Political Games

pete quentin, 31 March 2008

The EU’s leg of the Olympic relay race has begun and a couple of mistimed exchanges when passing the baton (buck) of foreign policy has already left it without a hope of winning gold, writes Claire Daley.
As the Olympic torch shuffles its way across the continents, a parallel relay race is taking place within the EU. Actually with more characteristics of a giant game of ‘hot potato’, member states are passing the buck on an apparently “apolitical issue” – China’s handling of protesters in Tibet.

China has stated that it is “strongly dissatisfied” with the result of a two day meeting between EU foreign ministers in Slovenia, current holders of the Presidency, which focused on the recent heavy handling of Tibetan protesters by Chinese authorities.
By far the most commonly cited excuse for division seems to be that, as expressed by Cypriot Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou, “the issue of the Olympic Games should remain out of politics. These are two separate issues”. Similarly, Slovenian Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, said that Tibet and the Olympic Games should be discussed separately.
This could simply be self-preserving tactics to distract from suggestions that it is simply not within the EU’s power to provide sufficient pressure for China to clean up its act on Human Rights – a line of argument that attempts to deflect the issue, rather than tackling it head on. Apparently, the buck stops far beyond the powers of EU foreign policy.
Regarding those who have not simply buried their heads in the sand, the Europe is a menagerie of disagreement. With the debate focused on whether or not to call for a boycott of the opening ceremony on the 8th August, the EU member states fall into two broad camps and no matter what the politicians profess, one thing is for sure – this is an entirely political issue.
For a boycott:
· Czech President Vaclav Klaus
· Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves
· Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk
The moral “goodies” eh? Possibly not, as their justifications are slightly less than honourable:
· For example Klaus lobotomises the issue, stating that his motivation is “not a threat to China”. He neglects to enlighten us on his “real” motivation, but it must be something huge if it supercedes the current crisis.
· Tusk said “my evaluation is very clear: the presence of politicians at the inauguration of the Olympics seems inappropriate”. He is careful to avoid mentioning specifics, i.e. that the reason it would be inappropriate is because politicians’ presence at an international event signals an endorsement of the event and its hosts.
Anti-boycott:
· EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana.
· As mentioned Cypriot foreign minister Markos Kyprianou believes the Olympic Games is beyond politics.
· The Danish foreign minister also called for the event to “remain clear of politics”.
· Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said “we will do everything to create the conditions to have a successful event” (just how Portugal intends to ensure this remains unclear).
· Gordon Brown said Britain would definitely not boycott any part of the Beijing games. David Miliband echoed these sentiments, stating “we are fully engaged in supporting the Olympics. We want to see it as a success and I think it is right that the prime minister represents us. We want the Olympics to be a success…and tit-for-tat tactics might mean decisive action could boomerang back on the following Olympics hosted by Britain herself”.
· German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said “a no to the Olympics in order to relieve our consciences would help neither the people in China nor the sports organisations,” No. But, given that those currently suffering are doing so precisely because they don’t consider themselves to be Chinese, Steinmeier’s analysis seems to have missed the wood for the trees.
Undecided:
· Sarkozy, faced with divisions inside the EU camp, has not ruled out a boycott but said he would ask EU leaders ahead of the games whether or not they want one. But is that not precisely the purpose of the talks currently being held in Slovenia? Sarkozy’s indecision roughly translates as “Ce n’est pas ma décision”? Not passing the buck exactly, but launching it with all the ferocity needed for a ‘PB’ distance. I am guessing such willing delegation of responsibility will not be the trend for the overall character of the forthcoming French EU Presidency, sadly.
· Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, intended to avoid the elephant in the room by sticking with universal arguments, and doubting the effectiveness of all boycotts. “I never thought that boycotts were a particularly effective instrument in foreign affairs,” he said. Does that not mean we should be looking for a better and more effective instrument?
Could this be a realisation that when it comes to the issues of genuine international concern the EU is ineffective? Dimitrij Rupel, Foreign Minister for Slovenia has publicly expressed doubt as to whether or not the EU could find a common position on a boycott.
The Olympics is an international event. It is politicised and has been so for many, many years. It provides the ultimate international stage, not just for athletes but also politicians. However, we can draw a distinction between the sport and the politics. The time for politics is now. There has been no javelin launched, sprinters ordered to their blocks, or starter pistol cocked. The pre-Olympic warm up is one of pure politics and China knew that long before they submitted their bid to host the games? They wanted an international stage and now they’ve got it. Let’s see how they perform…