Sport Diplomacy - Essay Example

OF STIRLING DEPARTMENT OF FILM AND MEDIA ESSAY ON SPORT DIPLOMACY Tuesday, June 08, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction: Sport and Diplomacy Blend 2. Sport Diplomacy: Its Scope and Role 3. Sport Diplomacy and Communication 4. Ethics of Sport Diplomacy 5. Sport Diplomacy and Early Olympic Movement 6. Diplomacy and Sports during 1970-1980s 7. References Introduction: Sport and Diplomacy In the very recent article in reputable Washington Post, former ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker suggests that "attending the 2014 Olympics under today's circumstances" equals to "cementing in practice Russia's changing European borders by force" (Volker, Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - The Washington Post). Position of Kurt Volker vividly articulates contemporary pattern of inclusion of sports into international political negotiations and disputes, making it a part of international diplomacy. From the critical perspective, states and their governments are effectively engaged in sports representing their political regimes and acting like agents of economic and cultural influence. Contemporary athletes become ambassadors of political regimes and representatives of national culture. Therefore, from political standpoint, it is necessary to investigate the implications of sporting events and sports results on the international politics and public opinion. Moreover, considering the fact that many governments and political regimes utilise sport for effective propaganda purposes, various international political crises reversely have influence on the organisation of international sporting events. The use of sports for diplomatic purposes is exemplified by the fact that whereas sports implies the competition between nations, the nation in turn constitute solidarity between people, therefore there is a great potential in sport for diplomacy. Sport impacts significantly public opinion, national mentality, identity and understanding of its vitality and prestige. According to Girault and Frank, "public opinion represents a mass phenomenon for those concerned and not merely a problem of elites" (1988, p.88). From this standpoint, the universal nature of sport makes it applicable as a diplomatic and ideological tool for different people, generations and cultures. Sport provides a tool for governments to preserve and reinforce their international cohesion and retain their international prestige, and that is the main reason why the majority of states consider their participation in the Olympic Games mandatory, using the latter as an opportunity to enhance their economic and cultural images and to deliver political messages (Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2006, p.68). Sport as well reflects trends occurring in ideological politics (Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2006, p.71). As vividly explained by Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006), during 1924 Olympic Games US rugby football team experienced significant aggression, which illustrated the German propaganda, impact of international politics on public opinion and the reversing side of sport events as diplomatic tool, a counter-diplomatic in this particular case (Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2006, p.71). Furthermore, sport constitutes a mirror for international conflicts, relations, dilemmas and solutions, since one has only to take a look on the images and representations from big international competitions like The Football World Cup or the Olympic Games to identify depending on the historical period a certain national pride (the United States during most of the Olympic Games) or national malaise (Iraq Olympic Team in the last two Olympic Games). This particular paper aims to examine different situations on how sport is used as a part of political diplomatic strategy and how communicative tactics are utilized to enhance application of sports as a diplomatic and political tool. The first part of the paper discusses the role and scope of sport diplomacy, and communication and ethical dimensions of sport diplomacy. Simultaneously, the second part examines the origin of sport diplomacy with the early Olympic movement and sport diplomacy reaching its apogee during 1970-1980s. Sport Diplomacy: Its Scope and Role From the theoretical perspective, sport diplomacy is defined as utilization of sport to pursue political objectives (Senn, 1999, p.35). The scope of sport diplomacy ultimately depends on what political objectives should be met, therefore, sport diplomacy can be used as a tool of state internal affairs or a method aimed to enhance or worsen diplomatic relations between countries. Analyzing the application of sport as a diplomatic tool, it is necessary to emphasize that for many nations sports have served as a form of national identity. Successes by individuals have become symbolic of the nation (Ilmarinen, 1984, p.9). It seems that international sporting activities have been especially important when nations were either struggling for independence or consolidation (Lowe et al, 1978, p.51). As an example of national importance of sport achievements, one can refer to the medals received by the South Korean athletes in the Seoul Olympics (Guttman, 1992, p.43). Their medals were regarded as valuable and signified national prestige in the country, which during that period was trying to improve its international and economic status (Guttman, 1992, p.43). One might rationalize that sport diplomacy plays an important role in enhancing social mobility of underdeveloped countries in the international arena. It would seem that the nationalistic character of sport diplomacy has become even more important to developed nations. In the advanced countries, sport diplomacy has become somewhat of an ideological duel to promote superiority of their social systems (Lowe et al, 1978, p.54). The historical facts which identify the close relationship between sport diplomacy and political ideology are abundant (Levermore and Budd, 2004, pp.17-18). This phenomenon of nationalism in diplomacy setting presents complicated issues for close scrutiny by interested scholars. Back in 1984 Ilmarinen (1984) concluded that "sport diplomacy is carried out in a framework of international relations involving exaggerated nationalism" (p.127). Referring to the international implications of the sports culture, Vayrynen noted that The demand for national integrity logically leads to the division of athletes and players into national contingents this contribution aims at penetrating into the role of nationalism in sport and into its implications for international sporting exchange (cited from Ilmarinen, 1984, p. 65). Sport had a dual function in the building of national identity, national competence and international relations. Nation-building was intimately connected with social mobility. Social mobilization has normally originated from the center of a society and spread outwards to the periphery. International sporting achievements have been considered especially important when nations were struggling for independence or improving their international position and image. Competitive sports have provided nationalistic symbols during these times. The use of symbols was important for both new and known nations and for their representatives. International sports in South Korea were used to promote national development, develop nationalism and simultaneously improve their status on international political arena. Egypt and Nigeria have come to realize that sport can serve as a source of nationalistic pride and as a powerful, international public relations tool. The Nasser regime probably had its greatest success in the sport field when it instilled into young Egyptians a powerful sense of national pride. Sport in Nigeria has been used as a political weapon (Guttman, 1992, p.32). Sport was seen as an instrument for promoting national unity among the diverse people in that country (Guttman, 1992, p.32). Success in international sport by Nigerian national teams was viewed as a manifestation of the greatness of the nation. As a leading African nation, much was expected from them in terms of their role in the international sports setting (Guttman, 1992, p.33). Sport Diplomacy and Communication: Analyzing sport diplomacy as a manifestation of politics, one may notice that communication practices have important implications for diplomacy in terms of how political and informational messages are delivered and negotiation processes are conducted. Many studies (e.g. Espy, 1979, pp.59-75) have provided evidence that international sporting events affords the host country a good opportunity to build an image that reflects its military, economic, political, and cultural importance in a favorable way (Giffard and Rivenburgh, 2000, p.15). Studies on the Olympics in South Korea, Spain, Australia and Greece showed that the host countries became more visible in the international media, and the tone of the reports and messages about them became more positive over time (Yang et al, 2008, p.429; Berkowitz et al, 2007, p.167). Messages communicated through media about the host countries were considered less unusual, and depicted them as less threatening to the global status quo and to common values after the Games. In the case with the 2008 Olympic Games in China, there were three main themes effectively promoted through various communication strategies, namely: (1) green Olympics, (2) high-technology Olympics and (3) the people's Olympics (Berkowitz et al, 2007, p.166). The idea is to proclaim a new image for China, one that is more environmentally friendly, high-tech and humanistic (Berkowitz et al, 2007, p.166). These themes could not have come at a more auspicious moment, amidst global concern over the way China handles its environment, its policy toward human rights, and the cheap low-quality products it sends to foreign markets (Berkowitz et al, 2007, p.167). It has been pointed out in the previous section, that scope of sport diplomacy includes the development of national image and identity. National image and identity can be formed through various routes. Jaffe and Nebenzahl (2006, p.10) pointed out that the formation of national images is a complex communication process involving different information sources. These sources may include one's early experiences in school and general education; comments and observations by relatives, acquaintances, and friends; and personal experience in foreign cultures, among others. Yang, Shin, Lee & Wrigley (2008, p.429) reviewed previous studies, and divide the routes of national image formation into two types of individual experiences: personal and second-hand. Personal experience is first hand experience acquired from doing business in or by traveling to a country; personal use of products or service; personal participation in cultural events; and meeting international publics personally (Yang et al, 2008, p.429). On the other hand, second-hand experience refers to word-of-mouth communications, and information about a country received from other communication channels, including the mass media (Yang et al, 2008, p.430). In their study, Yang et al (2008, p.430) suggest that the online media, national newspapers and cable TV are more effective in managing the reputation of a country, compared to other information sources. From this perspective, one may conclude that international sport events like the Olympic Games and the World Football Cup are generally communicated through these media. Ethics of Sport Diplomacy: By its own nature, sport has many ethical implications, ranging from questions on gender and representation to issues of fair play and doping (Tamburrini and Tannsjo, 2009, p.5). Sport diplomacy as a political phenomenon also raises several important ethical problems. The principle of utilitarianism "holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mills, 2004, p. 6). From the utilitarianism perspective, the utilization of sport diplomacy is justified, because through international sporting events such as the Olympic Games and the Football World Cup, it aims to provide a maximum benefit to the parties involved in the political dialogue. Simultaneously, deontology "holds that moral values and standards cannot be determined at any level of analysis by what would promote the best outcomes or states, assessed agent-neutrally" (Darwall, 2003, p.1). From the deontological viewpoint, the question of sport diplomacy ethics is more complicated. The reason for it is that not all nations, governments and countries accept identically the universal nature of sports and sporting. For instance, some critics regard the European roots of sports as creating "a form of cultural imperialism by imposing a Eurocentric version of sport upon the whole World" (Boyles, 2001, p.172). To explore deeply this argument, one may consider the Olympic Games that include 205 nations from across the globe, but they manifest the values, ideals and philosophy of a much smaller geographic area, particularly Europe and the United States. The fear is that the values celebrated in the Olympic Games are imposed upon athletes from areas of the world that, if given the choice, would celebrate alternative values. In a thesis on Olympic internationalism, Angela Pearson concluded that "definitions of Olympism seem to presuppose that Olympism has a core structure or essence which is universal" (Pearson, 1996, p. iii). According to Pearson, "there seems to be a conflict between the universalistic ideals of Olympism and the cultural imperialism ingrained within Olympism" (Pearson, 1996, p. iii). Critics who consider sports as a cultural construct cite perceptions of the superiority of Western values in the sport movement as evidence of a lack of universality. In contrast, the opposite view holds that the values associated with sports and sport diplomacy contributed to the identities and competencies among athletes in colonised countries, despite stemming from Western liberal ideas (Nanayakkara, 2008, p.353). From deontological perspective, for principles to be universal they must be relevant to people of all genders, races, nations, religions, social classes, and ideologies, and they must remain constant over time. Applying William Frankena's work on universal moral values to the ethics of sports diplomacy, philosopher Thomas W. Pogge argues that for a value to be universal it must meet three criteria: (1) the principles are the same for all people; (2) the principles involved provide the same "fundamental moral benefits (e.g. claims, liberties, powers, and immunities) to all" people; and (3) the principles do not privilege groups and individuals for arbitrary reasons (Pogge qtd in Damkjr, 2004, 213). As Sren Damkjr points out, "during the twentieth century, certain elements have been retained, others have been modified, some have disappeared and some have been realized" (Damkjr, 2004, p.213). The rules contained within the sports appear to mandate equal treatment for all participants and prevent privileging of some athletes over others, yet the requirements of universality work in opposition to the evolving nature of rules observable throughout the history of the modern sports and sport diplomacy, in particular. It is evident that in some cases, sport diplomacy can be discriminatory in terms of range of diplomatic opportunities available for some nations comparing to others. For example, none of the modern developing countries has an opportunity to host the Olympic Games in order to improve its international image or resolve internal political problems. Sport Diplomacy and Early Olympic Movement During the first decades of the Olympic Movement, the emergence of this new phenomenon and establishment of International Olympic Committee (IOC) brought the discussion of cultural and political progress and modernization. Olympic Movement and IOC have been based on the principles of fair play, peace, non-discriminative practices, and mutual understanding among nations through sport. After the World War I, the Olympic Games immediately obtained a status of powerful symbol dedicated to the advancement and promotion of international goodwill (Guttman, 1992, p.25). The focus was made not only on popularization of Olympic Games locally, but primarily on promotion of the Games internationally (Guttman, 1992). For instance, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games, particularly regarded the Olympic Games as being borderless in nature in order "to win true international standing" (MacAloon, 1981, p.241). From the political perspective, despite the fact that the Olympic Games were ideologically designed and implemented by the IOC to be equal and available for all countries to participate and host, the dominant ideology of Olympic Movement had significant contradictions that were evidently manifested in the 1930s (Guttman, 1992, p.29). Guttman (1992) explains that the Olympic Games as a diplomatic tool and "Great Symbol" has been transformed into the "Great Symptom" during world's political crisis of 1930s. Similarly to political confrontations between fascist, communist and capitalist governments, political controversies infected the IOC and entire Olympic Movement. Although the IOC continuously argued that "sports above politics," portraying the image of politically neutral organization, overt political decisions have been systematically made concerning the Olympic Games (Coakley, 1998, p.49). For instance, since their inception in 1886, the Olympic Games had been exclusively organized in Europe and the United States, though petitions from other IOC member states were frequent (Coakley, 1998, p.50). The fact that only European and American host cities were receiving attention raised the questions of discriminative practices as well as political and financial interests in Olympic decision making (Guttman, 1992, 59). This politics eventually led to controversial permission to host 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany, regardless of numerous protests from the majority of IOC members, as well as to the subsequent favoring of Tokyo's bid for 1940 Games despite the war between China and Japan (Guttman, 1992, 60). From the standpoint of diplomacy and politics, the IOC and Olympic Games became an effective and viable strategic tool for numerous political projects, proving the hypothesis that sport can be utilized for both diplomacy and conspiracy. Diplomacy and Sports during 1970-1980s: There are several reasons why one may find essential to include the period of 1970-1980s in the discussion of issues on sport as diplomacy. In a sporting context, historians generally characterise this decade as an era in which politics made a full frontal assault on Olympic sport (Guttman, 1992, 112). Reflecting on his 1972-1980 presidency of the International Olympic Committee, Lord Killanin writes: "I feel that there will not be much argument that, thus far in Olympic history, my eight years as President were the most difficult the Olympic Movement has experienced to date" (Killanin, 1983, p.220). On the international front, issues like the Vietnam War, military activity in the Middle East and Latin America, East vs. West cultural clashes, and issues concerning human rights and welfare, created a tense social and political climate (Rosenberg & Rosenberg, 2003, p.368). As is insinuated by Lord Killanin, a number of these issues influenced Olympic sport. At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany, the world became all too aware of the political expediency in targeting the Olympic Games for political demonstration. After a group of Palestinian terrorists took hostage members from the Israeli Olympic team, the world watched in horror as a failed rescue attempt by German authorities ended in the Munich Massacre. Eleven Israeli hostages died alongside five of the Palestinian terrorists (Senn, 1999, p.140). Alfred Senn notes that "the terrorist attack against Israeli athletes at the Munich Games shattered the last illusion anyone might have had about the role of the Olympic Games as a haven from world politics" (Senn, 1999, p.141). Four years later, with memories of Munich still fresh in the minds of many, the Olympic Games made their first appearance in Canada (Kereliuk, 1982, p.19). At the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, the age of boycott had begun (Crossman and Lappage, 1992, p.356). Before the Games had officially opened, there were boycotts, threats of boycott, and threats to have the Games removed from Canada (Crossman and Lappage, 1992, p.356). Among the controversies were a conflict between Canadian immigration and the Nationalist Chinese Olympic Team, and the alleged defection of a young Soviet diver to Canada (Crossman and Lappage, 1992, p.356). The most talked about affair of the Olympic Games in Montreal, however, was the African nation boycott. South Africa had flagrantly violated the ideological principles that constitute the core of official discourse generated by the International Olympic movement (Senn, 1999, p.83). The IOC could not turn a blind eye to the inherent racism in South African sport; the country was expelled from competition in the Olympic Games in 1964 (Senn, 1999, p.83). To draw further attention to racial prejudices in South African sport, the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa (SCSA) protested against nations that maintained any sporting contacts with Apartheid South Africa (Senn, 1999, p.85). Due to a prior New Zealand/South African rugby tour, New Zealand became the target of the African states. Officials from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) demanded that New Zealand's Olympic team be excluded from the competition in Montreal (Kereliuk, 1982, p.22). When the International Olympic Committee refused to accommodate this demand, African nations withdrew from the Olympic Games in Montreal at the last moment. Jane Crossman and Ron Lappage (1992) note that "this boycott against New Zealand was a new Olympic phenomenon, as it was aimed at a country apparently collaborating with Apartheid sport (although rugby was not an Olympic sport)" (p.356). At the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980, the age of boycott was at its peak. Sandra Kereliuk argues that, by 1980, "the Olympic Games had evolved from a transnationalistic event to a nationalistic encounter" (Kereliuk, 1982, p.15). Cold War politics were pronounced when the United States led the largest boycott in Olympic Games history Kereliuk, 1982, p.15).. In response to a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979, American President Jimmy Carter issued an ultimatum to the Soviet Union on 20 January 1980 stating "unless the Soviets withdraw their troops within a month from Afghanistan, that the Olympic Games will be moved from Moscow to an alternate site or multiple sites, postponed or cancelled" (Carter qtd in Kereliuk, 1982, p.57 ). Carter argued, "the USA had to make clear to the Soviet Union that it cannot trample upon an independent nation and at the same time do business as usual with the rest of the world (in Kereliuk, 1982, p.57). When the Soviets refused to accommodate Carter's demands, "the USA ... turned it into an East-West or Moscow-Washington confrontation" (in Kereliuk, 1982, p.63). Kereliuk notes, "Undoubtedly, the Carter Administration's response and reactions to the Afghan crisis and its ensuing proposals and guidelines did much to influence western government when they made their boycott decision" (Kereliuk, 1982, p.63). Feeling that "without backing from the important sporting countries, the American boycott would ... be a failure," President Jimmy Carter urged other governments to follow suit and ensure that a Western nation boycott of the Games in Moscow would take place. Officially, the boycott was intended to protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For others, however, it is widely understood that "the decision was not whether or not the boycott was a viable sanction to employ against the USSR. Rather, the decision was whether or not to support the United States boycott endorsement" (Kereliuk, 1982, p.87). Succumbing to federal pressure, on 27 April 1980 65 Olympic Associations voted to boycott the Moscow Olympic Games and did not attend them. Conclusion: Sport diplomacy constitutes the utilization of sport as a foreign policy and diplomatic tool in order to pursue state's political interests within international relations (Senn, 1999, p.35). The twentieth century witnessed a significant emergence of international diplomacy based on sport. Politicians foresaw a great potential in sport diplomacy, when it became evident that sport has a positive influence on public opinion, national mentality and identity (Jaffe, and Nebenzahl, 2006, p.172). Due to these characteristics, the scope of sport diplomacy is not limited to international relations alone, and can be effectively implemented to resolve internal political difficulties. Sport diplomacy practices used in Nigeria to promote national unity among diverse population serve as a vivid example of a potential sport has a diplomatic and political tool. International sporting events like the Olympic Games became powerful channels for information on country's image, its reputation, political and economic climate, government's reliability, etc. Simultaneously, the most significant manifestation of sport diplomacy, modern Olympic Games, poses limitations on developing countries in terms of their ability to participate and host these international sporting events, bringing up certain concerns regarding ethics of sport diplomacy. From the critical perspective, setting ethical issues aside, the application of sport diplomacy has been practically justified as a method to improve foreign relations. For instance, China and South Korea achieved political consensus and recognition through sport diplomacy during 1970s and 1980s. REFERENCES: Boyles, S. 2001. The International Olympic Committee, Transnational Doping, Policy and Globalisation. In Drugs and Doping in Sport: Socio-Legal Perspectives, edited by John O'Leary, 167-180. London: Cavendish. Berkowitz, P., Gjermano, G., Gomez, L., & Schafer, G. 2007. Brand China: Using the 2008 Olympic Games to enhance China's image. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(2), 164-178. Crossman, J., Lappage, R. 1992. Canadian Athletes' Perceptions of 1980 Olympic Boycott. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, p.356 Coakley, J. 1998. Sport in Society: Issues and Controversies. St.Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book. Damkjr , S. 2004. Post-Olympism and the Aestheticization of Sport. In Post-Olympism Questioning Sport in the Twenty-first Century, edited John Bale and Mette Krogh Christensen, 211-230. New York: Berg. Darwell, S. 2003. Deontology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford Espy, R. 1979. The Politics of the Olympic Games. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Giffard, A., & Rivenburgh, N. K. 2000. News agencies, national images, and global media events. Journalism Quarterly, 77, 8-21. Girault, R. and Frank, R. 1988. Turbulente Europe et nouveaux mondes, 1914-1941, Masson, Paris Guttman, A. 1992. The Olympics: A History of the Modern Games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press Jaffe, E. D., & Nebenzahl, I. D. 2006. National image and competitive advantage: The theory and practice of place branding. Herndon, VA: Copenhagen Business School Press. Kereliuk, S. 1982. The Canadian Boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games. Lord Killanin. 1983. My Olympic Years. London, Secker & Warburg Levermore, R. Budd, A. eds. 2004. Sport and International Relations: An Emerging Relationship. Routledge Ilmarinen, M. 1984. Sport and International Understanding. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Lowe, B., Kanin, D., Strenk, A. 1978. Sport and International relations. Champaign, IL: Stripes Publishing Company MacAloon, J. 1981. This Great Symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the Origins of the Modern Olympic Games. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mills, J. 2004. Utilitarianism. Kessinger Publishing Nanayakkara, S. 2008. Olympism: A Western Liberal Idea that Ought Not to Be Imposed on Other Cultures In Pathways: Critiques and Discourse in Olympic Research, Ninth International Symposium for Olympic Research, edited by Robert K. Barney, Michael K. Heine, Kevin B. Wamsley, and Gordon H. MacDonald, pp.351-358. London, ON: International Centre for Olympic Studies Pearson, A. 1996. Olympic Internationalism: Difference as Identity. MA thesis, The University of Western Ontario, February Rosenberg, N., Rosenberg, E. 2003. In Our Times: America since World War II, 7th ed, Beacon Press Tamburrini, C., Tannsjo, T. 2009. The Ethics of Sport Medicine. Routledge, London Volker, K. 2010. Sochi Olympics offer a lever on Russia and rights. The Washington Post, Retrieved May 26, 2010 from Senn, A. 1999. Power, Politics and the Olympic Games. USA: Human Kinetics Yang, S.-U., Shin, H., Lee, J.-H., & Wrigley, B. 2008. Country reputation in multi dimensions: Predictors, effects, and communication channels. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(4), 421-440. Read More