Here we go again. The news that Steven Spielberg has pulled out of the Beijing Olympics reopened the age-old debate about the relationship between sport and politics.
It came as news to me that Spielberg was an artistic adviser for the opening ceremony. (His withdrawal has obviously been a much bigger story than his original involvement.) Spielberg's move is a protest against China's support for Sudan's policy in Darfur, rather than any action by China itself.
It's hardly the first time the Olympics have been overshadowed by politics. The 1936 games were held in Nazi Germany, and were used as a propaganda platform by Hitler. The United States boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. In a classic tit-for-tat, the Soviet Union boycotted the next summer games in Los Angeles. A few years earlier, Argentina hosted and won the football world cup under the eyes of the leaders of the country's infamous military junta, who were responsible for the murders of thousands of citizens.
You don't have to be an apologist for Sudan's brutal actions in Darfur to question Spielberg's boycott. Should he refuse to get involved in the London 2012 games in protest against Britain's involvement in the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (shades of 1980)? All too often western countries open themselves to accusations of hypocrisy. Let's hope that Speilberg's stance does not lead to calls for a sporting boycott of the games. China will undoubtedly find hosting the games an uncomfortable experience given its reluctance to engage in debate or free speech. But the Beijing Olympics must be a better way of encouraging China to embrace the world than ill-considered boycotts.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.