Skip to main content

Gold, silver and brazen

And you thought that the award of the Olympic Games to a city was purely based on the merits of the particular contender!

FP Foreign Policy in a piece "Gold, silver and brazen" explains the real underlying reasons for a winner to hold the Olympics:

"The International Olympic Committee (IOC), the 115-member body responsible for choosing the host city for the Olympic Games, fancies that it can separate sports from politics in its selection process. The choice of repressive China as host of the 2008 Summer Games seemed to demonstrate the flaw in that logic. And in July, when the IOC awarded the Russian resort town of Sochi the honor of hosting the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, the committee proved once again that logic is not its strong suit.

The IOC’s insistence on overlooking a country’s political environment is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. No matter how much IOC members delude themselves, national leaders are bound to use the Olympics for political ends. At the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, the Nazis used the Games to trump up German nationalism during a time of pervasive depression. Although Sochi 2014 is a far cry from Berlin 1936, one basic comparison holds: In each case, an illiberal government with something to prove managed to co-opt the Olympics in order to reclaim a severely damaged “national identity.” And it did so with the help of the IOC.

Already, millions of Russians have interpreted the committee’s decision as a stamp of approval from the international community. “Sochi’s winning bid for the 2014 Olympics is yet another vivid confirmation of the authority of our country in the world arena,” crowed Mikhail Kamynin, spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shortly after the IOC announced the winner."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more