Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Olympic Politics Spelman Spotlight March 28. 1980 Page 5 By Charles Griffin The furor over the Moscow Olympic Games leaves the world sorely divided. The President and many other Americans feel we should not go to Moscow as long as the Soviets are holding Afghanistan. Allied governments around the world are expressing similar sentiments. But the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is firmly against cancelling the games or moving the site. And the IOC member for each nation—including the U.S.—is firmly against such ac tion. They have to be. They are honorbound to ignore any pressure of any sort to change, harm or stop the games. IOC members are chosen for life and they are carefully screened. They are not chosen as representatives of their coun tries, but to be delegates to their countries to guide the Olympic movement within their countries. Each Olympic committee in a country must be composed or representatives of the governing bodies of each sport represented in the games. Each of these sports must have an international federation with representatives from each country’s sport federation or governing body. And every member is sworn to abide by the rules of the IOC. They must be totally independent and autonomous and resist com mercial, religious or political in fluence. They cannot do other than say no to the President—their first duty is to the games, not to their countries. Reality is another matter. Western nations and non OHUWfus MISHA, THE Mosaw OLYMPICS BEAR' V. communist nations do not generally attempt any sort or con trol over their sports to the degree that communist nations do. If the games were being held in America and the Soviets wanted to show their displeasure over an action of ours by boycotting the games, you can be sure that the committees under their control would immediately kowtow and withdraw their support for the games. The very idea of amateur com petition is alien to the communist nations. Where we have a clear demarcation between professional and amateur athletics—professionals get paid, amateurs don’t—the communist countries operate on a non-profit basis and have no clear demar cation. The rules of the IOC state that each athlete must have a basic occupation designed to ensure his present and future livelihood that he does not receive and never has received any remuneration for participation in sport. Of course, many athletes have • devoted their school years and the period just after college to at taining mastery of some sport, winning a medal in the Olympics, and living off commercials thereafter. But they were lear ning something else while in school and they had to support themselves afterward or depend on public or parental help to con tinue training. The same is not true in the USSR. There an athlete is com pletely supported by the state as long as he or she can compete and win. They live and eat better than the general populace. They receive allowances for luxury items when on tour in foreign areas. They become coaches of their sport if they retire honorably. Their bodies are ex perimental playgrounds for Soviet scientists searching for ways to build better Russians through better chemistry. In international events, Eastern European and Soviet judges have visibly favored Moscow games or, better, drawing participants away from the games to another site is the very best means at hand to humiliate them. We must recognize that the OIC cannot go along with the boycott or a change in location. Undoubtedly there will be an Olympiad in Moscow, but the only participants should be Soviet client states and the IOC. America should sponsor an alternate Olympiad without IOC sanction using every incentive to lure other nations to attend. A neutral site should be chosen, perhaps Egypt. The rules of the IOC should be rigidly adhered to even though the members of the IOC now living will never accept any of the records established We must do this thing knowing full well that the Olympic games may never be the same. We should have denied Soviet teams entry to the winter games as well. We cannot, in good conscience, accept the Soviets as equals if they continue to act like sharks in a feeding frenzy. We must use every economic, athletes from their own countries political or emotional resource when getting a gold medal we have to humiliate and censure becomes a point of international the USSR. Our government prestige. To the Soviets, there is a great deal of national prestige in being the best athletes in a given field, or in winning more gold than any other team. We do the same thing, but we don’t put our hearts and souls into it—and we don’t retire losing coaches and athletes to the north slope of Alaska. My point, at long last, is that the Soviets see the games as a means to show political superiority. If our government is to attempt a demonstration against Soviet aggression short of going to war, boycotting the should actively seek to un dermine and destroy the Soviet government. Boycotting the games, refusing television coverage of their games, and withdrawing economic support from the IOC and the committees accepting the Moscow Olympiad is akin to the rich kid on the block getting mad and taking his ball away making it impossible for the others to play. But it is a move that must be done and it should be just the first step in a new aggressive policy to progressively destroy the megalomaniac oligarchy of the USSR. Powerplay In Afghanistan By Charles Griffin No one in Washington made more than a peep when Soviet- backed politicos began playing switchies with the Afghani gov ernment. No one had any reason to, since we had long ago ceded any true interest in the area. It was at Russia’s back door, it was humble, and it had nothing that anyone wanted. In fact, it would be more trouble than it was worth as a client state. Afghans are a surly, independent lot composed of tribes owing little fealty to a national ideal. If they had no one else to war with, they generally fight among themselves. You could say they are the Irish of south Asia. Even now, the soothsayers of the national press are predicting poor Afghanistan will fall—not easily—but that it will become another puppet state of the USSR. Power, as she is played by the Russians, is considered un beatable. But American generals thought superior arms could bring about a favorable decision in Vietnam. American power was thought to be unbeatable. Perhaps the Russians will find they have bitten off more than they can comfortably chew. The question is: Why did the USSR decide to invade Afghanisttan at this time? Having once made Afghanistan a client state, all they needed to do was sit back, wait for the dust to settle on the next coup d’ etat, and offer the new government slightly more than they offered to the previous one. Most analysts seem to think the religious revolution in Iran sparked the current troubles in Afghanistan. They then claim that the Russians feared the religious fervor would spread to their Moslem population and proceeded to stamp out the fire before it spread across the bor der. There may be some truth to that claim, but it is a minor theme in the Soviet symphony. It is power and the demonstration of power that are important. With Iran in turmoil and the U.S. caught with its pants down, what better time to exhibit power that is understood by every Arab, by every Kurd, by every Persian, by every Turk, by every Pakistani, and every Indian. As long as the U.S. will send a dollar of aid, the inhabitants of the mideast and south Asia will condem and squeak about Soviet intervention. But none will over tly do anything about it. Hell, the new government of India is prac tically condoning the invasion of Afghanistan. Yes, they will all take the dollar, for whatever it is worth, but they will bow when the bear strides by. Russia began conquering Moslem tribes a long time ago. They usually did it tribe by tribe. Whether czarist or communist, the Russians have nibbled their way southward toward the warm- water, year-round port they have always craved. Their technique has always been to subvert their immediate neighbor and absorb the neighbor if possible. With Iran stumbling and Pakistan under a repressive military government, creating more border with either became a strategic necessity. Whichever falls first will fall into the arms of the bear. Perhaps both will. One bite and Afghanistan is consumed. Iran and Pakistan are warned: Put not your faith in the U.S. Trust not the power of oil. Your soul may be Allah’s, but your ass belongs to the bear. As I have said before, President Carter does not un derstand the game of power as it is played in the mideast. He punished the Soviets by cutting off our grain shipments and the sale of new technology to them, and with the threat of an Olympic boycott. But there is a point when you can’t turn the other cheek. Force must be met with force—or cleverness. Carter has the means to contain the USSR at hand. It has been offered twice within a year. A military alliance with China and joint exercises in a friendly third country such as (currently) Pakistan, would be unmistakable evidence that we have been pushed far enough. An increase of aid, arms, and instruction to Egypt combined with a naval blockade of Iran and/or a cap ture of the oil fields would put the OPEC nations and the USSR on notice that we no longer intend to be a pushover. However, I am engaged in See AFGHANISTAN p. 10