THE International Olympic Committee (IOC) is quite right to veto any future international relay of the Olympic flame, after the disastrous publicity for both the Olympic movement itself and last year’s Chinese hosts of the Summer Olympics.
It was the Greeks when they hosted the 2004 Olympics, who decided that as the original home of the Games, it would be a good idea to have the Olympic flame carried from Mount Olympus where it was lit, right around the world on its way to Athens. The 48,500-mile relay, during which the torch was carried by 3,600 torchbearers took 78 days. Though there was initial excitement among the international media, coverage tailed off radically. This mammoth undertaking did not, as expected, build excitement to a crescendo when the Olympic flame finally reached Athens, which is only five hours’ drive from where the flame was first kindled.
However, following the unexpected and outstanding success of the Athens Olympics, during the IOC postmortem on the event, nobody seems to have made an issue of the worldwide relay. There was, however, concern among IOC officials when the Chinese announced that they too were going to mount a global torch relay for the 2008 Games. It was extraordinary that Beijing did not realize what a hostage to fortune this would be. It presented an outstanding opportunity for human rights protesters and supporters of a free Tibet to make their views known forcefully along a route over which the Chinese themselves had no security control. That they did the next best thing and surrounded successive torchbearers with a phalanx of mean-looking special forces soldiers, clothed incongruously in light blue track suits, turned out to be a public relations catastrophe. It was often impossible to see the torch carriers as the parade moved from country to country past bellowing demonstrators and waving placards.
By extension, the Olympic movement was caught up in the anger and the appalled general reaction to the unedifying spectacle of seeing the Chinese security men manhandle their way not just through protesters but also journalists and innocent passers-by caught up in the mayhem. The Olympics is first and foremost about sporting excellence. It is the ultimate opportunity for sportsmen and women who train assiduously for four long years, dreaming of glory in the unique arena that is the Olympics. Some of them may come from countries at political odds with other parts of the world. However, such differences should play absolutely no role in the competition itself, where athletes are judged purely on their prowess, not on where they come from. In this respect it might be even be argued that the amazing spectacle with which the Chinese opened and closed last summer’s Games was irrelevant to the Olympic spirit. Perhaps the IOC ought to be acting against such future ballyhoo and reminding host countries what the Olympics really stand for. The British hosts for 2012 will listen eagerly. Given their current financial troubles, it may be all they can do to mount a firework display at the opening ceremony.
Lifeguard or policeman?
THE Times of London yesterday commented on IMF, saying in part:
The International Monetary Fund was born in a spirit of postwar idealism in 1945. But the IMF has never won the admiration that this laudable intention might have inspired. Unwieldy, under-resourced and assailed by diverse critics, it has played little part in recent efforts to rescue the global economy from financial crisis and deep recession. The IMF managed the international monetary system by approving exchange-rate adjustments. This arrangement worked well for three decades. But it faltered as the US pursued inflationary policies. Investors lost confidence in the value of the dollar — the mainstay of the international financial order. The system of fixed exchange rates gave way to floating rates.
In the 1980s, the IMF made loans to countries while requiring changes in economic policy under so-called structural adjustment programs. The conditions attached to loans were often austere. The role of the IMF as it was first envisaged was that of the lifeguard, helping countries in economic squalls. More recently, it has been that of the policeman — and has provoked strong political criticism.
The IMF gave bad advice and imposed excessively harsh conditions on countries caught up in the Asian currency crisis of 1998. The financial maelstrom that has engulfed Iceland, Hungary and others gives an obvious role to the IMF in extending loans in the traditional way. But the IMF cannot strictly act as a lender of last resort, because — unlike a central bank — it is unable to create money. It relies on resources from its member states.
