Profile: The International Olympics Committee

Hattie Goldstaub

The history and actions of the International Olympics Committee (IOC) show how a non-political organisation can become involved in today’s burning global issues through an alternative medium, such as competitive sports. It is worth examining the IOC’s actions in order to see how they transpire in reality and the impact sovereign nations have on them. This year’s Rio de Janeiro Olympics mark the first South American host country, making it appropriate to examine the IOC’s transcontinental role, as its reflection of the international situation encompasses more than just sport.

General Information:

·         Established: 23rd June 1894

·         Headquarters: Lausanne, Switzerland

·         Membership: 105 active and 32 honorary nations

·         Languages: English and French

·         Self-professed role in the international sphere (based on the Olympic Charter):

o   To promote the Olympics and their regular occurrence

o   To promote sport as a means of securing international peace in co-operation with other relevant international organisations

o   To encourage discourse surrounding the environment and issues of sustainability

o   To terminate doping in sports

o   To encourage the integration of sport, culture and education

o   To combat discrimination, of any kind, in the Olympic movement

o   To support a positive Olympic legacy in host countries after the games have occurred.

National unity

Hosting the Olympics grants nations opportunities to display their culture and customs globally. In turn, the games provide the chance to strengthen and rejuvenate national confidence through unity. Traditional ceremonies, such as the Olympic Torch relay, can help a country convey its history and achieve greater national solidarity. For example, the 2012 London Olympics illustrated that, despite Britain’s economic recession and criticism prior to the games, national pride was still possible through athletic achievements.

International Co-operation and increased representation

Meanwhile, opening ceremonies allow the host country to creatively demonstrate its history and culture. Thus, the Olympics are a source of cultural education and representation, allowing the spread of cultural awareness and national traditions to global audiences. Furthermore, the sporting side of the games can also nullify dangerous political ideologies. Nazi Germany’s 1936 Summer Olympics, for example, disproved Nazi ideology promoting Aryan superiority with African-American Jesse Owens winning four gold medals and Jewish-Hungarian Ibolya Csak winning gold in women’s long-jump. The scope of inclusivity within the Olympics, which currently includes 204 participating countries in the Summer games and 110 participants during the Winter version helps creates a sense of global community, tied together through sport. Lastly, the occurrence of Paralympic games since 1960, highlights a commitment to opportunities for all, and helps to debunk stigmas surrounding physical disabilities globally.

Platform for ideologies and inequalities

Similar to other global entities, the Olympics operations also represent larger global issues. For example, developed countries consistently rank high in medal count highlighting the resource power of developed countries and the latent economic inequalities between nations. In addition, the games are often used as a platform for promulgating ideologies. For example, the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and subsequent retaliatory Soviet boycott of the LA 1984 Olympics demonstrates the Cold War tensions of the time impacting on what should have been a peaceful and co-operative sporting event. Equally, the bidding process for host countries has been fraught with controversy: in 2002, for example, it emerged that the United States’ Olympic Organising Committee had bribed members of the IOC executive committee in order to secure the rights to hold the games in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Moral controversies

Following from this, politically influential nations regularly host the games, despite their poor human rights records. The 2008 decision to host the games in the People’s Republic of China caused backlash from human rights groups. In direct contravention of the Olympic Charter’s profession to promote “a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity,” the games were hosted in a country surrounded by human rights controversies. The Russian Federation also attracted attention with the 2014 Sochi Olympics, after its ban on homosexual propaganda. This resulted in a number of LGBT athletes boycotting the games. Eventually, the IOC did include a ban on discrimination in any form from host cities, which took effect on the 25th of September 2014. The IOC has also been criticised for refusing to commemorate the eleven Israeli victims of a Palestinian terrorist attack during the 1972 Munich Olympics, whilst its choice of certain host cities has led to critique of its support for the Olympics taking place on land stolen from natives through past colonialism, most recently in Vancouver in 2010.

Conclusions

Whilst the IOC has many laudable aims, some of which are realized, it is arguable that the political and economic concerns remain present, often highlighted in the Olympic games themselves. The IOC would benefit from addressing the moral and political situations surrounding potential host countries before allotting a successful bid, in order to conform better to its own Olympic Charter. Meanwhile, the IOC should acknowledge past acceptance and clarification issues before their behavior becomes an automatic norm.

Cultural Relativism and International Relations

Loulwa Wright

Cultural issues are central to a range of international debates, including those concerning nationalism, autonomy, identity politics, and democratic incentives. Arguably, such matters require a degree of cultural sensitivity, particularly when external organisations and governing bodies are brought into the equation.

However, it is debatable whether cultural relativism actually benefits international relations in practice, or whether it merely serves as a theoretical hindrance to universalised action. Questions surrounding relativism, theory and practice are familiar ground for anthropologists, who have already contributed to debates on public policy, cultural diplomacy and development. This article intends to raise questions about universalised identity, and bring anthropological approaches into the discussion of these issues.

The relativist approach has come to be taken for granted amongst anthropologists today, as an awareness of positionality and representation has greatly affected ethnography since the 1980s. Conceptually, Anthropology has a lot to contribute to International Relations, not least in its interest in what ties people together. With respect to international organisations, such as the UN and the EU, the incentives for membership are arguably not solely economic or political. The communitarian nature of these organisations forms a large part of their appeal for many people, and the ‘international community’ is prominent in the rhetoric of global politics. A cross-cultural approach has many benefits in providing new perspectives on key issues, as well as prompting us to revaluate our assumptions and preconceptions. This approach also allows us to problematize conceptions of the ‘international community’ as a whole, and whether it is a realistic conceptual framework.

Benedict Anderson coined the concept of ‘imagined communities’ in his book of the same name. Through his discussion of the origins and spread of nationalism, Anderson illustrates how political communities are socially constructed, to the extent that this ‘imaginary’ becomes a driving force for state formation and political movements. The international community can be considered in the same way, arguably even more so as it extends beyond the tangibility of geography and human population. In light of this, the imaginary of the ‘international community’ is rather precarious, and an appeal to human solidarity perhaps cannot sustain cohesive international policy. To impose universal legislation, as well as political and economic policy, is an extremely complicated task in the international context. Arguably, this is where cultural relativism may bring useful perspectives. 

In order to achieve practical solutions for international conflicts, the international community has imposed standardised laws. An example of this is Article 2.4 in the United Nations Charter, which denies the use of force or threat between member nations. The internationally imposed criteria for a ‘just war’ also assert a standardised formula for international relations. In the case of war and conflict, ethical relativism has been disregarded by universally imposed regulations, some would say rightly so; arguably, you cannot compromise on issues concerning human life. However, the anthropologist might suggest that a divergence in worldviews, political traditions, and ethical systems across cultures render such standardisations problematic. Tensions in international relations and conflict resolution processes may arise from such differences, and discussions may be more productive if we take a step back from strict universal norms. However, one could argue that by joining organisations such as the UN, nations forfeit their right to values and standards that differ from those imposed by the central authority. While this may be true, the reality is that conflict arises in local spheres, according to local contexts, no matter what the overarching authority dictates.

The ‘international’ cannot exist independently from the ‘national’ or the ‘local’. Moving away from discussions about war and conflict, the particularities of local contexts, both historically and culturally, must feature prominently in broader international relations. Anthropologists should certainly not act as apologists for ethically unsound political regimes, or war criminals, but it is worth bearing in mind the consequences of imposing universal norms on an extremely diverse international ‘community’. The imaginary of the ‘international’ can only support so much cohesion, and has limited practical power. A relativist approach is essential to any form of international relations that wishes to maintain productive and effective discussions between disparate nations, cultures and peoples. 

Britain set for EU referendum

Hubert Cruz

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) will take place on 23 June. The referendum was pledged by the Conservative party, who won the general election last year. Voters will be asked, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” Cameron said he will campaign for the UK to remain in the EU after securing a list of membership reforms over lengthy negotiations with other EU leaders in the last few days.

The reforms include changes to the provision of migrants’ benefits. If the UK votes to remain in the EU, it will be able to limit in-work benefits to migrant workers for the first four years for their stay. However, the overall restrictions must be lifted within seven years. In terms of sovereignty, member states can stall EU legislations with a lower threshold of objections from 55% of national EU parliaments. The UK is also promised the right to veto financial regulations of the Eurozone, and an explicit opt-out of the commitment to an “ever-closer union” with other EU member states.

Despite the Prime Minister’s case for the UK to remain in a reformed EU, several cabinet members, including Michael Gove, have already registered their decisions to campaign for the opposite camp. As opinion polls after the referendum announcement show a marginal lead for leaving the EU, the UK is braced for another close and intensive referendum that will determine the country’s future.

Should the UK leave or remain in the EU? What are your views over the proposed EU reforms? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. To know more about the issue, check out the articles below:

BBC – UK and the EU: Better off out or in?

The Guardian – EU referendum to take place on 23 June, David Cameron confirms

Independent – EU deal: Did the final agreement deliver on David Cameron's promises?

Survation – First polling conducted since specific demands for EU reform established. Leave marginally ahead of Remain

Beyond the Louvre: the French art of the political cartoon

Marianna Hunt

Home to world-famous art galleries such as the Louvre and the Musée d'Orsay, the real place to discover the art on everyone's lips in France is in the pages of its political cartoons and satirical magazines.

French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, takes a "no holds barred" approach to its attacks on politics and society. From right-wing extremists, to the radical left, even entire religions - no sphere is sacred for this anti-institutional, anti-authoritarian magazine. Mocking caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad have appeared regularly in editions and are widely considered the catalyst of an attack on the magazine by Islamist gunmen in which four cartoonists were killed. Nevertheless, the attacks did not dampen the magazine's provocative tilt and recent editions have depicted Muhammad being beheaded by a member of the Islamic State.

Though cartoons enjoy similar influence and popularity in many other countries (the manga craze in Japan for instance), French cartoons are differentiated by their overtly political nature. Moreover, Charlie Hebdo is not a lone exception in this field. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, professor at the University of Glasgow and expert on French cartooning, Laurence Grove declared: “The attack today was really on a national institution”.

Among  the magazine's many, similar rivals, the most well-known is Le Canard Enchaîné, another example of this quintessentially French blend of art, politics, and satire. The provocative nature of these publications have earned them the nickname journaux irresponsables (the irresponsible newspapers).

The phenomenon of using cartoon as a means of political commentary and protest is by no means a new one in French society. In the build-up to the French Revolution of 1789, political cartoons regularly mocked the monarchy. After the revolution, artists even turned against their former idols. This image shows a two-faced monument to Napoleon built upon a pile of skulls and inert bodies. The statue resembles that of the doubled headed Roman god who presided over the beginning and end of wars. This reference to Napoleon's persistent waging of war throughout Europe and the skulls which uphold the memorial suggests that this political leader's legacy was built upon the death and suffering of others - debasing the traditional Napoleonic legend. 

The tradition of this art form as an ideological weapon continued in the 20th century when, in the post-war period, both radically conservative Catholic groups and left-wing Communists attempted to use cartoons as a propaganda means to win over the young people of France.

It seems fitting then that, in the aftermath of the November shootings in Paris, the reaction, both in France and world-wide, was to take up pen and ink and turn the internet into a gallery of cartoons and sketches showing support for the victims.  The Islamic State of Iraq claimed the attacks were a retaliation against the French government's foreign policy and decision to launch air-strikes in Syria - making the political aspect of the attacks unmistakeable. Eiffel Towers made of tears, tricolour flags draped over corpses, and the Statue of Liberty rushing to the rescue of France, were just a number of the artistic commemorations to the deadliest attack on France since World War II. French graphic designer, Jean Jullien's 'Peace for Paris' illustration became a world-wide symbol of unity in the wake of the event. Jullien's rough and simple brushstrokes, illustrating the Eiffel Tower inside a peace sign, were printed on t-shirts and flags, splattered across the press front pages, and shared across the internet by everyday social media and the world's celebrities alike. In total the image was retweeted more than 42,000 times.

The case of French political cartoons illustrates, quite literally, the thorny aspects of freedom of expression and its capacity to be both the fuel of hatred and the instrument of peace. Clearly this "children's" medium, is not one to be treated lightly after all. 

North Korea's Rocket Launch

Hubert Cruz

North Korea launched a long-range rocket last Sunday (7 February), claiming it was used to place a satellite into orbit. The act was widely regarded by other nations as a guise for ballistic missile testing, which North Korea is prohibited from conducting under United Nations sanctions. Reports suggest that the range of the missile fired was up to 13,800km, meaning it could reach the continental US.

The rocket launch drew significant backlash from the international community. The US Senate swiftly approved new financial sanctions against North Korea, while South Korea suspended operations at the Kaesong factory complex, a compound jointly run with its neighbour. After an urgent meeting, the UN Security Council said the rocket launch was a threat to world security and clear violation of UN resolutions. The Security Council is already considering tougher sanctions over North Korea’s fourth nuclear test a few weeks ago.

The situation became complicated as China, a major ally of Pyongyang, only expressed a subtle statement of regret over the incident. Beijing worries that further sanctions would push North Korea towards political and economic collapse, and has expressed deep concerns over the US’ intent to deploy an advanced missile-defence shield in South Korea, warning that such a move would only escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

What is the significance of North Korea’s latest rocket launch? Should the UN Security Council adopt tougher sanctions against North Korea? What is the best strategy to build sustainable peace in the Korean Peninsula? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. If you would like to learn more about the issue, here are a few useful articles:

Eurasia Review – North Korea’s Rocket Launch: Tension In Northeast Asia Returns – Analysis

The Wall Street Journal – North Korea Rocket Launch Shows Few Gains in Capabilities, Seoul Says

Washington Post – North Korea’s rocket launch shows that Mr. Obama’s ‘strategic patience’ has failed