Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I actually like Almaty and Beijing...

Beijing because it's BEIJING..

Almaty because I want the world to sink in to another distinct culture of this Kazakh nation...

...and Kazakhstan hosted the 2011 Asian Winter Games like pro!!

Medeo would need a renovation and expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it won't. It will supposedly serve as a the ceremonies venue for the 2017 Universiade, which it will get the necessary upgrades needed. For an Olympics, it will serve as the speed skating venue only.

If that is the case, then Almaty will need to build a Ceremonies venue of around 40,000 Seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but SA sounds probably more "sexy" as an idea than Kazakhstan (not to mention Azerbaijan). For many people around the world, the latter two are still provinces of the Soviet Empire anyway...

Most people in the US, at least, didn't even know Kazakhstan existed until 'Borat' came out - and even then many thought it a made-up country. Not sure why Kazakhstan isn't 'sexy' - it has a rich history tied to the Silk Road and nomadic clans; Almaty itself is picturesque, surprisingly clean for a large city in the developing world, has lots of open space for building and expanding necessary infrastructure and absolutely gorgeous mountains surrounding it. It seems like a very exotic, unique place to my ears and there certainly is a push to give the Olympics to countries that haven't hosted before and to give countries considered part of the developing world the chance to host. Now, few developing countries have the capacity to do so. Kazakhstan, however, is one that does. Certainly has greater capacity to do so than either Azerbaijan or South Africa. The SA question is a bit more complicated though, insofar as Africa is now the only continent (aside from Antarctica - now there would be an interesting Winter Games) never to host the games - or at least it will be after the Rio games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit, Almaty are probably the 'dark horses' of the Bid process, but they still won't win.

I strongly believe this is a two-way race: Oslo v. Almaty. Krakow is the dark horse, so far as I see it. Stockhold dropped out of the running, Lviv still refuses to do so but for reasons that should be obvious it won't be considered. Beijing just hosted the Summer Olympics 6 years ago and is unlikely to be the first city chosen to host both the summer and winter games (and unlikely to be chosen after neighboring South Korea hosts the games in 2018 and Tokyo does so in 2020 - Kazakhstan may be part of Asia, but it is very different from East Asia).

Without Beijing or Lviv as viable choices, only Krakow stands between an Oslo v. Almaty matchup. However, Krakow's bid includes hosting some events in Slovakia which presents rather significant logistical problems and could create more uncertainty regarding how the games will be developed than the IOC would like - Krakow also will face greater funding and construction problems than Almaty or Oslo.

Oslo is the clear frontrunner. Norway has experience with the Olympics, Oslo has enormous capacity and Norway is very wealthy. However, it has hosted the games relatively recently which may hurt given that the IOC wants new countries to host and BOTH the 2018 and 2020 games will be in countries which have already hosted past games. Additionally, the Norwegian public doesn't appear particularly enthusiastic about hosting the games (and future economic forecasts for Norway don't bode well for attempts to dramatically swing public support to favor hosting).

Almaty lacks the experience and the 'developed world' reliability of Norway. However, having hosted the Asian Winter Games and its hosting of future major events shows it can pull off large-scale events. Moreover, Kazakhstan has an exotic appeal and rich history. The country has experienced tremendous economic growth since gaining independence in 1991 and the GDP per capita increased by well over 1200% in 20 years. While authoritarian, the IOC has granted the games to authoritarian states in the past - including the current games in Sochi. The authoritarian government of Kazakhstan, though implicated in the kinds of awful crimes attributed to most authoritarian regimes, has actually been very well run, highly successfull in maintaining 20 years of political stability and very disciplined with a real interest in economic and human development. I'm no apologist, President Nazarbayev isn't a good guy but there are far worse (Putin!). Almaty is an unknown to much of the world, but has a lot of space to expand, is clean and is very close to several world-class winter sports facilities along with being nestled up in the Altai Mountains where no Winter Games have ever gone and that few in the world have seen (and they are gorgeous). Kazakhstan's wealth and stability, along with growing experience in hosting international events, indicate they are capable of hosting the Winter Olympics. The fact that they will hold all events in very close proximity, where the other bidders want to have some events as far as 100+ km from the city, helps too. I really don't see anything against them; even politically (they are a rising geopolitical superpower and while not easily accessible to the US, it's central location in Eurasia makes it rather easy for athletes in Europe, Asia, etc. to make it there.

Oslo is safer, Almaty is more exotic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC has given the Games to other oppressive regimes, but those in question here like Russia & China, far eclipse Kazachkstan in the geopolitical sphere. China has 1/5 of the worlds population & is a rising global superpower. It was obvious that the IOC couldn't ignore such a presence much longer. Let's keep in mind, it still took the Chinese two tries before they got the Games.

And Russia, Putin offered to throw everything at the Winter Games, & Russia was also the only strong winter sport nation that had yet to host the Winter Games. Not exactly apples to apples comparisons here. Almaty might look good on paper, but still, what is so compelling about giving them the Games. Even Erdogan couldn't pull it off for his Istanbul, & the Turks definitely had much more of a case for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What logistical problems... much less significant logistical problems. Otherwise, nice write-up.

Some of the logistical problems will be mitigated by the fact that both are members of the EU, however having the games span two countries implies increased difficulties in terms of travel for those moving between the two countries. More importantly, it involves coordinating policy and approaches not only between a municipal government and its national government, but between two municipalities in two countries governed by two sets of laws with two very different political relationships between each and their national government AS WELL as between two countries. Who will fund what, how will responsibilities be divvied up, what happens if one country doesn't fulfill their part of the deal, what do changes in party leadership/government in one country imply for the games, how do you determine which state has the power to make which decision, how do you get two separate military and police forces to cooperate with each other (aside from with one another within a single state). I'm not sure how much EU policy eats away at questions regarding travel visas and the like, but situations may also arise in which athletes and their families have difficulty entering one country but not the other.

Not saying these are deal breakers, but they require the IOC to coordinate the development of the games between two states instead of one (this also adds a problem in laying blame; it can incentivize shirking and lead to situations in which one state blames the other for shortcomings - a possibility that can increase as political parties in one state find means to use the games for their own domestic political advantage). I generally worry about the idea of splitting the games between two states. Having both states as EU members helps reduce, but not eliminate, my fears.

Oslo would seem a stronger choice if the IOC decides Europe is the place to go; Krakow does add the possibility of a new country hosting for the first time but it isn't as 'exotic' or 'interesting' (in a non-Western, little-known part of the world sort of way) as Almaty and faces more difficult political questions regarding hosting the games.

Unlike Beijing and Lviv, I do believe Krakow could win but highly doubt it. I honestly believe it is already down to Oslo and Almaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IOC has given the Games to other oppressive regimes, but those in question here like Russia & China, far eclipse Kazachkstan in the geopolitical sphere. China has 1/5 of the worlds population & is a rising global superpower. It was obvious that the IOC couldn't ignore such a presence much longer. Let's keep in mind, it still took the Chinese two tries before they got the Games.

And Russia, Putin offered to throw everything at the Winter Games, & Russia was also the only strong winter sport nation that had yet to host the Winter Games. Not exactly apples to apples comparisons here. Almaty might look good on paper, but still, what is so compelling about giving them the Games. Even Erdogan couldn't pull it off for his Istanbul, & the Turks definitely had much more of a case for it.

Other authoritarian regimes have won the games; South Korea received the 1988 games long before the military formally handed power to a civilian government in 1987. The USSR - which is not the same as Russia despite Russia being its successor state - held the games in 1980 while Yugoslavia held the Winter Games in 1984. Nazi Germany obviously hosted the games. Mexico hosted in 1968 and was, at best, an illiberal democracy at the time. Italy was to host the games in 1944, only to have them cancelled due to the War (they were given to Italy when it was run by a fascist government however). It isn't unprecedented.

Also, I think a lot of people underestimate the current - and more importantly, future - geopolitical importance and influence wielded by Kazakhstan. One of the largest countries in the world in terms of geographic size, Kazakhstan has a rather small population but does have possibly the largest amount of natural resources of any country - it is in the top 10 for oil and natural gas and for over 40 highly valuable rare-metals and is the world's largest provider of uranium (roughly 25% of the entire world's supply). It is also home to the only major facility for launching manned missions into space - both the US and Russians use the Kazakh facility to launch rockets to the International Space Station.

It is the dominant power, by far, in Central Asia and it's geographic location places it right between China and Russia, with India and Iran nearby. The insatiable demand for oil, gas, metals, etc. from China, India and Russia makes Kazakhstan an economic powerhouse in the making. China and Russia have long competed over Central Asia's enormous - and still largely untapped - resource wealth and Kazakhstan is the state that determines the allocation of these resources. India's impending rise only increases the importance of Kazakhstan as an alternative to the unstable Middle East and further increases the significance of its enormous wealth in other resources. Essentially, Kazakhstan is quickly transforming into a leading energy superpower which will eventually surpass Saudi Arabia in economic importance.

There are certainly problems with Kazakhstan - and the authoritarian dictatorship of President Nazarbayev is part of that - but it clearly isn't a deal-breaker and Kazakhstan's surprising ability to maintain good relations with Russia, China, the US and the EU suggests that this won't be a disqualifier (nor should it given that Beijing is vying for it's second games in less than two decades).

The massive wealth, substantial extant facilities, pristine Altai mountains, unknown/exotic culture, etc. of Kazakhstan makes it a fascinating possible location for the games and suggests that it will have a relatively easy time preparing for them compared to, say, Rio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, Rio is hosting a Summer Olympic Games, which are three times the size of the Winter Olympics. So of course it's going to take more work. Not to mention, that at the same time, the Brazilians are also preparing for the FIFA 2014 WC. So it looks like the Brazilians took on a bit more than they could chew. But that's neither here nor there for 2022.

As for Seoul 1988, they were only in contention with Nagoya, Japan. Same with Moscow 1980, they were only competing against L.A. And Mexico City 1968 was an appropriate choice for its time. The country back then wasn't in as much turmoil as it is today. And the IOC did *not* award the Games to Nazi Germany. Hitler wasn't even in power when the IOC gave Berlin the 1936 Games. And even then, all of those countries are still large & compelling choices considering all the variables of their particular races. It's not as black-&-white as simply looking at a past hosting list.

As far as those other points that you like to attribute to Almaty, they won't mean much, if anything, in a secret ballot of over 100+ individuals with fastidious taste & preferred biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to have a Kazakh supporter on these boards! Now we have supporters for Oslo, Krakow and Almaty. Nice diversity.

I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Kazakh 'supporter' - I have no real emotional interests or investments in the decision. I am a political scientist and I find the games an especially interesting, unique phenomenon in modern international politics. I do believe globalization is leading to dramatic and fundamental changes in the world, including altering geopolitical relations and creating a generation of countries that are variously defined as 'emerging markets,' 'upper-middle class,' 'secondary powers,' etc along with interests that don't fit more traditional views of national interest. I really began my serious studies of comparative politics by examining the Central Asian republics and although I don't specialize in that region these days it has always held a particular interest.

The point of view I offer here is essentially one colored by my analysis of international relations surrounding the game at this time combined with the contextual factors of each bidding city. Perhaps I do have a bias in favor of seeing a country unknown to many as important, but I believe my views are all substantiated well beyond that. I also know that the average person in the US, and even the average globally-aware news consumer, knows very little of Central Asia or Kazakhstan and it is simply my opinion that Almaty is a city likely to be seriously underestimated.

In the end, it's always about politics with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the logistical problems will be mitigated by the fact that both are members of the EU, however having the games span two countries implies increased difficulties in terms of travel for those moving between the two countries.

To be picky, the bigger issue is that both are Schengen signers, which means travel between the two isn't much more than travel between Indianan and Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be picky, the bigger issue is that both are Schengen signers, which means travel between the two isn't much more than travel between Indianan and Michigan.

I shouldn't be as ignorant about this as I am, but does this analogy only apply to other citizens of the EU or to people of any nationality?

If it really does eliminate issues regarding large numbers of border crossings, then that boosts Krakow's chances. However, it doesn't solve the more serious - if also more subtle - logistical problems involved with preparing and running the Games with municipal and national governments from two separate countries involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shouldn't be as ignorant about this as I am, but does this analogy only apply to other citizens of the EU or to people of any nationality? If it really does eliminate issues regarding large numbers of border crossings, then that boosts Krakow's chances. However, it doesn't solve the more serious - if also more subtle - logistical problems involved with preparing and running the Games with municipal and national governments from two separate countries involved.

Schengen area is not identical with the EU, e.g. the UK does not take part in it. However, all citizens of the Schengen countries can travel freely and so can everyone from outside who gets the relevant papers to enter in at least one of them, to my understanding. So, anyone who can enter Poland, can also travel without extra permit to Slovakia.

In the end, it's always about politics with me.

Get with the flow! Thomas Bach has said politics and Olympics shouldn't be mixed ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schengen area is not identical with the EU, e.g. the UK does not take part in it. However, all citizens of the Schengen countries can travel freely and so can everyone from outside who gets the relevant papers to enter in at least one of them, to my understanding. So, anyone who can enter Poland, can also travel without extra permit to Slovakia.

Get with the flow! Thomas Bach has said politics and Olympics shouldn't be mixed ;-)

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not convinced that there are very many interactions between groups of any size that aren't political ;)

The IOC is a politicized body making an extremely political decision; individual's interests align with the interests of states, cities and all types of interest groups. How this plays out in the decision making process is fascinating. How it plays out in the way the IOC portrays upcoming hosts, and judges those applying, it interesting as a way of representing the interaction of a very unique group of individual voters who are using formal - and informal - criteria to choose one city to host the most significant international sporting event of modern history. Politics will always be involved; how it plays out is the question!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not convinced that there are very many interactions between groups of any size that aren't political ;)

The IOC is a politicized body making an extremely political decision; individual's interests align with the interests of states, cities and all types of interest groups. How this plays out in the decision making process is fascinating. How it plays out in the way the IOC portrays upcoming hosts, and judges those applying, it interesting as a way of representing the interaction of a very unique group of individual voters who are using formal - and informal - criteria to choose one city to host the most significant international sporting event of modern history. Politics will always be involved; how it plays out is the question!

In the end, it's always about politics with me.

Yeah, you're right in that, the IOC, like any group of individuals, is a political organisation. But the peculiar politics of the IOC go much farther than a narrow focus on geopolitical and global-economic concerns that you emphasise. The IOC isn't the UN, G20 or the World Economic Forum. It's the administrator of an idiosyncratic sports event. An event with some pretensions to idealistic aims like globalism and striving for excellence but which is also a super-lucrative entertainment spectacle riding on its good reputation and commercial and social attractiveness to attract the interest of hosts and sponsors to make them possible. It's an organisation whose members, as you've acknowledged, span as many opinions as any large group of people would be expected to have, but which has a structural bias towards sports representatives and federations, and the European/western location and environment in which many of these federations operate.

Some may well be looking at wider geo-poliutical-economic-historical matters when they make their decisions. Many others will be looking towards things like: What is best for the future viability of the Olympics? What is best for my particular sports federation? What is best for my nation or NOC? What makes for the most attractive backdrop for the TV audiences? Which bid's sports venues are the most technically excellent? Which city is best prepared or has the best facilities or transport or logistic infrastructure? Which can raise the most local sponsorship? Which is likely to draw the most enthusiastic crowds and give good audiences for the TV footage? Which city has the best long-term legacy plan? Which region hosted it last, and whose turn is it now? Which city have I had a better time in before? Who do I owe favours to? What does Bach the boss want? Which city would my wife or husband like best?

Which all comes down to say, I think you're strongly over-estimating Almaty's appeal. Most of your passionately-argued championing of Almaty relies too much overemphasising it's geopolitical and (potential) economic claims, but overlooks the particular commercial, reputation and sporting concerns of the IOC. I don't dismiss Almaty totally out of hand - I do think this could be the central-Asian/"Stan" bid that finally cracks the short list. But I truly do think that's as far as could go realistically this time. The only way I could see it winning is if the two other bids most mentioned in these threads fall by the wayside and it's left only to a choice between it, Beijing and Lviv.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I'm not convinced that there are very many interactions between groups of any size that aren't political ;)

The IOC is a politicized body making an extremely political decision; individual's interests align with the interests of states, cities and all types of interest groups. How this plays out in the decision making process is fascinating. How it plays out in the way the IOC portrays upcoming hosts, and judges those applying, it interesting as a way of representing the interaction of a very unique group of individual voters who are using formal - and informal - criteria to choose one city to host the most significant international sporting event of modern history. Politics will always be involved; how it plays out is the question!

I don't deny that, but Thomas Bach found it opportune to spin it the other way to get away from the heated debates over Sochi. That will fall back on his feet heavily one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're right in that, the IOC, like any group of individuals, is a political organisation. But the peculiar politics of the IOC go much farther than a narrow focus on geopolitical and global-economic concerns that you emphasise. The IOC isn't the UN, G20 or the World Economic Forum. It's the administrator of an idiosyncratic sports event. An event with some pretensions to idealistic aims like globalism and striving for excellence but which is also a super-lucrative entertainment spectacle riding on its good reputation and commercial and social attractiveness to attract the interest of hosts and sponsors to make them possible. It's an organisation whose members, as you've acknowledged, span as many opinions as any large group of people would be expected to have, but which has a structural bias towards sports representatives and federations, and the European/western location and environment in which many of these federations operate.

Some may well be looking at wider geo-poliutical-economic-historical matters when they make their decisions. Many others will be looking towards things like: What is best for the future viability of the Olympics? What is best for my particular sports federation? What is best for my nation or NOC? What makes for the most attractive backdrop for the TV audiences? Which bid's sports venues are the most technically excellent? Which city is best prepared or has the best facilities or transport or logistic infrastructure? Which can raise the most local sponsorship? Which is likely to draw the most enthusiastic crowds and give good audiences for the TV footage? Which city has the best long-term legacy plan? Which region hosted it last, and whose turn is it now? Which city have I had a better time in before? Who do I owe favours to? What does Bach the boss want? Which city would my wife or husband like best?

Which all comes down to say, I think you're strongly over-estimating Almaty's appeal. Most of your passionately-argued championing of Almaty relies too much overemphasising it's geopolitical and (potential) economic claims, but overlooks the particular commercial, reputation and sporting concerns of the IOC. I don't dismiss Almaty totally out of hand - I do think this could be the central-Asian/"Stan" bid that finally cracks the short list. But I truly do think that's as far as could go realistically this time. The only way I could see it winning is if the two other bids most mentioned in these threads fall by the wayside and it's left only to a choice between it, Beijing and Lviv.

I will grant you virtually all of that; to be honest, although I am a trained political scientist my interest in the politics surrounding the Olympic Games is nothing more than a hobby. I do tend, because of my training, to view things through purely politics lenses and my perspective will be biased to the degree that the important I place on political considerations is greater than the actual degree to which the IOC, in the aggregate, takes such considerations into account.

However, in simpler terms, the argument that I'm using Almaty to make - and for which Almaty's bid is particularly interesting as it is truly serious insofar as it is a city that is generally recognized as being quite capable to hold the games - is that there is a major shift occuring in international relations from an International Community that treats Western Powers as the sole hegemonic influence to one that is far more divided, with many interests being solidly against those that favor any Western country. The collapse of the USSR gave the USA - and Western capitalism - a decade in the spotlight; anything focused on so closely for that long surely tarnishes and as the US has failed to live up to the reputation of international savior and the EU has succumbed to the internal squabbles inherent to any project seeking to develop powerful Supranational institutions that may eventually supplant the modern state. Meanwhile, China has led the developing world in becoming the central force of growth globally. With the developing world finally surpassing the developed world as supplying the majority of GDP, and with it supplying most annual GDP growth, the influence of developing countries is rising rapidly and is already tremendous. China has already made its presence known. Other developing powers are following suit. Brazil (one of the BRICS - or Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is next in line to host the summer olympics, Russia has these winter games. In all, between Beijing and 2020 London is the only Western city/country to host the games. It is one of three developed countries to do so. Aside from London, since 2008 we've seen the rising superpower - China - host its first, incredibly successful, Games, we're now watching Russia host - though expectations for success are far lowere - and Brazil will have the next Summer Games making it the first developing country that is also a democracy to host the games (democratic politics can be especially problematic for would-be hosts in the developing world). South Korea and Japan secured back-to-back Olympics and while they aren't developing countries, they aren't Western - they are the two models of the Developmental State model of international development and are the Asian examples of truly democratic alternatives to the liberal notion of democracy so cherished in the West. Thus, between 2008 and 2022 only 1 Western country will have hosted the games (the UK) and 3 host cities will have been in developing countries (Beijing, Sochi, Rio de Janeiro) with the other 2 hosts (Pyeongchang & Tokyo) being in developed democracies - but not Western ones).

To me there is a clear sign that the IOC is following broader trends seen in other international institutions; it is turning towards favoring developing countries and places too-long-ignored over well-established developed countries and cities. More international conferences, meetings of IGOs and INGOs, etc. are taking place in less-developed countries. The IOC itself is meeting to make these decisions in locales that couldn't yet host the games. But, the main underlying point - or question - is the degree to which newer IOC voting members have sympathies laying in Western, Developed countries and which have sympathies that are greater for non-Western, Developing countries.

That is what fascinates me about 2022. Oslo is a clear frontrunner using standard metrics. However, Krakow presents a European 'alternative' that is more likely to win votes of Europeans generally (insofar as politics motivate their votes) which will muddy the waters. Meanwhile, it's looking like Almaty will be the only non-European option making it a frontrunner to many voters who want countries outside of Europe and North America to host the games. Almaty, as a relative unknown in the global community, maintains an air of exoticness for now and the degree to which the city is already ready, and can quickly become ready, will likely surprise some IOC members and the general public (as many still see Kazakhstan as being the country 'Borat came from' when, in fact, it has done better than any other former Soviet states other than Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in terms of growth and has a well developed infrastructure, educated population and disciplined state apparatus for implementing the policies necessary to host).

Thus, for me this is a test of political influence and allegiance. I seek Krakow, Oslo and Almaty as all being capable of hosting good, safe, well-run games that are well-received. I believe Oslo has the 'traditional' vote, Almaty the 'exotic' and Krakow is spoiler. And I believe that this is really going to be an issue of how much the current IOC voters represent the global community and/or represent the types of shifts taking place in other major international institutions regarding which blocs of countries have the most clout and even how blocs are defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...