The Liberal Party is demanding that Kevin Rudd and federal ministers boycott the Olympics opening ceremony.
However, federal Small Business Minister Craig Emerson said a political boycott would damage the spirit of the Olympics.
Why?
What’s interesting about the current conjuncture, according to Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber is the shift from inter-state politics to the politics of protest:
The current debacle though seems to mark an important change in the politics of the Olympics. As best I understand it (I am open to corrections if wrong), in the past, Olympics politics have concerned inter-state rivalry, and have been driven by decisions on the part of traditional political elites. The US boycott of the Soviet games in protest against the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 resulted from a decision by Jimmy Carter, and the tit-for-tat boycott by the Soviets and their allies of the LA games in 1984 resulted from a top level decision too. The dynamic driving the Beijing Olympics seems to me to be rather different; what we are seeing is that the politics of boycott is being driven by mass-publics, and most recently by protestors, rather than by political leaders. In the absence of the public unrest that has culminated in the recent protests in Paris, I doubt very much that Western political leaders would be muttering about not showing at the opening ceremonies – the geopolitical stakes of market access etc are likely more important to them than the fate of Tibetans. But given the widespread public reaction in the West, even leaders like Gordon Brown, who obviously want very much to attend, are having to insulate themselves from public pressures by taking other actions liable to annoy China (such as meeting with the Dalai Lama). In short, I think we are seeing how public opinion and organized cross-national opposition can create significant constraints on the ability of leaders to respond to what they see as the geostrategic necessity of keeping China happy. This is, as best as I am aware, a new phase in the development of the Olympics.
Send the bloody Governer General. It’s his job anyway.
“What is the spirit of the Olympics?” is a pretty good question in the current context.
Gosper seems to think it’s “our” Olympic torch. Then there’s the whole “amity between people” thing.
Winning.
I always thought that the spirit of the Olympics was all about “world” peace. That we, as humans, can all gather in one place without wanting to kill each other. It’s a message of tolerance of others, that despite how much we despise those from other countries that peace and diplomacy is more desirable than war. Boycotting the Olympics sends a message that we’re not prepared to sit down and talk through our problems with China; it sends a message of complete intolerance, of war. Which is why the 80’s boycott made sense, it was about boycott about war.
China’s human rights record may be bad however it can’t compare to devastation and suffering of war. I think it’s all to easy for us to forget, living comfortably in our civilized society, how quickly international politics can slide chaotically out of control, leading to war. By all means use the Olympic platform to send a symbolic message, but I don’t think that given the human rights issue that abandonment of diplomacy is the right message to send. We shouldn’t dilute the great symbolism of the Olympics over an issue which is of much lower significance.
Well, I’m not too sure. “We” don’t get to sit down and talk to the Chinese authorities. Those Chinese citizens who try get locked up or worse. Our governments make vague noises about “engaging on human rights”, but what ever changes?
I not suggesting we do nothing, just that with regards to the Olympics we shouldn’t cut off our nose to spite our face.
Mark wrote:
Our clothes and toys get cheaper, that’s what changes.
I’m serious about shipping the GG into the olympics instead of the prime minister. The PM isn’t the head of state, should be allowed to take positions on important issues and do so without upsetting our trade partners. That’s why we have a head of state. Just becasue J-Ho and PJK prostituted the PM position by usurping the traditional role of the Governer General doesn’t mean we should continue doing it. The GG is still a significant, and importantly apolitical position that should return to doing all the high-level diplomacy like engaging with odious regimes.
As if the Libs in Government would ever do such a bold thing as boycott the Olympics, or anything else for that matter. The bold-faced hypocrisy is as useless as it is incredible.
I think that’s a bit apples and oranges, dude. So I take it you oppose the blocking of South Africa for their apartheid policy, too?
I love this. I thought it was disgusting that Beijing got selected, and now those money grubbing bastards are having shit rubbed in their faces from every quarter. A timely reminder that, try as they might - the IOC and the CPC _do not_ control this discourse - or indeed any discourse. Olympics, as they’re so fond of stating, are about and for the people, and the people think this is a rancid crock of shit.
Also, perhaps, it might have the stated aim of helping China’s human rights policy develop - not through giving them the games, lord no, but through the bollocking they’re getting. The CPC, dinosaur that it is, is I think, slowly realising that the best way of neutralising protestors is, in some ways, to agree with them. I’m not talking about Tibet becoming properly autonomous tomorrow, but things like a chinese protest zone, however far away and contained, were unthinkable ten years ago. There is some small progress being made because China wants to be perceived as modern, and something the government really does care about is its reputation.
I think the G-G should be our official representative too. Rudd’s problem might be that he’d received a personal invitation from the Chines for him and his family. I think its been extended to one or two other Ministers as well. But the G-G’s presence would be a good sign to the electorate that the glory-hunting days of Aussie PMs has come to an end.
This Liberal cry is yet another piece of their usual nit-picking opportunistic bull, and the electorate won’t be fooled by it any more than they have by previous Liberal stunts since the election. Bumbles might even drop another per cent or two.
What’s disgraceful is the inability of the pseudo-Left to come to terms with the wave of bourgeois revolution now sweeping through Central Asia. A decent Left with integrity would recognise the historical necessity to come to terms with the internationalist government of the Chinese People’s Republic, and stand against the malign inteference of unelected theocrats such as the Dalai Lama. If the Left here can’t see the benefit of the central economic development of Tibet in partnership with the modernising, reforming, pro-capitalist CCP, it must want to see the Tibetan people remain impoverished, and unable to participate through cheaper airfares in the globalist Beijing Olympics.
I don’t think the Olympics should be used (in a formal way) to comment on the domestic politics (well anything short of say genocide). Although that brings up the question… are Tibetans being prevented from competing at all?
Don’t boycott the fuckin’ Olympics for Chrissake! It’s one of those few times when nations get together and do something besides feed at the tough or conk heads. Boycotting the Olympics isn’t the way. Telling the PRC to pull its head in on a regular basis. Now that’s the way.
>
But we’re too greedy and too chickenshit.
I agree Adrien, but it’s hardly a respite from trough-feeding!
Also, it’s mostly just the opening ceremony folks are talking up boycotting. Nobody seriously wants to miss seeing how the showjumping pans out.
The Devil Drink might know which spirit is appropriate for the Olympics, perhaps we should ask him.
Can someone explain why the torch relays have gotten so out of hand? I am talk length here. It is basically one-up-manship that is crazy. Why if the torch is suppose to go from Mt Olympus to the host city doesn’t it go in a straight line? Instead it goes on a crazy drunkard wander around the world.
It also shows how naive the Chinese government can still be if the excepted the torch relay in democratic countries not to cause protests.
The spirit of the Olympics is nationalist chauvinism, corruption, corporatism, political opportunism.
It has spawned a whole anti-Olympics movement in academia - I strongly recommend Pierre Bourdieu, “Jeux olympiques: Programme pour une analyse” (Olympic Games: Program for an Analysis).
This torch fiasco is a chance to protest China’s political system (and implicitly, those countries that tolerate it), but I would take the chance to oppose the Olympics wherever it’s held.
Can someeone please tell me, just who the fuck is the Olympics Committee?
I once worked at a job, for a museum which had an affiliation with the Olympics. But they weren’t allowed to use the bloody rings logo. Their brand protection is so paranoid it verges on the demented.
Particularly when you realise that countries have specific laws protecting them: Olympic Insignia Protection Act
Was`nt the original Olympics to show off in front of the gods and a celebration of one`s personal best?If so it sounds like a damn fine idea to me.
Thanks for that link, Desipis. The Olympic clique certainly have a cosy relationship with the political class.
For the Melbourne Commonwealth Games, five acts of parliament were introduced in Victoria. Most of them related to either copyright protection or stifling civil liberties.
Ouzo.
The main difference between this action and the ones surrounding the 1980 and 1984 Olympics are that this one is from the ground up. It is the general public that aren’t happy and are protesting, rather than world leaders imposing their views on that nation’s athletes.
Almost certainly some athlete is going to say something about China while at the Olympics that will infuriate the Chinese. This will be the big test.
Dawn Fraser has used her believes (which I believe are genuinely held) as a reason not to go to a city she doesn’t like. Fair enough, kill two birds with one stone.
Some have used Midnight Oil at the 2000 Closing Ceremony as a previous example of politics encroaching on the Olympics. At least they can do something like that in Australia.
All this was avoided in 2000 when the IOC decided to give Sydney the games rather than Beijing. Hopefully the IOC will learn the lessons of this Olympics and avoid any repeat of these problems by not awarding the games to nations like China.
The whole “keep politics out of the Olympics” claim is pathetic. While some host cities make a profit the main reason nations want the Olympics is to sure up the political class in the host country. The idea also suggests that the Olympic spirit, whatever that is, is more important than the slow genocide of Tibetan culture, the quick genocide China is supporting in Dafur and a stack of other human rights abuses (harvesting of organs for example).
A boycott will only work if it has a fairly broad level of support behind it, so unless things change a lot there is no point pushing for athletes to not attend. However, turning the opening ceremony into a vast no-show would be pretty effective at getting the point across. It’s a way of saying “Ok we aren’t at war so we’ll turn up and play, but we’re not going to give you any chances to tell us how great you are when your behaviour is so reprehensible”.
“Ouzo.”
What about “baijui”, “going forward”… because you need to say the latter, five times a day… coz you can run your car on it as well as getting pissed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baijiu
Hey Altus, Fortus, Lastsuperpowerus,
If you’re going to indulge in cheap snark, why not get it right? China is generally regarded as a fascist power at Last Superpower.
Oh, I forgot, cheap innacurate snark is all that most of the commenters here are interested in.
Because I couldn’t be bothered to read your bizarre site, and the joke didn’t require actual accuracy in regards to your opposite-day political views.
Is that honest enough?
“Because I couldn’t be bothered to read your bizarre site”
Summing up beautifully the mentality of the majority of people who come here to have their groupthink confirmed.
Don’t forget the verbal abuse. You come for the groupthink, but you stay for the sledging.
If that news story is accurate, Liberal Senator George Brandis called for Kevin Rudd to boycott the Olympics while Liberal leader Brendan Nelson said that Kevin Rudd should go. That does not consititute the Liberal Party saying that Kevin Rudd should boycott the Olympics. Clearly there are different opinions held within the Liberal Party.
I don’t see a problem with Rudd not attending the Olympics. In fact I don’t really have a firm view on this. I do believe that there would be little point in the atheletes boycotting the Olympics, but of course that is not really in question.
The Devil Drink wrote:
A c’mon. That’s just slack. What brand of ouzo? How is it to be consumed? Olympics drinking game? Slurped from the pierced bellybutton of an olympic swimmer? Out of the last clean mug in the house while sprawled in your trakkie daks, surrounded by corn chip crumbs?