Sport Industry Group

18 Apr 2008

The Olympic Torch Relay has become a political hot potato that no-one seems to be dealing with. Drew Barrand, head of media at the Sport Industry Group, asks who can stop it before it completely overshadows the Beijing Games itself...

When the ancient Greeks first lit the Olympic Torch all those years ago, the divine connotations of the flame symbolised a celebration of the theft of fire from the Gods - the passing of a heavenly asset to the mortal world.

Given the less than godly events of the last few weeks, it would not be a surprise if Zeus and co were busy arming their thunderbolts to snuff that pesky torch out and reclaim their rightful property.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the Torch Relay has become a political platform. It’s not like this has never happened before in Olympic history. The Relay was an integral part of the Nazi propaganda machine in the run-up to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, supposedly adding ‘mystique and myth’ to Hitler’s regime.

In essence, the Olympics is a victim of its own global appeal in that it is a ready-made platform for such remonstrations.

But the unsightly images of ‘Free Tibet’ protesters smeared in blood throwing themselves in front of Torch bearers flanked by the ominous-looking blue-clad Chinese special forces unit have wider-reaching implications than a one-off political statement from a group of protesters who, let’s face it, have more than the right to speak their mind on an issue of immense importance.

It is the potential snowball effect of these protests that will be causing the most consternation to the Beijing Games organising committee and the International Olympic Committee.

The ramifications are being widely felt – not least by the IOC whose top-tier sponsorship partners, and the source of multi-million pounds worth of investment into the Olympic movement, are growing ever more concerned.

The news this week that the annual general meeting of the Coca-Cola shareholders turned into a shouting match over the soft drinks giant’s seeming support of China’s human rights record through its Olympic ties will not be the last evidence of pressure placed on the multi-national companies in partnership with the IOC.

For sponsors the issue is as much about the perception that they stand idly by whilst anti-humanitarian atrocities are committed as anything else. Such was the impact of the events of the Coca-Cola shareholders' meeting that the corporation's chairman and chief executive Neville Isdell penned a lengthy defence of Coca-Cola's positive humanitarian activities which was published in The Financial Times newspaper.

If events continue to escalate at their current rate, it is difficult to see how the Games themselves in August will not be completely overshadowed by constant, and more than likely violent, demonstrations.

The problem now essentially lies in the lack of a viable solution to end the political chaos that has hounded the build-up to this summer’s Olympics.

Rightly or wrongly, the IOC’s decision to award the Olympics to a country with such a controversial history in human rights, whilst no doubt taken in good faith, is a choice that cannot be unmade.

Cancelling the Torch Relay all together would send out entirely the wrong message – not that the Chinese would ever contemplate such a move. Changing the route so as not to pass through Tibet is another option on the table but, whilst it may appease some demonstrators, brings with it no guarantees that the protests will stop.

There are doubtless small things that can be done to try and limit the damage. The Chinese guards that surround the Torch bearers with more than an air of physical intimidation are clearly antagonising the protesters and can surely do their job without being such a visual presence along the route. But these are small changes that may calm the storm but will certainly not abate it.

The issue of China’s human rights record is a global political problem that the IOC cannot hope to tackle on its own. The ball has started rolling and unless the governments of the world unite to mediate the problem, and quickly, the Beijing Olympics will become subject to continuing, and no doubt escalating, demonstrations.

However, the very top eschelons of political power across the globe seem unwilling to tackle the issue. Many world leaders are even cancelling their trips to the opening ceremony of the Beijing Games - our own Prime Minister Gordon Brown included - for fear of being associated with the chaos. They seem to saying that the issue is an Olympic one and therefore out of their zone of responsibility.

Hiding away is clearly not the answer. The memories of the devastation caused by the terrorist attacks on the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 are still fresh in the mind and it will be another dagger in the heart of the Olympic movement if such images are to be repeated.

Of all sporting properties, the Olympics is undoubtedly strong enough to survive any attack on its values but the IOC will not want Beijing 2008 to be remembered more for its controversy than for its power to unite the world.