Sports Advocating Diplomacy

According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sports, practised without discrimination. The concept, as elementary as it may sound, has been disregarded many times throughout history, not only on the Olympic "Stage", sports (in general) have been used numerous times as a political tool.

A couple of notable examples occurred prior to the 1980 (Moscow) and 1984 (Los Angeles) Olympics, when the Cold War opponents boycotted each other's games. The United States led, and 64 other Western nations followed in refusing to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980, because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The boycott reduced the number of nations participating to only 81, the lowest number of nations to compete since 1956. The Soviet Union, and 14 of its Eastern Bloc partners, countered by skipping the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, arguing the safety of their athletes could not be guaranteed there, and that "chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in the United States".

In the 1976 Montreal Olympics, twenty-one African countries plus Guyana (which was the only non-African nation), withdrew their teams after some African athletes had already competed, and after the games had already started. A lot of sympathy was felt for the athletes, forced by their governments to leave the Olympic Village, while their governments were trying to force a ban on South Africa, Rhodesia, and New Zealand, from the games.

In the same year (1976), Canada told the team from the "Republic of China" (Taiwan) that it could not compete at the Montreal Summer Olympics under the name; "Republic of China" - despite a compromise that would have allowed Taiwan to use the R.O.C flag and anthem. The "Republic of China" refused, and as a result did not participate again until 1984, when it returned under the name "Chinese Taipei" and used a different flag.

The reason I'm bringing any of this up has to do with one of today's most eminent conflicts, Iran Vs. "The West". If you have not heard about this conflict, please come back to us, because you have probably been living on the moon for too long now.

Here's some of the latest on this matter; Earlier this month (Dec.3), the American National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found with "High-Confidence" that Iran stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003. Despite the release of this report, I know many people who still consider Iran a threat, and as a matter of fact, President Bush quite bluntly states that "Iran Remains a Threat".

On Bush's side are the Israeli Leaders, who say that "The U.S. assessment (NIE Report) is flat-out wrong", according to 'Time' magazine; "If the U.S. fails to act on the danger (recognized by the NIE), the Jewish State will be forced to act alone." In the same article, the author claims that "Despite the talk of an "Israeli option" for military action, few analysts believe an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities is likely, or even possible." And at the same time, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert says, "Israel will expose the Iranian military plan to develop a nuclear weapon".

I would like to believe that there is still a "Fighting-Chance" for a diplomatic resolution, a way to resolve the matters-at-hand without any explosions or combat-aircrafts. I'm sure you might be asking yourself, "What in the world do sports have to do with this?" - The truth is, this conflict is much bigger than any sporting event, but in terms of taking a step forward, there might just be something to this, at least in my twisted mind at 5:00am.

In a political policy move that flouts the spirit of the Olympic movement, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran specifically orders its athletes not to compete in any Olympic heat that includes athletes from Israel. At the 2004 Olympics, an Iranian judoka, Arash Miresmaeili, refused to compete in a heat against an Israeli judoka, Udi Vaks, but did so surreptitiously to avoid the possibility of Iran being removed from the games for political intrigue (the athlete deliberately didn't make weight). The Iranian judoka however, returned home to a hero's welcome, and received a $125,000 reward from his government.

This political policy is the main reason why Iranian striker Vahid Hashemian would not travel to Israel for Bayern Munich's Champions League match against Maccabi Tel-Aviv during the 2004 qualifying rounds.

These examples are connected in part to Iran's refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist, and another example is that Iran has blocked Israel’s Participation in the World Armies Olympic Games. It's quite ironic to me that the goals of the aforementioned event, are to develop friendly relations between the Armed Forces of member nations. As the "Now Public" article suggests, it is indeed very interesting to pick out key phrases from the CISM website:

• Is open to the armed forces of all nations.
• To develop friendly relations.
• Universal peace.
• Apolitical organization.
• To promote international harmony.
• Rejects all forms of discrimination.

If in fact Iran doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist, who can blame Israeli leaders for being worried? If in the near future diplomatic communication opportunities will develop, the issue of "Israel's right to exist", has to be discussed. I believe Iran should use its position to better the general conditions of the Palestinian people, and refrain from adding more fuel to the fire. Show the world that they are willing to "Pursuit Peace" in the region, if only to avoid expanding this ferocious conflict.

If Iran's government doesn't take a reasonable step forward in regards to Israel, I'm afraid that the Israeli government will remain sceptical. I'm afraid that Olmert might choose the counterproductive way, which will lead to reactions, that could quite possibly result in a war.

I don't like these stakes, and more than anything, I would like to avoid further escalation on the world-violence meter. Most of all, I'm afraid of sceptics, because often times they seem to enjoy the rush of high-stakes politics. Too often, they'll go all-in on a "Bluff" in this "Texas-Hold'em" game of "War-craft & Peace". Some of these "Leaders" have an adrenaline-junkie disorder, and they live for these type of high-stakes-games. What happens sooner or later is that someone will call their "Bluff", and that in effect, touches too many people that never even wanted to be a part of the game to begin with.

Sports my friends, they are a different phenomenon, and as I said, they can be used as a political stage. If you choose to do so, you can use this stage to your benefit. What's wrong with Iranian and Israeli athletes competing against each other? Is that too much to ask as an act of good-will? Why not arrange a soccer meeting between Israel and Iran's national teams? That's why they call it a friendly-match, right?

Small Arms of Mass Destruction

There are over 698 Million firearms in our world, more than one for every ten people. Some of these guns are used by criminals, some are used to terrorize innocents, some are used to displace people from their homes, and some are used to abuse international human rights and humanitarian law. Many guns, all around the world, are used for killing.

Here are some of the disturbing facts:

• Every minute, someone is shot dead by the use of a gun.
• Between 300,000-500,000 people are shot dead every year.
• Guns are relatively cheap and easily available.
• The "Black Market" arms trade is valued at $2-10 billion in sales every year.
• Guns are easy to use, long lasting, highly portable, and easily concealable.

"The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Yet there is still no global non-proliferation regime to limit their spread."
--- UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, 2000

In this post, I will try to shed some light on this important global issue. Where are these guns coming from? Where do they end-up? Why isn't anybody doing anything?

I will answer the last question first, because the answer is quite simple. In 2001, the United Nations held a conference aimed at reducing the flow of arms into conflict zones. The goals for the two week conference were scaled back after pressure from major gun-producing countries such as the United States, China and Russia, whose delegates had worked behind the scenes to block any agreements on a program of action.

In this conference, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control at the time, John Bolton (and a former U.S Ambassador to the United Nations), told the delegates that "The United States will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures contrary to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms." The conference (I remind you) was about reducing the flow of arms into conflict zones. Bolton stated that the United States could not support a final Conference document that included:

• Making restrictions on the sale of small arms and light weapons to entities other than governments.
• Funding campaigns by human rights organizations to raise awareness of the trade.
• A ban on private ownership of military weapons (such as assault rifles and grenade launchers).
• A commitment to begin discussions on legally binding agreements.

This, in effect, answers the first question, "Where are these guns coming from?" - at least to some degree. According to the U.S Congress report on "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations" (page 64), the U.S had "Transferred" over $61 Billion in arms (between 1999-2006). Russia was number two with over $32 Billion, followed by the U.K with almost $28 Billion, and France with 16.6 Billion Almighty Dollars in "Arms Deliveries to Developing Nations". These figures include supplying: Tanks, Helicopters, Missiles, Armored Cars, Combat Aircrafts, etc.

In terms of small arms, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are (what-do-you-know) the five leading nations in terms of small arms exports (88% of the market).

According to the Oxfam International & Amnesty International Arms Report (Page 54), the U.S is the World "Leader" in this category (as well) with $14 Billion in sales per year (between 1998-2001). The U.K is a "Solid" number two at $4.6 Billion. France and Russia are tied for third ($3.4 Billion), and China ($0.5 Billion) is number five.

Some of these weapons reach conflict zones (one way or the "Black Market" way), causing pain and suffering to the powerless. There are over 698 Million firearms in our world, more than one for every ten people. So to answer the question, "Where do these guns end-up?" - Small arms are in every corner of our globe, involved in almost every conflict that we hear about, every day of every week.

Another disturbing factor, a part of the "Arms Trade" discussion, is that there are an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children serving as soldiers in current armed conflicts, both for rebel groups and government forces. Africa is the most problematic continent in regards to this issue, an estimation from 2004 claims that there are over 100,000 "child-soldiers" in current armed-combat-positions. This is of course a world-wide plague, and in Columbia for example, between 11,000 and 14,000 children are estimated to be involved with left-wing guerrilla groups and right-wing paramilitaries. Children are also recruited by terrorist-organizations and rebel-groups around the globe. If you are interested, you can read more about this specific topic "Military use of children" (Wikipedia).

I know a lot of American citizens who feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment of our constitution, and care very much about their right to own a gun. The truth, at least in my own mind, is that there's nothing wrong with legally (and responsibly) owning a gun. The problem, both within the U.S. and in other parts of the world, begins when firearms end up in the wrong hands, and I'm sure you can see that often times they do.

I sit here tonight, writing about these issues, and I feel perplexed as to how this matter is not a top-priority. In an era when the "War on Terror" is such a "Hot" topic, finding ways to prevent the distribution of arms into conflict zones should be a matter of international security. In a time when every American Presidential Candidate is being asked whether or not they are "Pro Life", perhaps the issue of "arms" could serve as an extension (of sorts) to the "Pro Life" debate. Maybe as a side note, or in the form of a new topic. Maybe someday.

"We cannot have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms."
--- Former US President Jimmy Carter, The presidential campaign, 1976