The Tribune

IN an ideal world politics should be kept out of sport. But, in reality, that is rarely possible since at the national level, in particular, the two are inextricably linked. Examples go back to the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936 - when Hitler and his Nazi collaborators promoted an image of a new, strong and united Germany - to the horror of the 1972 Olympics in Munich when Israeli athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists or to the partial boycott of the Moscow Games in 1980 in protest against the then Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan; and, of course, sporting isolation helped to bring about an end to apartheid in South Africa in the 1990s. Now, politics have intruded again at the start of the Winter Olympics in Beijing.

The Games are underway after last week’s spectacular opening ceremony in Beijing’s Bird’s Nest stadium. But, even though they have not prevented their countries’ athletes from participating in the events of the Games, most Western leaders, including the US and UK, boycotted the opening ceremony over China’s human rights record and persecution of the Uyghur Muslims.

According to the UN, at least one million Uyghurs are being detained in the western province of Xinjiang in so-called re-education camps and are subject to torture, forced labour and sterilisation - and China’s choice of a Uyghur athlete to light the flame at the opening ceremony has been seen by many as blatant propaganda to attempt to deflect accusations of genocide. However, while Western leaders were absent, many other dignitaries - like the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Egypt as well as, most importantly, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin - attended the opening ceremony.

It comes as no surprise, of course, China denies any human rights abuses and claims its camps for Uyghurs provide vocational training and are needed to fight extremism. Meanwhile, there was reported to have been a moment of tension when Taiwan’s athletes entered the stadium as “Chinese Taipei”, given that Taiwan views itself as a self-governing nation while Beijing sees it as a breakaway province and has threatened to “reunify” it by force.

Inevitably, there have been comparisons with the good atmosphere of the Olympics in Beijing in the summer of 2008. It is generally accepted that an Olympic Games is an opportunity for a host nation to showcase its culture, define its place in the world and flaunt its best side which is, of course, something the Chinese have been intent on doing for decades as the nation gradually emerged as a global superpower.

That certainly worked in 2008 when China pulled off an immense success in using soft power to achieve a monument to national pride. Then, Western leaders attended the Games and cheered on their athletes whereas now they have spurned Beijing’s current Winter Games.

What is particularly interesting to Western observers this time around is the use of the event by China and Russia to strengthen their deepening relationship. Putin’s meeting with Xi in Beijing was apparently their first for some two years and the pair are said to be drawing closer as tensions grow with the West.

Their talks were expected to focus on coordinating their countries’ foreign policies, with Putin reported to have made the extraordinary public claim that “both play a stabilising role” in global affairs and help to make them “more equitable and inclusive”. How hollow and even mischievous that is, given the events now taking place in eastern Europe.

Both Russia and China have lambasted Western powers for supposedly meddling in their affairs - with China accusing the US of stoking protests in Hong Kong and bolstering Taiwanese independence and Russia berating the UK for destabilising Ukraine. While working together in tandem in the UN Security Council, China has made it clear it supports Russia’s stance in its dispute with the West over NATO expansion in countries on its borders.

Meanwhile, the two countries last year renewed their existing 20-year co-operation treaty and are in the process of signing new trade and business deals and, crucially, have agreed to work together to offset the “negative impact of unilateral sanctions” - and that presumably means any imposed after an invasion of Ukraine.

Both Putin and Xi are, in effect, presidents-for-life. So they can plan long term with no realistic threat to their leadership. They are said to share a disdain for democracy, human rights and individual freedoms and commentators now suggest Putin’s posturing and war games in relation to Ukraine and Belarus suit Beijing as it ramps up its rhetoric about retaking Taiwan.

It is now being said China needs a successful Winter Games to show its authoritarian political system works, not least because of its perceived failings in handling the COVID-19 crisis after the virus was first detected in Wuhan. Failure to contain the pandemic has adversely affected its standing around the world which it needs to restore - and that is one reason why it wants a successful Games.

Seventy years - and counting

This past weekend marked a hugely significant milestone for the 95-year-old Queen Elizabeth II. Sunday, February 6, was the 70th anniversary - celebrated as a Platinum Jubilee - of her accession to the throne on the death of her father King George VI. He had been suffering from lung cancer and died in his sleep in the early hours of that morning in 1952. At the time, the then-Princess Elizabeth and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, were on a visit to Kenya at the start of a tour of Commonwealth countries on behalf of the ailing King.

Such was the extent of the British Empire at the time, the 25-year-old mother-of-two had suddenly become Queen of much of the planet. She has devoted her life to the task and has given tireless service during her 70 years on the throne which is the longest reign in the history of the British Monarchy. Since 1952, every single world leader has changed except for The Queen and she has seen 14 British Prime Ministers come and go.

By common consent, her sense of duty, stoicism, restraint, tact and good judgment have made her one of the most popular of British sovereigns and have earned her worldwide respect. Her long reign has helped to maintain the popularity of the Monarchy and ensured its survival in increasingly egalitarian times.

In her public statement on February 6, which she signed as “Your Servant”, she said her Platinum Jubilee gave her time to reflect on the goodwill shown to her by so many people over the years for which she gave thanks. She also put an end to years of uncertainty about the future role of Prince Charles’ wife, by announcing her wish that Camilla should be Queen Consort when Charles becomes King “in the fullness of time”. This is seen by many as Her Majesty’s recognition that Camilla has become indispensable to her eldest son’s wellbeing and happiness. It is considered to be the ultimate stamp of approval that Charles has always craved. The Queen’s statement also seems to put paid to any suggestion she plans to abdicate.

Commentators in the UK press are already saying that this action by The Queen has ensured the transition to her son - when it comes - will be as seamless and trouble free as possible. The events during the course of the year celebrating the Platinum Jubilee also will be an opportunity for the country to come together during continuing difficult times.

There are, of course, some people who worry about the future of the Monarchy when The Queen’s reign comes to an end. There are those who question the suitability of Charles for the role amid talk of adultery by those concerned and continuing condemnation of the way the late Princess Diana was allegedly treated. However, I found it revealing and interesting that an article in one of the UK newspapers over the weekend attracted more than 15,000 comments from the public online, most of which were in favour of the Royal Family. Most also supported The Queen’s announcement about Camilla. There are fears, however, this could still become a controversial issue since, reportedly, it had earlier been agreed that she should become Princess Consort.

No one denies the existence of anti-Royalist sentiment in Britain. But the evidence shows it remains relatively limited - and it is heartening to read that even republicans agree generally the nation is fortunate to have Her Majesty as Head of State!

A nation in distress

The international media seems to pay little attention to the ongoing crisis in the Southeast Asian state of Myanmar. But the beginning of February is a reminder of a grim anniversary there. On February 1 last year, the country’s military seized power shortly before the newly elected parliament was due to convene for the first time. The military leaders alleged voter fraud in the elections the previous November in which the party of the ever popular Aung San Suu Kyi won a landslide victory.

 In response to mass protests by pro-democracy demonstrators across the country, the military unleashed a violent and brutal crackdown that has caused more than 1,500 civilian deaths, an untold number of injuries and thousands of arrests and detentions. Thousands more have had their property destroyed and have become displaced while living in poverty and with a lack of food and medical care.

 The UN has identified more than 14 million people across the country in need of humanitarian assistance and has described the situation as an “unprecedented political, socio economic, human rights and humanitarian crisis”.

 The violent crackdown by the military has sparked powerful armed resistance among civilians and, from all reports, it seems further violence and financial hardship is inevitable across the country as the military junta struggles to maintain its grip on power.

 While activists and journalists now living abroad are telling the world what is happening at home, there are renewed calls for the international community to take action against the Myanmar military and to investigate the extreme brutality and atrocities committed against its own people. The UN has called for an immediate cessation of violence but there are accusations the “world is just sitting and watching” while the horrors continue.

 There is no space today to examine this in any detail. But as other international crises develop in an unstable world – not least, of course, the stand-off over Ukraine – some commentators are reflecting on the fragility of peace and order around the globe, with individual freedoms and human rights under constant and growing attack from authoritarianism. In the face of this, many urge that there is an overwhelming need to defend everywhere in the world the values of freedom and democracy under the rule of law – and be grateful for the way of life that these ensure.