In one week, the International Olympic Committee (in all its corrupt glory) will pick the host city for the 2016 Olympics. Dozens of cities entertained and considered the idea, but the decision will go to one of four cities: Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo.The selection process for Olympic host cities ranks at the top of my list of favorite things, right up there with the "In Memory" section of the Oscars and the Scripts National Spelling Bee. It is one of those things I have a compulsion to read and learn about as much as possible. From the rebirth of the modern Olympic Games, choosing the host city has involved politics, human rights, intimidation and war - all those things that make life so interesting.
Within the IOC's charter, they modestly state their purpose is in part to "promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." Anyone who has studies the history of Olympic host locations knows this total excrement. The IOC favors dictatorships - plain and simple. Compare the inefficiency and incompetence of recent games run in democracies (e.g. Atlanta 1996, Athens 2004) versus the preparations for Beijing 2008, where they were ready over one year in advance. Promoting democracy may fill the seats, but they don't get the stadium built on time.
The Olympics for a long time were a money losing event. Montreal who hosted the games in 1976 did not pay off the accumulated debts until 2006, 30 years after the closing ceramonies. Financial difficulties were minor compared to how the Olympics could be used as a political venue, peacefully in Mexico City in 1968, tragically in Munich in 1972. Since WWII, it wasn't until Los Angeles in 1984 that the games could be (A) profitable, (B) safe and (C) hosted in a democracy.
Since then, the bidding for the games has grown intense. Voting is conducted in rounds, with the city with the lowest vote total being eliminated, until a winner remains. Allegations of bribery and corruption have surfaced in recent selections (Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics). All of this is backdrop, leading up to the voting on Oct 2nd in Copenhagen where one of four cities will be chosen to be the center of the world stage for two weeks in 2016.
Not that anyone cares, but it is my opinion that there is clearly only one choice for the Olympic Games in 2016: Rio de Janeiro.
I have no counter arguments or reasons to use against the other cities. I think Chicago would be interesting, but if it was to be in the US again, I would prefer a location with more dramatic natural beauty (San Francisco, Boston, Seattle...). Spain showed the world it could throw a party in 1992 (I think it is still going on), but there are a lot of other places in Europe which haven't held the games in a long time (it has been almost 90 years since they have been in France, and it was a Frenchman who revived the games). Tokyo put on a good games in 1964, and I am sure they would again. But it is not someplace new, and it isn't long enough to make it seem like we need to go back. I base my choice of Rio on two reasons:
1. Democracy: The IOC touts the granting of the games as a coming of age for developing countries. It is a reward, they claim, for progressing to a developed, functioning democracy, which respects human rights. Recent examples cast doubt on this claim (Soviet Union 1980, South Korea 1988, China 2008. Yes South Korea. Please note, South Korea was awarded the games on Sept 30, 1981, when it was under the despotic and violent rule of Chun Doo-hwan). The only instance where it has ever been remotely true that the games are a reward for democracy is with Barcelona in 1992, who hosted the games 17 years after Franco and his dictatorship died.
Like Spain, Brazil has managed to transition itself from a government of largely cruel and incompetent military dictators into a functioning, stable democracy. It managed a peaceful transition of power in 2002, to an extremely liberal government, who nevertheless kept sound financial policies in place. In 2008, for the first time ever, it became a net creditor to other nations. Problems of poverty and crime still exist in Brazil, but the accomplishments are worth celebrating. It would be nice when the IOC says they support the harmonious development of man, that they actually mean it.
2. Location: The original Olympics started in Europe, as did the Modern Olympic games. Since they were reformed, they have not left their ancestral continent very much. The 2012 games in London will be the thirtieth games scheduled. Of those games, three have been canceled do to World Wars (Berlin 1916, Tokyo 1940, London 1944). Of the 27 remaining games, nearly 60% will have been held in Europe. North America has the next most games (six of 27), Asia has had three, and Australia has had two. Australia: Less than 0.5% of the worlds population and they have had two games.
By contrast, the games have never been held in South America or Africa (or Antarctica). Yes, Antarctica, with no indigenous population has hosted the games as many times as South America. South America, with 6% of the worlds population has yet to host a game. They have tried many times in the past, unsuccessfully. Most of their bids have not gotten them to the final round, although Buenos Aires has been a bridesmaid on a few occasions. For the 31st games, I think it is time that the fifth most populist counties in the world, and one with a stable, functioning democracy, which has shown respect for human rights, be allowed to be at the center of the world stage.
1. Democracy: The IOC touts the granting of the games as a coming of age for developing countries. It is a reward, they claim, for progressing to a developed, functioning democracy, which respects human rights. Recent examples cast doubt on this claim (Soviet Union 1980, South Korea 1988, China 2008. Yes South Korea. Please note, South Korea was awarded the games on Sept 30, 1981, when it was under the despotic and violent rule of Chun Doo-hwan). The only instance where it has ever been remotely true that the games are a reward for democracy is with Barcelona in 1992, who hosted the games 17 years after Franco and his dictatorship died.
Like Spain, Brazil has managed to transition itself from a government of largely cruel and incompetent military dictators into a functioning, stable democracy. It managed a peaceful transition of power in 2002, to an extremely liberal government, who nevertheless kept sound financial policies in place. In 2008, for the first time ever, it became a net creditor to other nations. Problems of poverty and crime still exist in Brazil, but the accomplishments are worth celebrating. It would be nice when the IOC says they support the harmonious development of man, that they actually mean it.
2. Location: The original Olympics started in Europe, as did the Modern Olympic games. Since they were reformed, they have not left their ancestral continent very much. The 2012 games in London will be the thirtieth games scheduled. Of those games, three have been canceled do to World Wars (Berlin 1916, Tokyo 1940, London 1944). Of the 27 remaining games, nearly 60% will have been held in Europe. North America has the next most games (six of 27), Asia has had three, and Australia has had two. Australia: Less than 0.5% of the worlds population and they have had two games.
By contrast, the games have never been held in South America or Africa (or Antarctica). Yes, Antarctica, with no indigenous population has hosted the games as many times as South America. South America, with 6% of the worlds population has yet to host a game. They have tried many times in the past, unsuccessfully. Most of their bids have not gotten them to the final round, although Buenos Aires has been a bridesmaid on a few occasions. For the 31st games, I think it is time that the fifth most populist counties in the world, and one with a stable, functioning democracy, which has shown respect for human rights, be allowed to be at the center of the world stage.
Good luck in Copenhagen. I wish I could vote for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment