Monday, December 1, 2014

Sports Diplomacy


In August of 2011, the men’s basketball team of Georgetown University, a prestigious school located within Washington, DC, was on a goodwill tour of China, to play several games with teams from China’s professional basketball league, among others. The Hoyas, as the team is known, played a game against a professional team whose players are all active duty members of the Chinese army. The game was very physical, with lopsided foul calls in favor of the Chinese, and aggressive, with a Chinese player yelling at the Hoya coach during play and a cheering section of Chinese soldiers cheering for the team in a surprisingly martial manner. With about 10 minutes left to play, a confrontation between a Hoy and a Chinese player quickly escalated into a bench-clearing brawl, with far more violence than the typical shoving matches most American basketball teams get into. Chinese supporters ran onto the court and threw projectiles at the Hoyas as the Americans retreated to their locker room.

On that note, let’s talk about the positive aspects of sport diplomacy! The use of athletic competition to work towards achieving international political goals is an intriguing topic, and notwithstanding the occasional mishap like the one above, it generally has good outcomes for all involved.

The Olympics are a prime example of this. When they were first started, wars between participating city-states in Ancient Greece would be suspended so the games could go on. In their modern incarnation, medal counts are interpreted as a point of national pride, and, in a far more abstract sense, the relative international power of each country.


To seek out international sporting opportunities in order to make IR gains is reminiscent of constructivism and liberalism, since the two focus more on addressing squishier, more emotional factors that go into IR, namely public opinion and goodwill. Like many children of upper-middle class suburban America, I played soccer in a recreational league. While this experience didn’t make have much of an impact on the relations of my burbclave with the other team’s burbclave, I could grasp how international competition in such a universal sport, even if it turns ugly like the Hoyas game, is useful. Franklin Foer’s book, How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, while I feel it is more a collection of interesting anecdotes than a cohesive thesis, nonetheless highlights the universality  of the various effects sport has on us all around the globe.

11 comments:

  1. Ben: Good post! I remember watching sports center when that brawl happened and seeing the highlights. Sports diplomacy has both negative and positive connotations but the media tries to cover the bad as much as possible. The example of the Olympics was very true. I feel as though sports diplomacy is more positive between international teams than private teams from opposing nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The media sure does. You never hear about the vast majority of nuclear reactors that operate without incident, or the political power transitions that occur without conflict, or any number of the things that occur daily but don't grab people's attention well enough. Argh.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben,

    Nice post! I specially agree with your point about sports rallying national pride. I have to say that I am not an expert on sports, but even beginner sports fans are compelled to root for their respective team. I agree with John in observing that a massive competition like the Olympics tends to have a more positive outcome, than private teams going head to head.

    -Tyler Barton

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Each Olympic game may be worth more than each international game between private teams, true. But I would argue that the private matches are just as important, since they provide fans with a more personal, intimate level of interaction with the international exchange that the Olympics don't necessarily provide. Besides the increased publicity and the fact that the athletes are competing for country, not just for team, why are the Olympics more important than private matches in the context of cultural exchange?

      Delete
  4. Ben, well structured post. I enjoyed how you highlight some of the aspects of international sport competition you feel Foer may be trying to get at. While reading I thought the post was going to get away from the book but you do a great job of bringing it back in at the end AND making your critique of Foer's work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thank you! I feared that it may have been too jumbled, since I largely formulated my argument before finding a way to incorporate the reading, since I guess I like to provide an unnecessary intellectual challenge to myself. Drat.

      Hope I kept you on the edge of your seat with suspense!

      Delete
  5. Great Post Ben! I agree that competition can be used as a form of diplomacy. In the 1970s, Nixon used Ping-Pong to open relations with China. Is it possible that nationalism may have caused the Hoyas game to turn violent as both teams have different national identities?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harrison: I think you may be on to something. The national identities of both nations truly can contribute to emotions being high during an exhibition basketball game. It is often hard to tell who is at fault without having some sort of bias.

      Delete
    2. John, by national identities, do you mean a certain nation's affinity for a certain sport or style of interaction? For example, most of Latin America and Europe is soccer-mad, and therefore might be a bit more emotionally charged during those matches.

      I think that national identities certainly played a role. I have no idea about Chinese cultural mores regarding the use of mob assault to resolve sporting disputes, but that may be more acceptable or prevalent in China, like football hooliganism in football-mad countries. However, I think the dispute arose primarily because the Chinese team was composed of active-duty members of the military, the language barrier made it more difficult to diffuse tensions early on, and ethnic xenophobism.

      Delete
    3. I think you have a point with talking about the language barrier. By national identities I was referring to style of interaction. The game was characterized as having lopsided calls and intense play. For an exhibition game, both were unnecessary. In no way am I saying that the Chinese team should have lost on purpose but I do believe that the pride of the country contributed to the hard play. I do not believe xenophobia can be considered in this case because China is a global power that works with many nations on a variety of fronts such as economics and trade.

      Delete