Conflict Competence

Sports for peace

© L. Deborah Sword 

21 April 2008 

From archeological evidence, humans have enjoyed sports since the ancients celebrated hunting. As well as peacetime survival skills, sports were military training. In other words, sport, war, and peace have always intertwined.

Champions who affect history is a theme in literature of all epochs, cultures, and genres. David and Goliath, Hector and Achilles, Star Trek’s planets, all used the devise of heroes sent to fight a decisive battle on behalf of their respective states, and the individual victor determined the collective winner.

Can sports create peace, as well as replace war? They are separate issues because, as Baruch Spinoza defined, and Martin Luther King, Jr.,[1] restated, peace and war are not opposites: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension:, it is the presence of justice.” Negative peace is the absence of violence, and positive peace is harmonious co-existence. However, negative peace can describe fighting that has not yet emerged. Likewise, harmony can be artificially sustained through suppression of rights and freedoms. True peace is the presence of social justice and human security, since war destroys both.

Any expectation that sports would, could or should, solve conflict is misplaced; no games have brought permanent peace. However, it is appropriate to consider roles that sports have had in peacemaking, and look for lessons. There are examples in world histories of sports affecting peace, from which we can learn:

•       An early conception of sports as a divide between war and peace was the “spondorophoroi” or ‘sacred truce’ during the ancient Olympiad, held every four years even during war and occupation. To allow safe passage for athletes before, during, and after the Games - between one to three months - no war or hostilities occurred. Weapons were not allowed, and no one was executed during the sacred truce.
•       In the modern era, sports with military origins were re-branded as harbingers of peace and industry. Centuries after the ancient Olympics, the resuscitator of the Games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, called it “the religion of sport“. He had seen the out-of-shape French troops lose the Prussian War in 1870. After all, messengers who carried battle strategies from the generals to the troops had to be fit and conditioned - the same justification used by CEOs who start their day with a recreational run, or compete in marathons. The “glory of sport and the honor of our teams” - the Olympic athletes’ oath, resonates into corporate boardrooms.
•       In 1914, a spontaneous Christmas truce on the front line self-organized between Allied and German troops. They emerged from muddy trenches to play an ad hoc soccer game, giving the world a symbol of shared meaning of sports among enemies.
•       Despite propaganda in 1936, the hiatus during the world wars, political boycotts in 1976, 1980 and 1984, and terrorism in 1972, the Olympic Games of the modern era have gone on since 1896, just as they did during the sacred truce of the ancient Olympics.
•       During the Cold War, athletes were ciphers for nations, and a personal victory was reframed to represent the winning country’s superior ideology over the opponents’ impugned ideology. Political meaning was put on athletes as ambassadors, and source of national pride.
•       The motto of Right To Play is: “When children play, the world wins”. Right to Play states:

“Community leaders, parents and teachers have reported that, thanks to Right To Play’s programs, violent behaviour among children has been reduced. In addition to offering an alternative to idleness that can often lead to violence, Right To Play’s sport and play programs teach important conflict resolution skills including teamwork, fair-play and communication. Sport can also reduce levels of ethnic violence by reducing the separation between and among groups. Individuals compete on the same teams and, as a result, learn about each other as people rather than abstract members of a hated ethnic community.     

•       Athletes’ countries have sent political messages through them, even when diplomatic political relations are strained. In 2004 and 2006/2007, 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 competing against South Africans faced ostracism or sanctions from the 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 have played soccer and basketball since 2002. In August, 2008, a Peace Team of Palestinians and Israelis sponsored by the Peres Center for Peace Sport Department, played Australian rules football in Melbourne, a mere months after learning the sport. They lost badly, winning only 2 of 16 games, but were the most cheered team on the field. 
•       Arab and Israeli children are involved in Coexistence on Wheels, a project that has them bicycling together.

 These demonstrate a variety of approaches to politics in sports and to sports in politics. Since sports have played multiple peace and world building roles, the larger question is whether this can be deliberately leveraged. Politicians pay attention when people get involved in events where athletes represent national pride.

Despite any complaints, and those are legitimate, about the negative effects the Olympics has on the host cities’ underprivileged poor, homeless, municipal budgets, environment, and local inflationary pressures, there is one overwhelming achievement: Games bring together ethnicities, classes, nationalities, religions, cultures, genders, and races, to share a common experience, exchange pins and team shirts, learn about each other, and return home with new friends and knowledge. Most people agree that opportunities, however brief, for the peoples of the world to share an experience, learn about other cultures, spend time together, and focus on peaceful - albeit competitive - activities, is better than not having those opportunities.

[1] Spinoza, B. Theological-Political treatise (1670) peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice. Retrieved 21 April 2008, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza. King, Jr. M.L. unsourced quote. Retrieved 21 April 2008, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King%2C_Jr.  

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.