is being presented as either/or, meaning choosing to do one precludes also doing the other. However, that dichotomy, or forced choice between two irreconcilable actions, may not be the only option.

In reality, sports and politics have been entwined since the Olympics of the ancient era. Cheating was recorded in the Games of 388 BCE; punishment included whipping and building public statues with the fines  the cheaters paid. Roman Emperor Nero competed in 67 ACE, and was judged the winner of the events he entered. When he fell from his chariot his Greek competitors, knowing that he murdered anyone who displeased him, waited for him to remount so that he could claim first place.

In the modern era, bids to win hosting privileges from the International Olympic Committee are themselves high stakes politics.. Every 2-year Olympic cycle brings political and city-building powerbrokers together into a consortium from all sectors striving for IOC votes for their city. The prize is publicity, potential economic boosts for infrastructure, and legitimacy to the host country. IOC votes are courted in a charged political environment.

Athletes experience politics in funding, team selection, drug testing, and judging, although those decisions have become much fairer and there is a conflict resolution mechanism for them (www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca). Their own countries use athletes to send political messages across boundaries, even when diplomatic political relations are strained. In 2006, long time enemies India and Pakistan overcame tension along their border to successfully participate in a bi-national cricket tournament - a game that normally raises passions on the subcontinent to a fever pitch. Each game of the tournament was peaceful. At the other end of the spectrum, for many years South Africa was excluded from the international sports community, and could expect neither invitations to participate elsewhere, nor that elite athletes would attend South African competitions. Any athletes or countries that did compete against South Africans, faced ostracism or sanctions from their governing sports associations. The total sports boycott contributed to the isolation of the Apartheid regime, and its dismantlement. In 2005, a peace team comprised of 27 young Israeli and Palestinian soccer players competed in Spain. Mixed Palestinian and Israeli teams had been playing soccer and basketball since 2002. Arab and Israeli children are involved in Coexistence on Wheels, a project that has them bicycling together. These events demonstrate that there are a wide variety of approaches to politics in sports and to sports in politics.

History has shown that the political action surrounding sporting events can be constructed as good or bad, depending on ‘whose ox is being gored’. Thus, the question is not whether to politicize the Beijing Games - that was done long ago – but rather what form the politics in 2008 should take. The IOC succeeded beyond its agenda, by putting the spotlight of the world’s moral compass on the Chinese realpolitik. Possible political actions range from ignoring everything related to Tibet and Human Rights abuses and just enjoy the Games, to a boycott of the Games to express displeasure at China’s deviation from acceptable behaviour.

In between those extremes, is the option of sidestepping the conflict of the dichotomy by doing both/and rather than either/or thinking. Send athletes to the Beijing Games AND work to help China come into compliance with Human Rights and Security. Since sports have played multiple peace and world building roles in intransigent conflicts, this can be leveraged. Politicians pay attention when people get involved in sporting events where a country’s best athletes represent national pride.

If the spotlight the IOC aimed at Beijing in 2001 is shining at last in 2008, we can manage the global concern for social justice and, at the same time, support the athletes. Instead of a boycott, this may be the optimal time to engage China in dialogues for change. Public conflict often means that a political system is becoming unbalanced, and the status quo is threatened. Social change comes with turbulence. A system in that state of turbulence is at its most open to being tipped into accepting change, however reluctantly. The 2008 Games, for any harm it might have done to China’s image, environment or budget, might also do good.