Study of Boycotts in Olympic Games

Transcription

1 International Journal of Sport Studies. Vol., 3 (1), 93-98, 2013 Available online at http: ISSN VictorQuest Publications Study of Boycotts in Olympic Games M. Dousti 1, F. Asghari 2, A. shokri 3, M. Goodarzi 4, H. Asadi 5 1- Assistant professor of University of Mazandaran 2- Sport Management students at Mazandaran Science and Research Branch 3- Sport Management students at Mazandaran Science and Research Branch 4- Professor of University of Tehran 5- Associate Professor of University of Tehran *Corresponding author: M_dostipasha@yahoo.com Abstract Today Olympic and politics have merged in an interminable break. The purpose of this research was to study of the modern Olympic boycotts. The purpose of this research was to study the modern Olympic boycotts. For this purpose is used the documents, books, articles and websites has been associated with the Olympic Games and the Olympic boycotts since of 1986 to periods of the Olympic Games was considered as the research sample. The results show that the two most publicized boycotts were of the 1980 Moscow and the 1984 Los Angeles Games. Most observers agree that one of the consequences of the American boycott of the 1980 Games was the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games. The based this research an Olympic boycott must be credibly attached with a loss of income in order for the host nation to take it seriously. In the event that a city has spent billions of dollars leading up to the Games, it would not want to see its efforts wasted by boycott or relocation. Keywords: sport, Olympic Games, boycott, politics, governments. 93 Introduction Politics refers to the processes of organizing social power and making decisions that affect the lives of people in a social world. Politics occur at all levels of social life, from the politics of friendship and family relationships to national, international, and global affairs (Coakley, 2009). Sport and modern Politics are great subjects. A lot of times, they are mixed together for the reason of state, to serve a cause, good or bad (Dousti et al., 2012). Organized competitive sport has long been connected with politics, governments, and global political processes (Coakley, 2009) All governments, regardless of regime type, use sport to generate political support. Sport has been "used and abused" by politicians everywhere. Politicians have to support a team or a sport in order to be recognized as being closer to their citizens. As sport became more organized, politicians have become more directly involved. Sport is intrinsically value neutral and under carefully managed circumstances it can make a positive if modest contribution to peace building. The mobilization of an engaged sociological imagination in the context of a broader human rights agenda is central to this contribution(sugden et al., 2003). In the early twentieth century, the government believed that their exercise should be controlled as in other areas (Houlihan, 1997). Sport is an important tool in politics. For example, after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet regime, through athletic teams dispatched to foreign competition revealed his desire to improve relations with the capitalist world, (Samuel, Huntington, 1993). Establish a good relationship between China and the United States in 1970, with the sound of ping-pong balls, was heard all over the world (Chehabia, 2007). International sport federations, media, politics, etc., need to cooperate in order to stage an event successfully (Gratton et al., 2008). The relationship between sport and politics is one of the most

2 enduring and pervasive examples of society s impact on sport. (Chien-Yu Lin, 2008) Olympic was launched by the United Nations, more than one hundred years ago, and since then it has been the policy is kept out of the field of sport, but the Olympics has managed to avoid the reality of politics? The biggest sporting event in the world, namely the Olympic Games will be held in the nation close to each other and practice social interaction and cooperation in the international arena, But in the present era, the political considerations that entered this competition has become a field for political action, especially by the powerful countries of the world. In the new era, the powerful nations, who use every opportunity to achieve higher profits and dominate the world, Olympic arena have become their new political inroads into the field to settle accounts with political and independent states. Some of these countries to show their political inclinations (tendencies) enjoy the finest things in the Olympic sports field (Houlihan, 1997). International competition like the Olympics encourages all nations to gather together with a spirit of generosity and away from the disputes. This competition provides an opportunity to create a cultural exchange and also provides an opportunity to provide customs (Coakley, 2009). Organized competitive sport has been long associated with the politics and government and global Political processes. When people say that politics has no place in sports, their means usually is that there is not a place for politics in sport who opposed them. Politics is the organizing power of the social processes and decisions that affect the lives of people in a social world. Policy can be found at all levels of social life, the policy is in the friendship and family ties to national and international issues and global (Volpi, 2006). Peppard and Riordan illustrate with reference to the United States and the former Soviet Union the long history of governments and politicians use and manipulation of sport for diplomatic ends. Both countries used sport as a cipher for their ideological rivalry, as a way of attempting to entice countries into their respective camps and as a way of cementing links with their allies (Houlihan, 1997). Much has been written about the legacy expected from the London Olympic Games. The primary focus of this attention has tended to be on the impact of the Games on sport participation among the young, on the physical regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley area and on the image of the UK. Rather less attention has been focused on the event s security legacies, host cities and nations, especially during the bidding process, but which nevertheless have significant long-term social impacts (Giulianotti et al., 2010). Mega-sport events give politicians a common vision to gain international prestige, and citizens may become emotionally involved. The pride of hosting such an event creates local identification, vision and motivation. An example is the Olympic Games in Seoul 1988, which created a national perspective; a feeling of vitality, participation, and recognition; and an international perception of being modern and technologically up-to-date. The Chinese were keen to demonstrate their increasing economic importance through the Olympics in 2008 (Gratton et al., 2008). Boycott is an aspect of the political factors that have influenced the Olympics. Sometimes countries have declared their opposition to boycott the country's politics. Historical treatments of the Movement since the launching of that provocative claim have thus had no choice but to embrace or call into question the transcendent status of Olympic sport that is symbolized so powerfully by opening and closing ceremonies that tap into deep and unfulfilled wishes for a Golden Age of harmony and peace. Due at least in part to the impassioned and seemingly endless debate between the defenders and detractors of Olympism, with its pronounced emphasis on ethical values at the expense of historical factors, serious study of the Olympic movement has stagnated (Keddie, 1991). When in December 1979, the Soviet Union mobilized its armed forces to occupy Afghanistan, the United States, in response to these actions, attempted to negotiate by, among other measures, organizing a large scale boycott of the forthcoming Olympic Games in Moscow. This call for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics was zealously adopted by the Australian government and led to a long and emotional struggle between it and the Australian Olympic Federation (Mondak, 1989). From 1952 to 1988, from the games held Helsinki to those just completed in Seoul, one of the most dramatic aspects of the modern Olympic has been the sports rivalry between the united states and the soviet union. Propagandists on both sides of the iron curtain have presented the competition between two ideological systems. as the games have become increasingly important in the political sphere, the success or failure of the Olympic team, as measured in the unofficial model counts, has often overshadowed the performance, of the men and woman who actually ran, jumped threw, wrestled, rode, and otherwise displayed their physical skills. (Guttmann, 1988). The political position that host governments may not welcome a truly scientific assessment of the true legacy benefits of hosting the Olympic Games (Gratton et al., 2008). 94

3 In summary, there is considerable agreement that the Olympics is not just about sport but is also about politics (Hiller, 2006). In the over 100 year's Olympic history, intricate contradictions between subjective attitude and objective fact have existed in the relation between modern Olympics and politics. Considering what was discussed, it could be said that politics and boycotts has connection to Olympics. Despite the large number of studies on Olympics (Goldberg, 2000; Guttmann, 2003; Seppänen, 1984; Siekmann, 2012; Tatz, 1984; Taylor, 1988; WEI et al., 2006), the influence of politics and boycotts on Olympics games has received little attention. Materials and Methods The purpose of this research was to study the modern Olympic boycotts. The method of the research was qualitative. Qualitative research is a type of research that seeks answers to a question; is systematically conducted and involves the collection of evidence. However, the uniqueness of qualitative research is that you may produce findings that were not determined in advance and also the findings may be applicable beyond the immediate boundaries of the study. It was decided to analyze all, the data of this subject found in libraries, newspapers, databases and the internet. The structure of the study was based on a qualitative approach. The aim was not to obtain a reality through a quantitative approach but to understand a phenomenon through some clear examples. The goal is not to find a theory concretely phenomena. For this purpose is used the documents, books, articles and websites has been associated with the Olympic Games and the Olympic boycotts since of 1986 to periods of the Olympic Games was considered as the research sample. Results The results show that the two most publicized boycotts were of the 1980 Moscow and the 1984 Los Angeles Games. As show that in table 1, boycotts have a large impact on the Olympics. Table 1: The most popular Boycotts in Olympic Games Olympic Political results 1956 Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden boycotted the games in protest of the Melbourne Soviet invasion of Hungary. Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq also boycotted as a result of the Suez crisis. The People's Republic of China refused to participate due to the inclusion of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Tokyo South Africa was banned by the IOC from taking part due to its oppressive apartheid regime. This ban lasted until At the 1976 Games 26 African countries boycotted in response to New Zealand's Montreal participation. Earlier that year a New Zealand team had undertaken a three-month rugby tour of segregated South Africa, but the IOC refused to ban them. Egypt competed for the first three days of the Games before withdrawing in support of the boycott by most other African nations. The Republic of China (Taiwan) team was also barred from entering the country, and then allowed to enter if they agreed not to compete as "the 1980 Moscow 1984 Los Angeles Republic of China"; the Taiwanese considered this unacceptable and withdrew. Due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carter called upon the U.S. Olympic Committee to boycott the Games. The Olympic Charter requires such committees to "resist all pressures of any kind whatsoever, whether of a political, religious or economic nature," but theory and practice diverge. The Americans stayed home, and in total 62 countries including West Germany and Japan refused to attend. In all, 80 nations participated in the Games, down from 122 nations in Munich. The USSR won 195 medals, but allegations of cheating tainted this astonishing result. 14 countries, including the USSR, boycotted the Games in what was widely seen as revenge for the Moscow Games four years earlier, though the official line was that they had security concerns. Ironically, China chose this year to return to the Games after a 32-year absence Seoul After failing to be recognized as co-host of the Games, North Korea (which was still technically at war with the South) boycotted the Games, with Cuba and Ethiopia joining them in solidarity. However there were no widespread boycotts for the first time since

4 As show that in table 2 boycotts political Olympics Games without the boycotts is different with the Boycotts in Olympic Games. Table 2: Political Olympics Games without the boycotts Olympic 1968 Mexico City Political results In Mexico City, 10 days before the Olympics began, students protesting against the government were surrounded by the army who opened fire, killing 267 and injuring more than 1,000. During the Games, American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos were expelled for raising their fists in a "black power" salute on the winners' podium 1972 Munich 11 Israeli athletes were taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists 'Black September', to protest against the holding of 234 Palestinian prisoners in Israel. The terrorists murdered two of their captives, then, as the result of a bungled rescue attempt by the authorities, the remaining nine captives were killed alongside three of their captors It was a rare Olympic games with no boycotts. The Soviet Union had broken up, and Barcelona the new Russian republics competed under unified team. The Berlin Wall had been torn down - so East and West Germany competed together as a united country. South Africa returned to the Games after the end of apartheid and 32 years of sporting isolation Beijing There was talk of a boycott to the Beijing Olympic Games due to China's treatment of the Tibetan people, and other human rights abuses, though no major protest eventuated London Iran protested the Olympic logo. mexico city munich Barcelona Beijing London Melborn Tokyo moscow montreal Los Angeles seoul The most popular Boycotts in Olympic Games Political Olympics Games without the boycotts Also, the results show that France, Great Britain and Switzerland are the only countries to send a team to every Olympic Games since their inception in While countries sometimes miss an Olympics due to a lack of qualified athletes, some choose to boycott a celebration of the Games for various reasons. The results show that The Olympic Council of Ireland boycotted the 1936 Berlin Games, because the IOC insisted its team needed to be restricted to the Irish Free State rather than representing the entire island of Ireland. 96

5 Discussion and Conclusions As a conclusion, this paper has highlighted the subject on Olympic Games and the way politicians use it. Sport is not an essential actor but it plays a big role in people s consciousness and decision. Politicians and many different actors of the civil society in world are using sport to promote their ideas. Sport was used for many different reasons because it is really influential on people. Olympic Games are increasingly and inextricably linked to a multidimensional matrix of cultural, economic, environmental and political spheres in contemporary social life. Governments and politicians in world have become more involved with Olympic Games. While many nations have been individually banned from competing in the Games, it is rare to have an international boycott of a city s Games. In fact, just the threat of a boycott prompted South Korean protests, followed by a restoration of democratic processes. During the Cold War, the major powers used Olympic boycotts as a means to send an international message. The two most publicized boycotts were of the 1980 Moscow and the 1984 Los Angeles Games. On a much smaller scale, North Korea sent a powerful message during the Seoul Olympics when it refused to participate. The 1988 Seoul Games were symbolically opened by 76- year-old Korean Sohn Kee-Chung, who won the marathon in 1936, but who was forced to compete in the Games under a Japanese name since Korea was still occupied by Japan. The most dramatic moments of the Seoul Games, however, happened before the opening ceremony. When South Korea was awarded the Games, North Korea tried to make them an issue of unity. Pyongyang demanded a half share in the Games. The official IOC policy had always been that the Games are awarded to a city and not a nation and therefore did not immediately support joint Games. After international pressure, however, the president of the IOC asked Seoul if it would be willing to share the Games. Seoul agreed only to a limited sharing of the Games, as it had been the city awarded the bid and had already begun construction programs. Pyongyang would not accept anything less than half billing and was therefore denied hosting duties. As a result, North Korea boycotted the Games. It was joined by Cuba, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua. Ideological differences between the Soviet Union and the United States were already a source of tension leading up to the Moscow Games in With the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the tensions came to a head. President Carter issued an ultimatum: if Soviet troops did not withdraw from Afghanistan by February 1980, the United States would boycott the Moscow Games. The American boycott was officially announced in March A total of 36 nations officially refused the IOC invitation to the Moscow Games. Sixteen nations allowed their athletes to compete under the Olympic flag, but would not allow their national flag at the Games. The largest nations that participated in the ban were the People s Republic of China, West Germany, and Japan. The success of the American boycott was limited, as the Soviet Union did not change its policies or behavior. The boycott made a grand public statement, but it may have been more effective had the United States attempted its boycott earlier in the Games planning stages. Additionally, the IOC never threatened to move the Games to another city. An Olympic boycott must be credibly attached with a loss of income in order for the host nation to take it seriously. In the event that a city has spent billions of dollars leading up to the Games, it would not want to see its efforts wasted by boycott or relocation. Most observers agree that one of the consequences of the American boycott of the 1980 Games was the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games. Leading up to the Los Angeles Games, the Soviet team constantly complained about the costs, the natural environment, and the political atmosphere in Los Angeles. Additionally, Washington would not guarantee the return of Soviet defectors. Ultimately, the Soviets declined to attend for reasons of safety. The Soviet boycott was significantly less successful than the American one four years before, as few nations joined Moscow. It can be said that politics is a complex, charming and surprising strength issue that the athletes are playing like chess pieces on a political chess board. Finally, it is recommended to wrestling champions, who are careful about working with politicians or political decision making, and wrestlers have more attention to fate of the wrestling rather than the fate of certain political groups. References Chehabia H, Sport diplomacy between the United States and Iran. 12(1), Chien-Yu Lin, Ping-Chao Lee2, Hui-Fang N, Theorizing the Role of Sport in State-Politics. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Science, 1(1): Coakley J, Sports in society. issues and controversies,

6 Dousti M, Goodarzi M, Asadi H, Khabiri M, Politics in sport of Iran. International Journal of Sport Studies, 2(3), Giulianotti R, Klauser F, Security governance and sport mega-events: Toward an interdisciplinary research agenda. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34(1), Goldberg J, Sporting diplomacy: boosting the size of the diplomatic corps. Washington Quarterly, 23(4), Gratton C, Preuss H, Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 25(14), Guttmann A, Sport, politics and the engaged historian. Journal of Contemporary History, 38(3), Guttmann A, the cold war and the olympic 43 intl s j. 554( ). Hiller H, Post-event outcomes and the post-modern turn: The Olympics and urban transformations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(4), Houlihan B, Sport, policy, and politics: A comparative analysis: Psychology Press Mondak J, The Politics of Professional Wrestling. Journal of Popular Culture, 23, 141. Keddie N, Neither East nor West: Iran, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The Journal of American Histor, 78(1), Samuel P, The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996, Seppänen P, The Olympics: A sociological perspective. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 19(2), Siekmann R, International Sports Boycotts: Sport, Law and Politics. Introduction to International and European Sports Law, Sugden J, Alan T, Theorizing fifa's transnational impact. Sport: Issues in the sociology of sport, 4, 37. Tatz C, Race, politics and sport. Sporting Traditions, 1(1), Taylor T, Politics and the Seoul olympics. The Pacific Review, 1(2), Volpi F, Algeria's pseudo-democratic politics: Lessons for democratization in the Middle East. Democratization, 13(3), WEI J, Wang Y, A review of the relation between modern Olympics and politics from the perspective of Olympic history. Journal of Physical Education, 2,