Doubts over the upcoming Rio Olympics

Hubert Cruz

The International Olympic Committee met on Wednesday (2 March) to discuss a series of concerns over the Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that are scheduled to take place this August. The ongoing Zika virus outbreak featured on the agenda. It is estimated that up to 1.5 million people in Brazil have contracted the mosquito-borne virus, which is widely believed to cause brain abnormalities in babies, and health experts fear the surge of tourists during the Olympics would propel the spread.

The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention of the US has already taken an unprecedented step to advise pregnant women not to attend the Rio Olympics. This has led to worries that anxieties over the virus would worsen the Games’ dormant ticket sales. Only 47% of the 7.5 million tickets have been sold so far, but the organising committee is confident that there would be a late surge in ticket sales, especially in the domestic market across cities of Brazil.

However, as Brazil faces its worst recession since the 1930s, the organising committee has made substantial reductions to the Games budget in order to save $500 million. There have also been delays in construction projects, including a subway line that connects the Olympic Park with other parts of the city. Faced with a multitude of concerns, the President of the organising committee, Carlos Nuzman, dismissed the impact of budget cuts and delays, and promised that the Games would be “absolutely fantastic”.

Are you concerned by the problems surrounding the Rio Olympics? Do you think these problems would be resolved in time for the start of the Games? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. Check out the articles below to find out more about the issue:

Boston Globe – Less than half the tickets for Rio Olympics have been sold

The New York Times – As Olympics Near and Zika Spreads, No Talk of a Plan B

The Guardian – Rio 2016 president plays down Olympic Games fears

Obama’s bid to close Guantanamo

Hubert Cruz

On Tuesday (23 February), President Obama announced a plan to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, and urged Congress to support his proposal. Guantanamo was opened by the Bush administration in 2002 to detain foreign terror suspects, and has held 780 suspected militants to date. The facility has been criticised for violating the rights of detainees since most of them have been held without charges, and there were also reports of torture and abuse in the compound.

President Obama assumed office in 2009 with a major pledge to close Guantanamo. However, he has only made incremental progress since then by relocating prisoners that were considered to be minimal security risks overseas. Currently there are still 91 prisoners in Guantanamo. Under the plan presented to Congress, 35 of them would be transferred to other countries, while the remaining would be held in facilities on US soil with some potentially facing trial.

The President appealed to the Republican-controlled Congress by citing up to $180m in military expenditure could be saved if Guantanamo is closed. He also argues keeping Guantanamo open to be inconsistent with US values, and hurts the country’s reputation and partnerships in the world. Nevertheless, prominent Republicans in Congress have already raised objections to hosting terror suspects on the US mainland. The President has not stated whether he would unilaterally pursue executive action if Congress blocks his plan.

Do you think the US government should close Guantanamo? Is President Obama’s plan feasible? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. Below are a few pieces of articles for you to find out more about the issue:

The New York Times – Obama Sends Plan to Close Guantánamo to Congress

The Guardian – ‘No one but himself to blame’: how Obama's Guantánamo plans fell through

Vox – The fatal flaw in Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay

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