By David Nicoll
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is withholding the bronze medal won by South Korean football player, Park Jong-woo, for displaying a political message regarding his nation’s sovereignty claim over the Dokdo islets. The debate over the rights and wrongs of this could continue for some time to come. However, at the risk of furthering controversy within the greater human race, it can be argued that the IOC is guilty of the same crime ― multiplied by many times.
Granted, organizations seeking sponsorship money for international events must hold out their needy hands to almost anyone willing to offer gold, silver or bronze coinage. The IOC deserves a fair hearing and sympathy for that. However, by allowing a controversial corporation, The Dow Chemical Company, to exhibit its logo during the London Olympics in exchange for sought-after funds, the IOC wins the political hypocrisy event hands down and by several lengths.
A long time ago, in a civilized mind far, far away, democracy was conceived of, discussed and written about. The objective was simple; propose an idea, put it to public debate and invite individuals in society to elect the best decision regarding the matter by the casting and counting of stones. The majority wins; society benefits.
However, back to the present and the majority are now overshadowed by an oppressive marriage between big governments and big businesses. Who governs who, or who governs what? It is sometimes difficult to determine. One apparent fact is that an unfettered desire for power, and its principal tool, money, govern a select few. And the evidence of this can be seen in the injustices carried out by big businesses ― incidents for which big governments and international organizations such as the IOC are only too happy to roll over and look the other way. To continue the marriage analogy: is turning a blind eye to wrong doing a way of expressing love, or is it merely stoking the fire for an inevitable, acrimonious divorce? Only time will tell but that particular soap opera plot may yet have its day.
From fiction to fact: Accepting Dow Chemical, as a corporate backer of the London Olympics 2012, is a political message because, it was a manufacturer of Agent Orange defoliant, used to devastate jungle canopies across Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange, or dioxin, is responsible for the estimated deaths and maiming of nearly 400,000 people in Vietnam, 500,000 children with birth defects and the ailments of a further 1 million people, estimated by the Vietnamese Red Cross, with disabilities or other health problems.
Quite rightly, the Vietnam Women’s Union appealed to the IOC to reconsider their decision to accept sponsorship from Dow Chemical, or ``Dow’’ as it prefers to be cryptically advertized ― given the truly appalling history above, who can blame their marketing team for dropping the ``C’’ word? But with its commitment to “Putting human beings first,” a slogan on the IOC website, the committee took the money anyway, nailing their political colors firmly to the mast. Perhaps it was all part of its additional commitment to “Sport and the Environment,” another key slogan displayed on the website.
What shade are the IOC’s political colors? Dow paid one million pounds to raise an advertising banner that took up the side of a new shopping center in London, built for Olympian consumerism. The presence of their advertisement is a political message, clear and for all to see. The IOC cares not about international integration but is more intent on accepting partnership with a corporation known for causing international devastation.
In what spirit do they envisage the games taking place? It is fair and reasonable to say, given the evidence, that it is not an organization free of politics or political messages, overt or implicit. By accepting sponsorship from such a company, the IOC sends out a number of political messages that run something like this: “We don’t care about past injustices. The rights of the silent majority mean nothing to us. Those who suffer are insignificant to the power of money. We support exploitation of the poor and marginalized and we value the profits of unethical corporations.”
Consecutive Olympics have had a significant impact on large numbers of residents in host cities. From Seoul in 1988, to Beijing in 2008, to London 2012 and now onto Rio de Janeiro, thousands of people have been and are being forced to leave their homes in a program of forced evictions to make way for new facilities and infrastructure to enable the Olympics. This is widely reported and thankfully, due to the work of NGOs and genuine journalists, an issue that is gaining recognition as a matter that needs to be faced.
Here in Seoul, people who were forced to leave their homes 25 years ago are still on the margins of society. Of course, the IOC has so far taken the stance that once a city is awarded host status for the games the arrangement of facilities to support the event are within the jurisdiction of its government. This allows the IOC to remain silent on such matters.
However, on olympic.org ― the organization’s website ― the IOC, defined as ``the supreme authority of the Olympic movement’’ states in detail its role, ``according to the Olympic Charter.’’ This includes: ``To cooperate with the competent public or private organizations and authorities in the endeavor to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby to promote peace.’’ And perhaps most pertinently: ``To promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries.’’ Please, IOC members embrace this ideal.
The Olympics do not leave a positive legacy for thousands of people in host cities and countries around the world. How would you all feel if you were evicted to enable the building of a new stadium or Olympic village? You might feel slighted by some of the above commentary, but this is merely to awaken you all to the experience of discomfort. Follow your charter, work to leave positive legacies in host cities, not only for athletes, but for the thousands of potential athletes who deserve the same level of domestic security that you enjoy.
In the small hours of the morning, Park Jong-woo might awaken and reflect that his political message, stating ``Dokdo is our land,’’ brandished above his head after the South Korean Olympic football team defeated Japan, might have been better offered in different circumstances.
Then again, despite all public relations messages stating the contrary, the organizers of the Olympic Games are themselves, complicit in a form of political communication and oppression uniquely conspicuous in this image-duped world.
The writer is a resident in Seoul.