Opinion analysis by Pau Luoning, Contributor

August 19th, 2021

The Olympic Games first started around 3000 years ago in Ancient Greece. The original starting date is difficult to define, but their first mention in historic records dates to 776 BC. Back then, the Hellenic world was split into different city-states known as “Polis”, which were constantly at war with each other, Sparta and Athens being the most prominent ones, known for the Peloponnese Wars.

In the spirit of peace and reconciliation, the Games were used to proclaim a sacred truce (Ekecheiria), which would unite the Greek World, however on a temporary basis. City-states would jointly put their differences aside and put a halt to any hostile activities and conflicts before, during and after its celebration to ensure safe travels for the athletes as well as the spectators. The Greeks rapidly grew fond of the events, whereby its popularity became widespread in the ancient era and this tradition has been carried on for centuries every 4 years, with few exceptions, up until the present day.

Despite the apolitical origins of the Olympics, we often see sports mixed with politics today. Many argue that they should not blend, as they ought to remain two distinctly separate domains in society. However, politics are indeed everywhere, present in all different parts of our lives. From athletes taking the knee in support of the “Black Lives Matter” movement in the NBA or NFL leagues in the United States, to the EURO 2020-protests for UEFA’s recent polemic “neutrality” to Hungary’s anti-LGTB policies, and even football fans showing support for the Catalan independence movements in stadiums in Barcelona. Citizens have long been using sport to express their political beliefs in arenas, just like in any other public domain.

In a context where the fine line between sports and politics often gets blurry, it would not be rational to assume that the Olympics would be a golden exception. Ironically, the Games’ history surely is one that is intertwined with geopolitical conflicts and partisan interests. As it is clearly shown in the past, these sporting events have long been an international platform for nations and other actors to develop their political agenda. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union boycotted the Games by not attending Moscow 1980 and Los Angeles 1984 respectively. As well, years before, 30 African nations did the same in Montreal 1976 as a response to New Zealand’s rugby tournament in apartheid South Africa, a country officially banned from the Games for almost 30 years. However, the most infamous and unfortunate events are probably the Munich 1972 Olympics where 11 Israeli athletes lost their lives and the bomb attacks in the Atlanta 1996 Olympics.

Sport mega-events such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup can be seen as powerful manifestations of globalization. In economic terms, these multi-billion-dollar events provide hosting nations and cities with the most valuable opportunities to sell themselves in front of the rest of the world, potential investors, tourists, and a horde of the world’s leading wealthiest sponsors.

In political terms, this is a strategic way to obtain soft power, a term first used by the US-American political scientist Joseph Nye. He distinguishes “the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one wants” through coercion or payments (hard power) and the skill “to attract and co-opt them to get what you want” (soft power). Thus, soft power contrasts with hard power, regarding the use of the military or economic incentives for instance, as a mechanism to convince international actors through increased global influence; in other words, seduction and persuasion versus the traditional “carrots and sticks”. Following this idea, Nye does not argue for one kind of power at the expense of the other. Rather, he sees them as complimentary, given that in a modern interdependent world it would be wiser for nations to use a combination of both to pursue their goals instead of hard power alone (Nye, 2008).

On another note, when Tokyo was elected in 2013 to host their second Summer Games, the Nippon executive was expecting both an economic and a soft power boost for the country. Compared to the 1964 Games in the disastrous aftermath of the Second World War, the Tokyo 2020 Olympics were seen by former Prime Minister Abe as a considerable potential benefit for the country. Japan’s economy had been stagnating since the 1990’s and lost the 2nd place to China in the World’s GDP. In some way, China has recently been pushing Japan into the shadows, both economically as well as in terms of regional presence in East Asia.

In the context of a historically tricky rivalry with its neighbour, Japan was facing a great opportunity in due time: the Games presented a chance for economic revival 10 years after the unfortunate Fukushima nuclear disaster, that could have in turn benefited the party in face of the 2021 elections. Today, after the celebration of the largest sports events since the beginning of the Covid-19 Pandemic, its positive effects are yet to be seen. Covid restrictions prevented Tokyo from hosting many tourists and spectators as it could have done in pre-pandemic circumstances. Both Japan and its ruling party could not benefit from hosting such profitable events as much as they had anticipated. And so, as of today, the re-election chances for Prime Minster Suga’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party are at their lowest.

Moving from the Japanese Archipelago to the Chinese Mainland, the case of the Beijing 2008 Games established a vital change in tendencies, some sort of a new beginning for the Asian giant. As the Chinese scholar Pang Zhongying put it, “the Beijing Olympics marked a milestone for China in the search of soft power”. The 2008 Games were indeed intended to boost China’s international image, projecting the country as modern, efficient, increasingly prosperous and home to an ancient sophisticated civilization. Furthermore, it offered the city of Beijing an invaluable chance for urban development as well as rebranding itself as a harmonious, environmentally friendly, and energetic international metropolis. Arguably, this was partly intended to counteract China’s soft power deficit vis-à-vis other nations, as it is often clear how the country tends to import “cultural products” rather than export them. Its authoritarian nature indicates that the Chinese executive lacks attractive national political values likely to be exported elsewhere (Qobo, 2013).

The significance of the Beijing Olympics for China was not only on an international scale, but also on a national one as well. It served the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a tool for identity-building, to directly legitimise the party’s ideology through international credibility, secure domestic support and clash any internal dissent. The ultimate goals were to increase nationalism and to culminate China’s integration into the international system since Deng Xiaoping’s efforts to liberalize the markets in the 1980’s.

It is important to mention that hosting such events to merely obtain soft power in benefit of a nation’s own political agenda can sometimes, and paradoxically enough, backfire. Influence and prestige can be undermined rather than enhanced when one offends or alienates others (Giulianotti, 2015). For instance, Qatar was chosen to host the 2022 World Cup next year and, ever since, Western media and civil society groups raised questions about alarming human right violations such as the treatment of women, immigrant construction workers and LGTB communities (Grix et al, 2013).

The strategic soft power inherent in the Olympic Games not only benefits the hosting country but also those who perform the best. It should be understandable that those countries who win the most medals get certain international recognition; a kind of prestige reflected in their performance, which showcases the character and abilities of their competent people. With this in mind, it is no coincidence that the CCP has been investing heavily in national sports development programs. This has been translated into sport fields, running tracks and swimming pools. Since the 1990’s, China’s performance in the Olympics skyrocketed, achieving a level of sporting world power, especially after the Beijing Games. Since 2008 and up until this day, China has been constantly standing in the top 3 gold medal ranking. To put everything into perspective, China was in the 12th position with 114 gold medals 11 years ago. Today, after Tokyo, it stands in the 4th position with 265 gold medals.

At the same time, this contrasts with the performance of other nations. As Dr. Danyel Reiche explains, developing countries lack the necessary resources that leading sporting superpowers have to achieve great results. For this reason, they often see themselves relegated as “witnesses in the war for gold” where, simultaneously, young nations with colonial history often look for international recognition (Reiche, 2016).

The recent developments show China’s quest for soft power and influence as a success story. They project to the world a powerful image of a country that is shifting from being a regional power to a global superpower. The nation is rising as an alternative partner to the nations of the West, as shown by China’s increasing heavy investments in Africa and elsewhere. Here, it is important to note the context of the CCP’s international agenda, most notably the One Belt One Road Initiative, an infrastructure mega-project that aims to physically connect China to the World via trade. The fact that these global ambitions (alongside many territorial disputes such as those with Taiwan, India or in the South China Sea) require power is not unknown to Xi Jingping’s regime. Beijing’s executive is aware its presence in the region and overseas can not only be achieved via militaristic or economic means. To successfully implement its desired policies, China needs to present itself as a culturally and ideologically attractive nation to gain the world’s genuine acceptance.

Over the years, the world has seen how the gap between the G7-nations and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has been narrowing in terms of hosting. More emerging powers have been selected to host the Olympics, FIFA World CUPs and Commonwealth Games compared to other times. Alone, the opportunity to bid to host such competitions is a huge economic and logistic achievement for any nation, not to mention the actual possibility of actually hosting these sorts of games (Grix et al, 2013). In a way, this trend along with China’s Olympic success story is a representation of what is happening in the realm of politics that is intertwined with the world of sports; that is, the slow yet steady emergence of a new world order with increasing powers from the Global South.

References:

-          Giulianotti, R. (2015). The Beijing 2008 Olympics: Examining the Interrelations of China, Globalization, and Soft Power. European Review, 23(2), 286–296.

-          Grix, J., & Lee, D. (2013). Soft Power, Sports Mega-Events and Emerging States: The Lure of the Politics of Attraction. Global Society, 27(4), 521–536.

-          Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109.

-          Qobo, M. (2013). The Newly Emerging Powers and South Africa’s Global Strategy. Summitry Journal Vol. 1, No. 1. 1–20.

-          Reiche, D. (2016). Why developing countries are just spectators in the ‘Gold War’: the case of Lebanon at the Olympic Games. Third World Quarterly, 38(4), 996–1011.