Jump to content

politician

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About politician

  • Rank
    Bronze
  • Birthday 10/11/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indiana
  • Interests
    Politics, Music
  1. I don't believe I ever used the term 'racist' (in fact, I know I wouldn't, because it's a ridiculous term - racism is embedded in anti-ethnic sentiments that come out of British anthropology, nothing more). Asia, having over 66% of the world's population should have hosted at least, say, 40% of games by now - but they've had, what, 3 total? The IOC has long been Euro-centric which was fine until decolonization, but it the games are to survive as an institution with world-renown then they better start recognizing most of Asia, all of Latin America and all of Sub-Saharan Africa as part of the world. You may think Oslo will win, perhaps it can, but the recent developments in domestic politics suggest otherwise (and anyone trained in political science would agree with me). Oslo is out. It's down to Krakow, Beijing and Almaty. What bother's me is the xenophobia I see here - the idea that if it isn't European, it is evil and must be resisted. Krakow would be nice, I admit, but the bid has too many issues this time around. Beijing and Almaty are the only two bidding cities with the capacity to pull off the games - Beijing does NOT want it (and I'd hope any expert in Chinese politics here would chime in at this point, because to those of us who do study China it is absurd to think that they want the 2022 Olympics). Almaty and Krakow are it. The IOC could choose Poland and deal with issues it doesn't want to deal with (namely a politically/economically unstable state and a games that would take place in two states) OR they can choose Almaty (a gorgeous city in a state never hosting before, but in a city that is IDEAL for the winter games). Almaty has the most compact, realistic, easily-achieved games in recent history; they are a winter-nation and they are becoming a major world power (geopolitically). Honestly, the IOC would be stupid NOT to give the games to Almaty (and anyone who thinks that the IOC is apolitical should just stop posting). Almaty has this; perhaps not ideal, but highly capable, part of the desire to bring attention to the fact that Kazakhstan is about to replace Saudi Arabia as the world's greatest energy source, yet, regardless, very capable of hosting a great games for relatively low cost. The only racism... or more accurately, ethno-cultural centrism, I see is from those supporting typical European venues (Europe should NOT be allowed to host for at least 3 or 4 more cycles). Almaty is next to Oslo in capability. Period.
  2. I remain totally incredulous at either the (a) rampant pro-western and generally xenophobic reactions here; ( the complete ignorance of politics (esp. geopolitical) concerns; © the committment to the Olympic cause and (d) the inability to grasp that other parts of the world aside from Europe and the Anglophone states actually deserve to hold the games from time to time. Africa has never even hosted, though that is not a concern here. Asia has more than 60% of the world's population, but has hosted far fewer times than Europe/US. Asia, as an idea, is very different from Asia as a geographical construct. Asia PROPER includes all of the Middle Ease, the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia, SEAsia, East Asia, NEast Asia... a region so diverse that it is literally more diverse than the rest of the world combined. Thus, arguments against '3 Asian Games' are, at best, geographically ignorant and, at worst, racist and xenophobic. China won't, nor does it intend to, win the 2022 games - this is a 'dry run' to prep China for much more serious future bids. Oslo isn't going to make it; the gov't itself is ready to shut it down. If that happens, Krakow is the last 'traditional' city in waiting but (a) the Polish are less gung-ho about the Olympics than imagined; ( the IOC doesn't prohibit, but certainly counts against, multi-state bids and © Poland is still recovering from 2008 with strong, political strings attached due to being an EU member. With Oslo basically over, Stockholm long-over and Lviv seeking to hold the first games in a war zone... Beijing and Almaty are our finalists. I've already said - and strongly believe - China has no intention of winning (I'd go so far as to say they'd be upset). Leaving... Almaty. Why the hate? Almaty has the cheapest bid, it is the most prepared, it is a GORGEOUS locale, it is borderline-developed, it has the most consolidated Olympics in many years, it... well, honestly, if I didn't know about our planet's politics I'd say Almaty was the obvious choice. Of course, there is fear that this will help legitimize Nazarbayev's authoritarianism and perhaps it will but that has never been an IOC concern. Kazakhstan has been the single most successful former-SSR (INCLUDING Russia) in terms of economics; it is ready to host, fully capable and willing. Is it out of the way? Define 'out of the way' - the US is more distant for people from Asia (60% of the world's population) than other potential hosts. In fact, Almaty is highly centralized so it will be easiest, on average, for people to make it there than anywhere else. The only anti-Almaty sentiment I've seen here is based in a disgusting European-xenophobia. Almaty will win.
  3. I agree in regards to the problems with the IOC - the membership determinants are awful, unfair, unrepresentative and help politicize what is already the most political sporting event in the world. But the fact remains that the make-up of the 115 IOC voters is a mishmash of national identities, with individuals chosen by varying metrics - some are simply former medal winners or notable figures within sport - and particularly Olympic - history, but most are politicians of several different types -- some due to their nobility (princes and princesses from Europe's Constitutional Monarchies, sheikhs from Middle Eastern states, etc); some are sport-politicians (i.e. have partisan affiliations and are appointed or elected to a governmental office dealing with sports - whether as part/head of an agency or entire ministry or simply as an individual 'goodwill ambassador' type of position), some are simply politicians without qualification. The turnover is rather high, with 27 new members - and therefore losses of 27 different members - appointed over the past 4 years. Yet, some serve on the IOC for decades (the longest serving member is a Russian who has been on the IOC since 1971). In terms of nationality, the roughly 40% of members appointed before the late '90s are interesting, and quite different from the nationalities of those appointed since 2001. For these longer-serving IOC members, European nationalities are over-represented (both relative to later appointments and relative to their percentage of the population). Traditional powers of the 1970s - 1990s are represented: The US and Russia each have 4 members (some are newly appointed but the equal number of voters isn't accidental. Thailand has a vote, granted in 1990 at a time when the country was getting ready to begin a more democratic era and one of 9 developing countries never to have been colonized. Greece has a vote, of course. A smattering of the remnants of the European Aristocracy is represented by princes and princesses whose sole power these days is to vote on the IOC. Both Taiwan and Puerto Rico have had the same representative since the late '80's/1990. Many of the other longer-serving members come from traditional European powers (and not just sport powers). Pakistan, India, South Africa, Mexico all have someone representing their nationality - two nuclear powers, the most powerful state in Africa (and, interestingly, the only country known to have developed nuclear weapons, successfully tested them then give them up) and the strongest state between the US and South America (and former host country). Looking at more recent additions, the number of Europeans has gone down some as a percentage, but the developed countries as a whole are well represented. Several Arab states have at least one vote, including sheikhs from Kuwait and Qatar and a Princess from Saudi Arabia. Recently, appointees have increasingly come from African countries such as Djibouti, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Gambia, Namibia, Kenya, Cote d'Ivoire. Brazil has a presence, and Latin America has a few nationalities represented with voters from Colombia, Panama, Argentina. The Carribbean has some votes too - Saint Lucia and Arbua, for example. China has several votes and Southeast Asia has become very well represented with voters from Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines (and Thailand as mentioned). India is represented, of course, as is Pakistan and - a bit more surprisingly - North Korea. Kazakhstan, too. But it's clear that many of the new members are from a more diverse set of countries and are serving in semi-official or official capacities on behalf of their country. It boils down to the decisions of these individuals; a group of individuals that is increasingly global in composition (I can understand questions about how many votes Africa should have in regards to the Winter Olympics, but I understand why the votes are distributed in the fashion they are). Since 2001 (?) the IOC has picked China, South Korea and Japan - all three have IOC members and SE Asian and India voters likely contributed to these choices. Russia received the games in a ridiculous location. Rio also picked up the games, despite South and Central America being what appears to be the most underrepresented set of countries. And yes, North America and Europe each got the Games once. But what the trend in appointtees to the IOC tells me is that an increasing number of people from former colonies and/or from Asia are now voting and the games have been given to Asian and developing countries. It rotates, but they seem interested in sending the games to places that are not Europe (or US/Canada/Australia). This same phenomena has been seen in voting patterns in other international institutions so there is reason to believe that their is a correlation, it does influence the outcome and the current makeup of the IOC has changed by 27 votes in 4 years with developing countries in Africa and Asia receiving many of these votes. Putin wanted these Olympics, in part, to show that Russia was still a power - that it was separate from the West and capable of managing its own affairs, that it had real influence. He has used the games to help push his domestic and international agendas. While we decry this in the west, Putin remains a popular figure throughout Russia and in many parts of the world. Many African states and Middle Eastern states have strong ties with Russia and now we have Sochi. Many have strong ties to China - and China became the 1st developing country to host (following the end of the Cold War at least). The choice of these countries isn't accidental - there isn't a magical 'right' country. The choice of host city is political. The IOC members do look seriously at the bids, I'm sure. But by the time these cities are short-listed it is because they are believed to be capable of hosting safe and entertaining games so the decision between them rides on other concerns. Anyways, I rant too long. I see a trend, I believe the trend has many implications and I believe the institutions through which those trends will be filtered can help draw tentative conclusions regarding what could happen and what is likely to happen. I'm not convinced - at all - that Almaty will win. I am convinced that Almaty will be a much stronger contender than most in western countries believe at the moment.
  4. Forgot to address you criticism regarding my considering Beijing and Lviv to be out of the running. Lviv is obvious, as you acknowledge. Beijing, as I see it, is applying to because China expects to win (in fact, if China really wanted to win 2022 it's unlikely Beijing would have been their choice). As a rising superpower, China is regularly showing its face, exercising its influence, in virtually all international bodies and forums. By bidding for a winter olympics they are forcing the world to acknowledge their capacity to host winter and summer games. They keep attention on themselves and can use this as a springboard for a more serious bid later on. Beijing hosted the games in 2008 - I doubt that the same city will be given the games twice in 14 years. The Chinese government is well aware of this - and their well aware that the Winter Games prior to 2022 are in Pyeongchang, South Korea which is essentially a neighbor of China's while the summer games of 2020 are in Japan, which is also essentially China's neighbor. People get upset about the same continent getting two games in a row - if Beijing wins 2022 then not only will Asia have had 3 games in a row (which I don't see as an issue - Asia is enormous and holds more than half of the planet's population; different regions of Asia can and should be treated as 'continents' in the sense that the Games shouldn't be in the same region repeatedly). China, Korea and Japan are East Asia - they share similar cultural heritages and traditions (yes, I'm aware of the enormous differences between them, but those differences are not significant relative to the difference between the countries of East Asia and, say, South Asia, or Central Asia, or the Middle East, etc.). China is not going to have its capital be the first city to host both the Winter and Summer games, the Chinese capital is not going to receive the games twice in 14 years. And despite the success of the 2008 Olympics, there were nasty controversies, Beijing has seen pollution rates increase substantially since then, etc. China simply isn't a potential choice though they'll be short-listed. Unless the games are going to go South Korea -> Japan -> China and the IOC members really want Beijing to be the first host of both games it's hard to see Beijing succeeding. I doubt they have any intention of succeeding, any belief they can. They want to keep their name in the running generally, to make a more serious bid later more likely to succeed. They also could very well want to use this for political purposes - China will get votes. If it loses in the first round (as I believe it will) then what happens to Beijing supporters? Are they more likely to switch to Oslo, Krakow? Or will most go to Almaty, another Asian (but not East Asian) city where China has enormous political interests and which is in a developing country that would, at that point, be the only non-European choice - if you look at who is on the IOC, look at the countries they represent and it should be clear that many are going to have an interest, a preference, to vote for the non-European candidate. If I am correct - and again, I acknowledge that this isn't an exact science, that the evidence can be interpreted and analyzed in many ways, and that nothing is guaranteed - but if I right and China goes down in round one you end up with 2 European countries and 1 non-European country; 2 developed countries, 1 developing; 2 Western countries, 1 non-Western; 2 countries which are not significant geopolitical actors - particularly for the IOC members from countries outside of Europe - and 1 that is set to become one of the great energy superpowers. Such a situation would benefit Almaty (if Beijing does survive round 1, then all bets are off). If Beijing drops first, those looking for the games to be in Europe will have two choices while those (and this of course is a simplification of interests) looking for a country outside of Europe to host will have one choice. Thus, to the extent that there is a 'pro-Europe' bloc the votes coming from it are likely to be split between Oslo and Krakow and lead to one of them (Krakow, more likely) being knocked out of the running.
  5. A secret ballot doesn't negate political influences and voting blocs, not even an argument with having. IOC members come from countries all over the world and most enjoy positions of power within their governments, or at least influence within their societies. These members, as politicians, entrepreneus, etc. have an interest in who does and does not receive the games and the fact that their ballots are secret doesn't mean that those interests suddenly change. While there are certainly cases in which a particular voter may vote for a particular host due to reasons unrelated to the position likely to be most popular within their government, many will. Furthermore, you keep talking about the IOC as if it was a monolithic, unitary actor with a singular interest which is more than a bit problematic. It is the interests of its voting members in the aggregate that determine outcome. If Voter X supports Krakow in round 1 and Krakow loses in round 1, you're argument would suggest we know nothing about how Voter X will vote in round 2 - that one vote isn't tied to the next. However, I'd argue Voter X would likely vote for Oslo in round 2. Now, to make this more clear - and show that there is definitely a connection between votes and voter preference - take a look at the number of votes given to each candidate in a multi-round vote for a host city - look at 2020, 2018, 2016 - doesn't matter. Now, if the argument that there are not voting blocs or shared preferences or linkages between the strength of one's preference for one potential host and another was correct, then after one country loses in the first round we'd expect the votes that did go to the losing country would be randomly - essentially equally - distributed across the remaining contenders. However, that isn't what we see. Take, for example, the votes for 2016. The United States lost in the first round, receiving only 18 votes. In the second round of voting Japan lost 2 votes and Spain gained 1 vote. Brazil gained 20 votes. Thus, it appears that virtually everyone who had voted for the US voted for Brazil when the US lost. Japan was knocked out of the running after round 2, leaving Brazil and Spain. Japan had received 20 votes in the second round - Brazil picked up 20 votes in the final round. Clearly, votes were not random, there are strong correlations between support for a particular bid and the preference-ordering you hold regarding competing bids. You can walk through this same logic with any recent bid. You can also read up on the biographies of IOC members and find out just how politically-minded some of these individuals are. 27 of the 115 voters joined the IOC in 2010 or later. Indeed, there is a rather high turnover rate for voting IOC members. Thus, the decisions made by the IOC members at a given time is not a strong indicator of how the IOC will vote at a future date - the degree to which membership on the IOC changes between Vote A and Vote B is important as it tells us that X% of voters are different - with different motivations, interests, political alliances, etc - between the two choices. The IOC that completely Vote A is not the same IOC that did Vote B.
  6. That's fair, World Bank classifications do place Kazakhstan as an Upper-Middle Income country while Poland and Norway are indeed both Upper-Income. However, Norway is 'much more upper-income' than Poland. The gdp per capita (PPP) b/w Poland and Kazakhstan is about 5000 USD; between Norway and Poland is about 35000 USD. In other words, the GDP per Capita (PPP) of Norway is more than the GDP per capita PPP of Poland and Kazakhstan combined. Kazakhstan is close to being classified as an Upper-Income country (at the very low end). I suppose it would have made more sense for me to say an Extremely Rich European Democracy that is not in the EU; a much less wealthy - but still well-off - European democracy in the EU and a less wealthy - but still well-off - Central Asian Autocracy with more natural resources than they know what to do with.
  7. Never said it was a clash of civilization and I'm not sure why you feel the need to inform me I'm not Huntington - I'm pretty sure that's obvious seeing as he's been dead for 6 years. No need to try and be insulting. As for IOC voting, I simply disagree. If you look at the list of IOC voting members you'll see that not only are a majority now from developing/non-European countries. You'll also notice that many of them are politicians who hold positions of power in the country they are from. In such cases, voting is inherently political - IOC members are not IOC members alone, they are also representatives of their countries and - in most cases - the governments of their countries. While this varies from individual to individual, most are political office holders whose position in their home-state will have tremendous influence on their votes. Given that many of the cries for more inclusive games and for hosting the games outside of Europe are coming from athletes and political leaders in the developing world, not much of a stretch to see many of these people voting in ways that generally follow the interest of their state.
  8. Without arguing about semantics regarding affirmative action, I will say that I am very much in favor of the Olympics continuing to become more inclusive. They are the largest international sporting event, the largest global gathering of people for 'friendly competition' and they should be treated as such. They should not be games run by and given to rich, developed countries and no others. As more countries and cities grow economically - and the developing world is growing at a speed far greater than the developed world which is a trend that won't stop for a very long time - more cities will become legitimately viable hosts. And don't rely on straw men to justify your disagreement. The argument I made was that, so long as there are viable cities and countries which want to host the games and have the capacity to do so, I don't understand why countries - and especially cities - that have already hosted the games should receive them again. Now, a permanent ban - a one-time host policy - is probably too far. But I could see a rule that, say, host cities can't bid again until 50 years after they've hosted while host countries can't bid again for 25 or 30 years. The fact is that the games continually go to a small number of rich, mostly Western, mostly European countries despite the fact that half the world's population is in Asia and about 90% of the world's population lives in the developing, non-Western World. Finally, and here is where I take the most issue with what you said, you suggest that only a handful of cities and countries can host the games. You also seem to assume - and I could be wrong - that this isn't changing anytime soon, that the same cities and countries that were viable two decades ago will be the same that are viable two decades from now with few additions to the roster. The next choice for a host city will be made next year and will determine the 2022 Winter Host. Three countries that have never hosted are among the 5 bidding. All three were viable options until Ukrainian politics boiled over into mass protests that threaten the very existence of the country's current regime. Poland and Kazakhstan are both fully capable of hosting and both are countries that have never held the games (throw in Slovakia, too, as it is part of the Krakow bid and also is a country capable of hosting the games but which has yet to do so). Thus, even with the Winter Games - for which there are far fewer viable host cities - there are many cities bidding that - if chosen - would become the first city in their country to host. When it comes to the Summer Games, the number of cities capable of hosting is much higher and the list won't remain static. Many cities in developing countries are growing rapidly and well - they may not be prepared to host the games if awarded them today and given 7 years to put them together, but the next open bid is for the 2024 Olympics - cities bidding for those games have 10 years to get ready. Since hosts are chosen 7 years before they actually host, one has to consider how ready a city is likely to be when bids are being made and when the host for a particular bid would actually hold the games. If we want to predict, say, the next 3 unannounced Summer Hosts we're looking at 2024, 2028 and 2032 - the last of which is almost 20 years from now. At the rate countries and cities are growing these days, it's silly to assume that cities currently seen as unviable will remain so that long. So, below is just a quick list of cities I believe are currently capable of making a serious bid and which are in countries that have never hosted the games. Below that list is a longer list of cities that I believe would be able to host the Olympics by 2032/2036 (so, in roughly 2 decades) from countries that've never hosted. For arguments sake, I'm just identifying 1 potential host city per country. Likely could host now & from countries never to have hosted the Olympics: Singapore Shanghai, China Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Taipei, Taiwan (although this is unlikely given Taiwanese-Chinese relations) Buenos Aires, Argentina Istanbul, Turkey, Prague, Czech Republic Copenhagen, Denmark Dublin, Ireland Montevideo, Uruguay Lisbon, Portugal Zagreb, Croatia Auckland, New Zealand Bucharest, Romania Almaty, Kazakhstan Krakow, Poland Doha, Qatar Dubai, UAE Casablanca, Morocco Lima, Peru Budapest, Hungary Riga, Latvia Belgrade, Serbia Ljubljana, Slovenia Likely could host by 2040: Bangkok, Thailand Santiago, Chile San Jose, Costa Rica Panama City, Panama Jakarta, Indonesia Mumbai, India Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam Durban, South Africa Tangier, Morocco Kiev, Ukraine Libreville, Gabon Gaborone, Botswana Tunis, Tunisia Manila, Philippines Guatemala City, Guatemala Guayaquil, Ecuador Baku, Azerbaijan Colombo, Sri Lanka Muscat, Oman Accra, Ghana San Salvador, El Salvador Now, not all of those cities may sound appealing to you - but I assure you that the citizens of those cities and countries would be very happy to receive the games and all of these cities have rich cultures, histories, landmarks and other notable features making them particularly interesting world destinations. These cities are all well integrated into the global economy and most have extensive transportation and communication infrastructure, with many having decent sports complexes. Moreover, the cities/countries on list 1 are stable enough and have the funds and rule-of-law to implement the games while those on list 2 could possibly pull it off today, but are more likely to be considered good candidates in a decade or two after. Should we really let the US have their 8th Olympics when none of these countries have ever hosted? Should Canada host for their 4th time? France for its 5th time? Japan will host it's 4th games in 2020. Maybe Italy deserves its 4th? Seriously?
  9. I just don't see a southern hemisphere country hosting the Winter Games, at least not soon. There really aren't many options for such hosts - only Argentina, Chile, Australia (Tasmania) and New Zealand have any real potential to host the Olympics in the Southern Hemisphere. Moreover, cities capable of hosting the winter games in the Southern Hemisphere are highly limited. Buenos Aires - arguably the South American city most likely to receive the games after Rio - is far too warm for the Winter Olympics (in the coldest months, the average low is still in the 40s). Santiago isn't much colder. For the Winter Games, Argentina or Chile would have to choose cities further south and there aren't really that many options. The options that do exist are pretty isolated and small. Moreover, doesn't it seem far more likely that if/when Buenos Aires (or Argentina generally) or Santiago (or Chile generally) do make a bid, they will do so for the summer games rather than the winter games. Argentina would be foolish to choose a city other than Buenos Aires for a bid and Buenos Aires is a summer-time city - same can be said for Chile and Santiago. I suppose a city like San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, could bid but I just don't see why Argentina would make a serious bid for the Winter Olympics - which it is very unlikely to get and which it would have to host in a remote and lesser known city like Bariloche - when it could make a serious bid for the Summer Games to be held in Buenos Aires which is a world-class city that is capable of hosting the games. Hobart, Australia could conceivably host the Winter Games - but Hobart would be the most remote locale ever chosen and isn't anywhere near prepared enough to make a reasonable bid - it may be a wealthy city in a wealthy country, but it is small and located far from... everything. The infrastructure there, due to the location, is nowhere near what would be required AND Tasmanians have a notable distaste for things seen to have a negative environmental-impact. New Zealand, honestly, is the only country in the Southern Hemisphere that I could see making a realistic bid for the Winter Games and only with Christchurch as both Auckland and Wellington are too warm.
  10. I don't know why you'd think that the IOC will 'always have more' European members than members from other continents and that more European athletes will alway always been invited than those from other continents - even for the Winter Games. In fact, I find those statements to be so clearly misguided as to be humorous! Of the 7 Games between 2008 and 2020, only 2 games have been/will be hosted in 'Western' countries (Vancouver '10 and London '12). Only one is part of 'traditional Europe' - though Sochi is also in Europe, Russian Europe is often treated as not part of Europe proper. And 3 of the 7 game have been/will be hosted in developing countries (China, Russia and Brazil) when no developing country hosted the game before 2008. There is a clear trend: the IOC is giving the games to non-European, non-Western cities increasingly often and developing countries are now legitimately considered as potential hosts (though Sochi may make some regret the push to allow developing countries to host the games, the success of Beijing shows it isn't inherently a bad idea and while Rio faces a lot of potential problems, it is still early enough that its impossible to say it will fail). As the developing countries (which are home to the vast majority of the worlds population and which most countries are part of) continue to grow more rapidly than developed countries, and Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and other major developing powers' influence expands, more IOC members will come from non-European, non-Western sources. China, with 1.3 billion people, is already an Olympic Power as is Russia. Other developing countries are beginning to be as competitive as most developed countries. As these changes continue, it's only natural that the IOC - like other international bodies - will change in its make-up to reflect new interests and global power structures. Most people aren't European, most people don't live in the developed world. It isn't right that Europe and the Anglophone developed countries continue to dominate the IOC in perpetuity and they won't - the games are becoming increasingly international with more countries competing with more athletes each year. As the middle class grows throughout the developing world, more and more citizens of developing countries will participate in sports seriously and more states will begin putting serious resources into building up Olympic teams and preparing bids. And yes, over time, the IOC will come to better reflect the diversity of countries and peoples participating in the games. Indeed, I would be surprised if the IOC does not cease to be dominated by developed countries within 20 years.
  11. Well, seeing as Sochi itself is a summer resort town the idea of it being a host for the Winter Games was ludicrous from the beginning. I believe the IOC considered it to be the 'right time' for Russia to host the games - considering that it's only games prior to these were when Russia was part of the USSR and those games saw so many countries boycott them that they aren't worth considering as legitimate, full games. Russia, being a major power, certainly deserves an opportunity to host. Furthermore, as a country that extends well above the arctic circle and which has enormous amounts of land in cold, mountainous climates it seemed ideal for the Winter Games. Yet, rather than choosing Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Irkutsk, Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Perm, Omsk, Kazan or even dreary Vladivostok - all which are large cities with colder climates and close proximity to mountains and all of which are less likely to be threatened by insurgents from Chechnya and Dagestan - Putin put his beloved Sochi up as Russia's bid. So Sochi got it and now a country famous for being cold and it's amazing mountain ranges is hosting the Winter Olympics in the warmest area of the country, at a summer beach resort. And, of course, this has become the Putin Olympics - it wasn't Russia that became the host, it was President (formerly Primer Minister, formerly formerly President) Putin who became host. The idea of 'back to the basics' doesn't necessarily mean 'back to previous hosts' - it means getting back to a focus on sports, inclusiveness, peace, international cooperation and getting away from commercialism, ultranationalism and ultra-extravagant spending to turn summer resorts into winter hosts. Means of cutting costs have to be decided upon; but Russia's extravagance doesn't mean that all future hosts are expected to spend that much. Most bids don't propose the transformation of a city that isn't at all oriented towards winter-sports into one that is. The 2018 hosts were all cities that had much better Winter Game-climates; same with 2022.
  12. The seven year waiting period is probably about as good as they're going to get; any shorter and the number of potential bids declines sharply, any longer and the threat posed by future political/economic change grows so high that certainty in the stability of a host is reduced. I do agree, as I've said elsewhere, that we need to partially subsidize the games. Host cities/countries should foot the majority of the bill, but the IOC itself should contribute a small and predictable amount of necessary funds with all participating states contributing a small amount of finances to the games. They complain that fewer cities and countries capable of hosting are bidding, but this is not necessarily true and is largely a problem with the way the games are prepared and the way hosts are chosen. What is ironic is that we're living in a period that, despite the recent global economic crisis, is characterized be a large number of extremely fast-growing developing economies with the international system itself adjusting from a hegemonic system to a multipolar system. Developing countries have finally surpassed developed countries in accounting for a majority of global gdp and account for over 90% of global economic growth. Major emerging economies are witnessing incredible economic diversification, growth and expanding potentials. Many are consolidating democracies; others are increasingly technocratic autocracies. Regardless, the bipolar and unipolar worlds we've known since WW1 are gone; the US may be the sole 'superpower' but its influence is declining overall and China is quickly becoming a superpower in its own right. The EU, though a supranational organization rather than an actual state, has an economy larger than that of the US when taken as a whole - and the EU is moving ever closer to integrating to the point of being a federal state (the EU's survival, and the survival of the Eurozone, during the recent financial crisis seems to have solidified the EU's future as a successor state to its currently sovereign member states - the Eurozone came close to collapsing and the EU faced fragmentation and dismantlement; instead, a year later we see more countries applying and plans for expansion). India is already home to one of the largest world economies, though stagnant development and uneven policy approaches has kept India from realizing its full potential. However, as China's annual GDP growth drops from the 10%-ish level it's maintained since Deng Xiaoping to 5 - 7% while the country begins transitions from an export-only focus to increasing domestic consumption, there is more room for the much poorer - but democratic - Indian state to make up for some of this loss; cheaper labor costs in India will help make it a true superpower within a few decades (not surprising seeing that its population is set to surpass China's in size within a decade). Russia has embraced a very nationalistic worldview embodied in Putin and on full display in Sochi - it has yet to prove it's economic might in a way that proves it will be a world power during the 21st century, but the sheer amount of natural resources it is home to, the increasingly cheap and easy means of accessing them and its position between Central Asia/China/India and Europe will all help it to be a significant world power for the foreseeable future. Brazil, hosting the next Summer games as we all know, is another of the major emerging markets that many foreign policy experts believe will be among the global great powers of this century - it faces many problems, but Brazilian democracy is largely consolidated, economic growth is steady and the potential is enormous - plus, Brazil is clearly the most influential country south of the US border as it is. Corruption, income inequality, clientelistic politics, the frontier politics of the Tocantins and Amazon all must be surmounted and this will take time, decades, but Brazil will stand as a great power soon. South Africa is positioned to become the Brazil of Africa - though it likely won't ever reach the economic heights of Brazil, China or Russia due to its smaller population and relative lack of resources. However, as Africa's most influential, economically powerful and militarily advanced state it is in a prime position to capitalize the most on the extraordinary growth characterizing the coastal states of Africa (the interior of Africa seems to be turning into a single region characterized by failed states, warlords, militias, terrorists and criminal organizations). The Chinese, in particular, are investing billions in Africa's coastal states and all (rail) roads lead to Cape Town. South Africa, at the tip of the continent, is in a prime geographic location to serve as the primary financial and trade hub for all of the southern cone's coastal states and Chinese infrastructure projects should link over ten states to the great cities of South Africa within a decade or so. Central Asia is becoming increasingly influential, though the US is ignoring its rise and Europe seems to only partially recognize its signficance. Outside of Russia, Kazakhstan has more natural resources of value than any country on Earth - the sheer number and variety of resources is unbelievable and it will be increasingly attractive as other sources of these resources dwindle, especially given that Kazakhstan hasn't tapped these resources to a large extent (but it has tapped it enough to witness a 1200 - 1400% growth in GDP since the USSR collapsed. The other large Central Asian states, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, also both have large reserves of natural resources - particularly gas and oil. Turkmenistan may have the world's largest untapped gas fields; Uzbekistan has less oil and gas than Kazkahstan or Turkmenistan but it still has significant quantities of both. Unfortunately, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are led by particularly cruel, uncaring authoritarian regimes that place little interest in improving the well-being of their citizens (while Kazakhstan is also authoritarian, its goverment has pursued consistent and effective development policies that have actually been aimed, in large part, at improving the well-being of Kazakhstanis - these countries offer a nice contrast between authoritarian regimes that can be 'instrumentally good' for promoting development relative to democracies at the same level of development because those leading the state do have an interest in improving the lives of their people (China would be another example of such a state) compared to those that don't give a damn (as the Uzbekistani and Turkmenistani governments clearly don't). Kyrgyzstan is the most democratic, but very poor - once called the Switzerland of the Altai, it's poverty will keep Bishkek from making a serious bid for the games anytime soon. However, more attention to the region, close relations with Kazakhstan and the inevitable influx of massive amounts of capital into the region as China, India, Russia and the EU increasingly demand energy from the region while oil loses value and the Middle East begins decline. Point is, this is an ignored region in the West but will be the most important 'energy power' region on Earth within a couple decades. Southeast Asia is experiencing rapid growth too; South Korea is getting ready to host it's second games and its first as a truly, fully developed state (though in 1988 it was very close to developed status); Japan regularly switches places with Germany for 3rd largest global economy and China has the world's largest population and second largest economy - these countries, making up East Asia, have stolen attention from the Southeast for some time but the continued, particularly strong and steady growth of SEAsian economies is going to make more countries and cities in that region global powers with realistic potential to host succesful games. Singapore and Malaysia (Kualu Lumpur) are already capable of hosting; Brunei is as well though it wouldn't be chosen for a multitude of reasons, at least not anytime soon. Taiwan could host as well, but I don't see that happening until it reconciles with the mainland. If Thailand survives the current political turmoil, Bangkok will be a viable host city within 2 decades as will Chiang Mai. Jakarta will be viable before 2050; Manila may reach the required level of capacity by then as well. If Burma proves to be serious about democratization, Yangon and Mandalay could conceivably be serious bidders by 2060. India, already discussed above, will take time before it can make a serious bid but by 2050 it will likely have several cities capable of hosting - and denying it the games will be hard to do as it will have long-since surpassed China as the world's most populous country and democracy - Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bangalore adn Delhi could all be potential hosts within a few decades. In the Middle East Doha will continue to be a viable contender (I don't think the IOC's 'summer games must be held during the months of the year that are considered summer north of the tropics' rule/argument will last much longer - it eliminates too many potential hosts and it clearly is discriminatory in it's treatment of seasons north of the tropics as being the proper ones to use for timing the games, while ignoring the seasons south of the tropics). Abu Dhabi and Dubai are also almost certain to make bids soon - both are more than capable of hosting the games (although recent attention to Qatar/Doha's use of slave labor in its preparation for the World Cup will make Doha's future bids less enticing - for a time - and also have implications for these two great cities of the UAE). Istanbul is a probable future host - indeed, one I think we can expect for 2024 or 2028. If Iran continues the reform process it has suggested its beginning, within a couple decades Tehran could bid as well. North Africa is more troubled; Egypt would have seemed the best option but the revolution and subsequent instability has undermined any potential of an Egyptian games for the next several rounds. Libya clearly can't host. Algeria can't either; Algiers may be decently run and have a sizable middle-class but it simply isn't a major world city like the others I've mentioned. Tunisia... well, Tunis could be a potential host in, say, the 2030s. The fact that Tunisia is the only Arab state to be impacted by the Arab Spring AND actually have a successful democratic revolution will make it a tantalizing choice once the state proves democracy will be maintained and can diversify the economy. Morrocco is the only other North African state likely to be capable of hosting anytime soon - indeed, the most likely as it has 4 cities that could conceivably host (Casablanca, Marakkech, Rabat and Tangiers). In sub-saharan Africa, I don't think any state/city has a chance anytime soon with the exception of South Africa. Kenya and Ethiopia have shown interest (and I believe Kenya has bid in the past) but neither are anywhere near close enough to being capable of hosting the games, though Nairobi and Addis Ababa could conceivably be ready by 2060 or so. Otherwise, not sure of any other viable cities outside South Africa. Nigeria - the continent's most populous country - is a mess and neither Lagos nor Abuja could host the games in the foreseeable future. Accra or Libreville in Gabon could potentially host in the latter half of the century, I suppose, while Kigali, Rwanda; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Gaborone, Botswana could also be potential bidders within 50 years. Africa, though, is still the continent home to the fewest realistic hosts for the next few bids. I do think South Africa will receive the summer games in 2024 or 2028 however (not sure Durban gets it; Cape Town, Pretoria and Johannesburg are all viable options). Otherwise, only Morocco and Tunisia seem to have any potential before, say 2040. The Americas have many cities that are likely to be capable of making serious bids and hosting the games within the next couple decades. Rio de Janeiro was probably the best choice for the region's first Games, though Rio will have some rough times that may scare the IOC from South America for a few rounds unless it pulls off the Games better than many are expecting. Rio certainly is among the most beautiful cities to ever bid and, simply in terms of scenery and culture, it is a brilliant choice. Sadly, Brazilian politics are rife with corruption and the country has among the worst income inequality in the world with massive slums (favelas) surrounding Rio and Sao Paulo and tremendously powerful organized criminal networks. In some respects, Buenos Aires, Argentina or Santiago, Chile would have been safer choices for South America's first Games but the attraction of Rio - it's particular fame, beauty and international reputation as summer party paradise made likely ensured it would precede games in Argentina or Chile. Sao Paulo and Manaus, Brazil are also cities with the potential to host successful games in the future. Outside of these three states, I'm less sure of the rest of Latin America's states/cities to bid successfully prior to, say, 2040. Montevideo, Uruguay likely could make a serious bid now - I doubt that any South American cities aside from it, Santiago, Buenos Aires and several Brazilian cities could make a successful bid now (i.e. only these could be ready to host if they bid - and won - the 2024 games). Cusco, Peru would be a nice host if it weren't more than 11,000 feet above sea level which will ensure it never hosts the games (a plight that will prohibit Ecuador from ever hosting either, as Quito is over 9000 feet above sea level). Ascuncion, Paraguay could make a realistic bid someday soon, too, but it's hard to see Paraguay receiving the games before Chile, Argentina or Uruguay. In Central America and the Carribbean there are fewer obvious future bidders. Panama City (Panama, not Florida) is currently capable of making a realistic bid. Guatemala City, San Salvador, San Jose and possibly Managua could make legitimate bids within a decade or two as well. Overall, the point of all this is to say that there are many cities that will be viable hosts in a relatively short time and many who haven't made (serious) bids yet, but which are coming to a point where they will be able to. If the IOC does more to help contribute to future games, by taking on a small portion of the costs and supplying more technical and logistical support, the speed at which these cities move from future possibilities to realistic choices will increase. I am a strong believer in bringing the games to new countries and new cities. This isn't particularly easy for the Winter Games due to the limited number of countries with viable climates and winter-sport cultures (one reason why I've come across as an advocate for Almaty 2022) but it is for the summer games. I see no reason why any city that has hosted the games before should get to host again as long as there are viable alternatives and I believe that countries which have hosted in the past should be majorly disadvantaged in bids for future games so long as options exist in places that never have held the games. As the global economy continues to grow and as the developing countries continue to grow at a speed far greater than that of developed countries, many more cities and states will become legitimate options for hosting the games. Already, I believe there are more options than are often believed. Within 2 decades, those options will grow substantially and if the IOC found a better means of providing assistance to host cities then more cities could realistically bid now.
  13. The marriage of the games and capitalism is troublesome to me. There is certainly a need and place for private sponsorship to help fund the games and their presentation to the global masses, however I fear 'selling out' the games with too much overreliance on private sponsors and the host state. The Olympics have a lofty mission and are, themselves, a 'trusted brand' globally but we risk turning them into nothing more than a major commercial venture with the level of advertising that has come to affiliate with them. I'd like to see a reduction in the amount of private-sector, corporate sponsorship for the games and for individual teams. It really doesn't even fit with the principles behind the games; it's getting to a point where the amount of money a particular team is able to attract from private sector actors is a major means of ensuring a larger number of representatives for your country and better funds to prepare individual members to compete; over time I'd think this creates a viscious cycle in which wealthier states that are able to attract major sponsors receive more funding allowing them to invest more in each individual, expand their team and be competitive in more events while those who do poorly are less likely to attract future sponsors which undermines their ability to invest adequate amounts of funds into individuals, team expansion, improvement of training, etc. Commercialism helps reinforce the inequality resulting from different national contexts, disproportionately helping those who need the least help. I'd honestly like to see the Olympics involve some multilateral funding. This would also help expand the number of viable candidate cities as countries that have political stability, decent rule-of-law, low levels of corruption and viable host cities but which may be at a level of development where hosting the games could prove overly taxing or problematic in the short term. It would make the Games more inclusive in terms of hosts, it would help make bids seems less risky overall and provide additional incentives. Additionally, it would serve as an interesting, if discrete, means of foreign aid as it could help to build up major cities that are close to capable of hosting but which may need some initial financial assistance to overcome some obstacles. There are many who want to see only wealthy, fully developed cities host. At one point that made since; but today there are almost 200 countries and the vast majority of the world's population lives in the 120+ developing countries, not the rich ones. If all countries donated a tiny percentage of their budget, it could help to fund future games without paying for them in full and without removing ultimate responsibility from the host city and country - it would also reduce the influence of sponsors. There are cities I'd very much like to see as real contenders for upcoming games but are unlikely to guarantee a great show in their current context - we're facing this with the games coming in Brazil which, as a country, has the money and general capacity to host and has chosen one of the world's most beautiful cities - one that just looks perfect for the games, but which is facing a multitude of problems that could benefit substantially from a small amount of multilateral aid (and the accompanying regulations for its use) in the form of both finances and technical support. There is a lot of talk about South Africa hosting a summer games in 2024 or 2028 - I like the idea and agree that Africa should host the games as soon as it has a truly viable city. However, South Africa - even as the most advanced African state - simply remains unprepared to host the games without assistance. Some international funding by the IOC, along with a better developed technical assistance and oversight team, could be the difference between South Africa being able to win a bid in 2028 and 2036. It certainly would have been nice in 2004 to help Athens out which clearly had a special right to request and receive the games but also clearly had troubles doing so. Many might take issue with the notion of some international funding from IOC member states, but I see such support as no different than aid money provided to organizations like the World Bank, IMF or UNDP. If corporate sponsors are creating and reinforcing imbalances between countries that win medals and those that don't, between those that can host the games and those that cannot then diluting the influence of private sponsors (not eliminate them) through some multilateral aid.
  14. It seems to me that the problem isn't a the lack of a stable set of permanent-rotating hosts, it's a lack of direct engagement by the IOC and the organizations claims of so-called political neutrality. As a political science professor I feel confident stating that political neutrality is a pipe-dream - you will never separate politics from the Games. Rather than acting as if we can, we should acknowledge biases and push for transparency to help ensure that the impacts individual biases have on game outcomes
  15. The problem with permanent hosts is two-fold: 1. It identifies a small group of cities, all of which are already likely to be top-class world cities, to be perpetually responsible for the games and their preparation, ensuring the all the costs and benefits of the games accrue to a select-group of pre-determined sites. 2. It does not allow for flexibility given changing international circumstances; just because once city is an ideal host today does not make it one two decades from now.
×
×
  • Create New...