Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Four historic moments when sport and diplomacy collided

Sometimes diplomacy won the day, sometimes it didn’t. Alun Hardman on when national conflict is played out in the sporting arena

Alun Hardman
Friday 23 February 2018 15:44 GMT
Comments
North Korean cheerleaders support the South Korean men’s ice hockey team in PyeongChang
North Korean cheerleaders support the South Korean men’s ice hockey team in PyeongChang (EPA)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

It was an unexpected addition to the “ice diplomacy” of the PyeongChang Winter Olympics. North Korean cheerleaders, who had supported the unified Korean women’s ice hockey team, then showed up en masse to cheer on the South Korean men’s team in their defeat to the Czech Republic.

Aside from the symbolic unity on display at the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, when athletes from the North and South marched out under a unified flag, real diplomacy has happened on the sidelines and in the stands. South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim Yo-jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, met on the sidelines of the games in a meeting that culminated in Moon’s invite to visit Pyongyang. They both then went on to watch the combined Korean team.

Sport and politics often collide, and leaders have increased their efforts to harness the role of sport in furthering their national interests. But sporting competitions have been taking place between nation states in conflict for millennia.

At the ancient Olympics, a truce enabled athletes and spectators from the warring states of ancient Greece to travel safely to and from the games held in the host state of Elis, which was in control of Olympia. It’s unclear whether the Olympic truce sparked greater dialogue between the leaders of the warring countries, or whether the athletes brought national politics to the event – but clearly a truce was deemed necessary for the games to take place.

This “Olympic truce” did not always hold true in the modern era, and the games were cancelled due to war in 1916, 1940 and 1944. In more recent decades, as geopolitical rivals have met at international sporting events, greater oversight and care has ensured athletes promote official policy as national representatives on a global stage. Sometimes diplomacy won the day, sometimes it didn’t.

1914: First World War Christmas football truce

One of the most famous and earliest illustrations of the relationship between sport, diplomacy and peace in the modern era happened in Belgium in December 1914, during a sporadic cessation of hostilities in the First World War aimed mainly at tending to the dead and wounded left out in No Man’s Land.

Football brought warring countries together on Christmas Day – but it was a brief hiatus in the slaughter
Football brought warring countries together on Christmas Day – but it was a brief hiatus in the slaughter (Getty)

Small-scale kickabouts are said to have taken place between German and British soldiers as one of many different activities, particularly the barter of goods. Such socialising was quickly curtailed by commanders fearing it would lessen the desire to fight – and with it the threat of harsh punishment for any man caught fraternising.

1956: Melbourne Olympics, USSR v Hungary water polo

The Hungarian water polo team arrived in Melbourne to be told Soviet tanks and troops had rolled into Budapest to crush an anti-Soviet uprising, which had resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths and thousands of arrests. The team had been at a pre-Olympic training camp in Czechoslovakia.

The Hungarians met the Russian team in the semi-final on 6 December 1956 and devised a plan to provoke their opponents to fight, primarily as a strategy to win the match. Littered with kicking and punching from both sides, the encounter became immortalised as the “Blood in the Water” match. Five players were ejected and the Hungarians comfortably won 4-0 on their way to winning gold.

2004: Indian cricket tour to Pakistan

After a break of nearly 15 years following armed conflict, primarily over long-running disputes about the sovereignty of Kashmir, in 2004 India’s cricket team went on a cricket tour to neighbouring Pakistan.

Thousands of Indians travelled to Pakistan to watch the matches and at the time, former Pakistan captain-turned politician Imran Khan stated: “[The tour] transcends sports, it is much more than cricket, it is passion.”

Pakistan claim an Indian wicket during the Rawalpindi Test in 2004
Pakistan claim an Indian wicket during the Rawalpindi Test in 2004 (EPA)

The series heralded the start of a sequence of reciprocal Test series between 2004 and 2007. This was abruptly halted following the 2008 attacks in Mumbai – and no home Test match series has taken place between the two countries since, though they have played each other in other formats of the game, and in Test series hosted in the United Arab Emirates.

1998: Fifa World Cup in France, Iran v USA

Mirroring contemporary quarrels, this football game was overshadowed by the political backdrop of ongoing tensions between Iran and the US.

Both sides traded flowers, gifts and photographs before the kick-off and showed the utmost respect during the game. Iran’s 2-1 victory sparked wild celebrations that, for a short time, threatened to destabilise the government. Warnings were ignored by hundreds of thousands of young Iranians, including women, who saw the victory as a good excuse to take to the streets in large numbers, which was considered a political act of defiance.

Sporting events such as those occurring on the Korean peninsula can have significant political symbolism, but their contribution to actual peacemaking efforts is not always assured. Sport’s primary diplomatic role is usually as a catalyst to press politicians to undertake the serious hard work of diplomacy. But that requires perseverance and commitment, which may fade once the public gaze moves on after the competition ends, and other national narratives regain prominence.

In the context of national conflict, perhaps the most we can expect from sport diplomacy is that it provides an isolated token moment that requires us to see and appreciate others differently – rather than provide a model for replicating wider forms of cross-national cooperation and integration.

Alun Hardman is a senior lecturer and associate dean (International) at Cardiff Metropolitan University. This article was first published on The Conversation (theconversation.com)

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in