Placing politics back into sports. Where it belongs. (Photo: CBC)

[by Amy Bass]

Some years ago, my parents had a really jump dog.  Really jumpy.  She barked at the doorbell, at the birds outside, at passing cars, and whenever anyone went up or down the hallway staircase.

And then there was the ice machine.  She hated the ice machine.  Hated it.  It took her by surprise every single time.  You'd get a glass, go to the refrigerator, push the button, and, well, all hell would break loose.  Ice crashing, dog barking, people yelling – absolute pandemonium.

Every single time.

It was enough to make me considering switching to hot drinks.  But my brother had an idea.  One day, as he approached the ice machine, he looked down at the dog, who was waiting patiently at his feet in hopes that perhaps he was getting something to eat, something that he might share, despite the fact that he was holding a glass and standing in front of the ice machine, finger posed to push the button.

“Anticipate,” he told her.  “Anticipate.”

And then he pushed the button.  And ice crashed, dog barked, and people yelled.  Absolute pandemonium.

Sometimes anticipating an outcome simply is not possible.  Sometimes it isn't even desirable.  But other times?  It is.

Take Jamestown, for example.  Some four hundred years ago, English settlers came.  They didn't want to build a new society.  They didn't want to find religious freedom.  They wanted to make money, plain and simple, and then return to England better off than when they left.  So they didn't anticipate spending the winter in Virginia.  They didn't anticipate the need for food.  They didn't anticipate Chief Powhatan trying to starve them out.  They didn't anticipate starving to death.

But they did.  During what is now known as the “starving time,” the people of Jamestown ate rodents, horses, and dogs to survive.  One man even ate his wife.  Hundreds died.

Anticipating a situation is difficult because, of course, only hindsight is 20/20, something the International Olympic Committee is – seemingly yet again – finding out.  When the IOC sifted through the bids that came from all the cities who hoped to host the 2008 Olympic Games – Toronto, Paris, Istanbul, Osaka – it indicated that one of the determining factors for granting Beijing's wish was that since China had the most people, it should host the largest sporting event.  It also expressed hopes that during the seven-year preparation and building process, the identity of “host city” would encourage China to create a more open society and improve on its human rights record.  Belgian delegate Jacques Rogge, who has since become president of the IOC, said at the time:  ''I think the message was that the I.O.C. wanted to open a country that represents one-quarter of mankind and had never organized the Games before.''

According to the Olympic Charter, the Olympics are designed to “place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”  Many interpret that statement to mean that politics play no role in sports.  Others, including myself, have wisely pointed out that politics do not end the moment an athlete takes to the field or the court or the pool.

For years now, human rights groups, including Amnesty International, have urged the IOC to think about China's record – the executions, the oppression – rather than the economic possibilities of hosting a Games, particularly on the eve of China's entry into the World Trade Organization.  But think of Seoul, others argued.  Think of the effect that the 1988 Olympics had on transforming South Korea from a dictatorship to a democracy.

You can't play it both ways.  Either the Games aren't political or they are.  If they are being used, as contended by the IOC, to promote humanitarian causes, then they are political.  And if they are, then all consequences need to be considered.

It was a gamble – a wager that a more open economic landscape would lead to progressive development across an entire political system and culture.   And if recent events in Tibet are any indication, never mind China's continuing connections to the genocide in Darfur or the recent revelations regarding organ harvesting in Chinese prisons, it was a bet that was waged and lost.  And whether or not heads of state boycott the Opening Ceremony, whether or not Steven Spielberg helps coordinate the theatrical spectacles, whether or not athletes choose to find a method of protest that won't get them thrown off their teams, whether or not folks greet the torch with jeers and water as it circles the globe, whether or not broadcasters are allowed to televise live shots from Tiananmen Square, and whether or not Beijing shuts down its factories and cleans up its air, China wins this bet.

Because it was a bet made by those who failed to anticipate.

April 13, 2008