Written evidence from Lord Bates of Langbaurgh
I was delighted to note that the Foreign Affairs
Committee had launched a timely review of Foreign & Commonwealth
Office Public Diplomacy surrounding the London 2012 Olympic and
Paralympic Games.
The FCO's web-site right states that London 2012
is a "Once in a generation opportunity" and that the
"London Olympic Games will focus the world's attention on
Britain." This is true, but the evidence presented suggested
that there are currently some serious oversights on aspects of
the public diplomacy preparations for the Games. Your oral evidence
session on 10 November highlighted many of these as did the written
submission of the FCO, however I want to focus my evidence to
the committee on one particular aspect of the Olympic Games which
was not mentioned—The Olympic Truce.
Next year, Lord Coe, as Chairman of the London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) and on behalf of the Government
of the United Kingdom and the International Olympic Committee
will move the formal adoption of the Olympic Truce for the London
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games before the United Nations General
Assembly.
The wording of the Truce will be based on the first
UN Olympic Truce Resolution (A/RES/48/11) and urges:
"all Member States to take the initiative to
abide by the Truce, individually and collectively, and to pursue
in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter
of the United Nations the peaceful settlement of all international
conflicts."
If past experience is to be repeated then the London
2012—Olympic Truce Resolution of the United Nations General
Assembly will be immediately signed by all 193 member states of
the United Nations and the universally ignored. Leaving aside
the ethical questions as to whether the UK Government should be
proposing or signing a UN Resolution which it has absolutely no
intention, as it stand, of abiding by I am more concerned about
the missed opportunity this represents to challenge negative aspects
of the UK's reputation abroad emanating from some recent military
engagements.
By being the first Host Government of the Olympic
Games in the modern era of the Games to take the Truce seriously,
I believe that there is an opportunity to:
1. Enhance Britain's reputation and standing
in the international community;
2. Pursue the aims of the National Security Strategy
to "Tackle the causes of conflict" and to focus resources
on conflict prevention as stated by the prime minister in his
statement to the House of Commons on the national Security &
Defence Review when he said on 19 October col 798 of the official
report:
"We must get better at treating the causes of
instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail
to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention
the costs, are always far higher."
3. Enhance security surrounding the Games: whilst
in no way lowering our guard, it would seem logical that if the
UK Government declares its intention to ensure that the London
2012 Games are the first in which the Truce will be taken seriously
and that this will be accompanied by humanitarian rather than
military interventions in the most conflict affected parts of
the world, then even if it reduces the extreme threat level by
just one or two degrees then that would seem an initiative worth
taking.
The wording of the London 2012 Olympic Truce is currently
been worked on jointly by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office
and the Department of Culture Media and Sport with the International
Team at the FCO taking the lead—as I understand it. Given
that this is the case I found the fact that in the 49 points offered
to the Committee by the FCO on preparations for London 2012 not
one referred to the Olympic Truce. Nor was this mentioned by Jeremy
Browne in his evidence. I believe that this is a significant missed
opportunity.
When I initiated a debate on the Olympic Truce in
the House of Lords on 11 October, 2010 the minister, Baroness
Rawlings said in response:
"The Government take the truce very seriously
and will be taking measures to make sure it is properly observed
and promoted in relation to the 2012 London Olympic & Paralympic
Games." (Hansard col. 368)
By way of background: Today the Olympic Truce is
seen as symbolic act accompanied by a flag outside the Olympic
Stadium and a peace wall inside the Olympic village, but that
was not always the case. At the outset of the Ancient Olympic
Games the Truce was not symbolic but scared.
In 776 BC the Greek King Iphitos frustrated at the
perpetual state of war consulted the Oracle at Delphi who proposed
a sporting competition every four years which would have as its
aim the bringing together the military and political leaders in
one place where they could seek to resolve their differences peacefully
and athletes competed together as Olympians rather than citizens
of a city state.
The Sacred Truce was remarkably successful: The ancient
Olympics ran for 1168 years until they were ended by the Romans
in AD394. During that time violations of the Truce were extremely
rare.
By contrast In the 116 years of the Modern Olympiad
the Games have had to be cancelled three times due to war, have
experienced major boycotts five times and been the focal point
of terrorist attacks twice.
In ancient Greece they stopped fighting to take part
in the Games, in the Modern era we stop the Games in order to
keep fighting. What is it that we have lost in 3,000 years of
civilisation that makes even today the notion that combatants
may exercise restraint during a period of Truce such a distant
dream?
Of course, there are major differences and these
should be acknowledged:
The ancient Games the athletes competed together
as "Olympians" rather than as representatives' of any
city or nation state. This ideal is reflected in the opening and
closing ceremonies of the modern Games where athletes enter the
stadium in their national teams at the start of the Games, but
enter together as "Olympians" for the closing ceremony.
Many of the conflicts happening around the world
today are civil conflicts and involve non-state actors. Given
that the non-state actors are by definition not members of the
United Nations and as such not signatories to the UN Resolution.
In the ancient Games the Truce was sacred because
the Games were held on neutral and sacred ground at the Temple
of Zeus, Olympia, which was like a combination between Wembley
Stadium and Westminster Abbey and athletes assumed an appropriate
reverence in their conduct. Today the Games are invariably awarded
to political nation States and far from being a unifying force,
diverse religious beliefs can be a barrier.
Given these substantial differences between the Modern
and Ancient Games it is understandable that the Olympic Truce
has been found to be politically too hot to handle and therefore
downgrade to a symbolic gesture to our ancient forebears, my question
is simply to ask, could it be something more than that. Not sacred,
not symbolic but perhaps serious.
What does a serious Truce look like in the modern
context?
The first change which would be required for the
Olympic Truce to be taken seriously would be for the responsibility
for its implementation to be taken by governments and the United
Nations rather than athletes and organisers. In the past governments
have willingly put their names to the Olympic Truce Resolution
but then take two rather large steps forward and insisted that
it is the responsibility of the Organising Committee and the Olympic
Committee to acknowledge the Truce. LOCOG have a huge responsibility
to deliver a world-class sporting event and the athletes are focussed
on making sure that they are at the peak of their performance.
Only governments have access to the full range of political and
diplomatic levers which will need to be pulled in order to move
from a symbolic to a serious Truce.
The second change which is necessary for the Truce
to be taken seriously would be for the diplomatic planning of
the Truce to be commenced at least two years in advance of the
Games rather, than a few months, which has recently been the norm.
These are highly complex negotiations, the equal of an inter-governmental
conference, and need to be given an equivalent time and resource.
That is why there is, in my view, a narrow window of opportunity
to convince the government of the merits of the case for Truce.
If Lord Coe's proposition of the Truce at the UN General Assembly
next year is not accompanied by a public and tangible declaration
of the support by the UK government then the prospects for success
are all but eliminated.
Third, the attention needs to be shifted beyond the
Truce as an institution to the Truce as an instrument. When the
guns fall silent then the voices of reason can be heard above
the bomb and the bullet and when the guns stop then the delivery
of vital humanitarian aid can start. Here we have an inspirational
and topical example to draw upon:
Jeremy Gilley, a British documentary producer who
began a campaign in 1997 to get the international community through
the United Nations to advance a one day of global peace—the
campaign is called "Peace One Day" www.peaceoneday.org
.In 2001 that campaign was endorsed unanimously by the United
Nations, like the Olympic Truce and was proposed by the British
Government. In 2007-08 and 2009 Peace One Day brokered a one day
truce in Afghanistan between warring factions including the Taliban
and the result was to allow health workers from UNICEF, WHO, UNAMA
and other agencies to move into hitherto unreachable areas due
to violent conflict and immunize 4.5 million children against
polio—it is an utterly inspiring story and it shows what
can be possible through a period of Truce.
Some may look upon the Truce as dangerous and naïve,
but I would counter that the opposite is actually the case. The
Truce obliges the signatory only to "pursue initiatives for
peace and reconciliation," if other parties, state or non-state
do not accept the offer then we are under no obligation to hold
to it ourselves. A Truce is an agreement between two or more warring
parties—no agreement, no Truce.
Finally, I believe there are some reasons why London
as Host City for the Games would be ideally placed to be the first
to embrace the Truce in the modern era of the Olympics:
First, London is without doubt the most ethnically
diverse city ever to host the Games, a true crossroads of the
world, but is also one which bears the scars of the aerial bombardments
in WWI and WWII, and terrorist attacks in the name of Irish Republicanism
and Muslim fundamentalism—most recently and most deadly
being the July 7th bombings of 2005 claiming 52 lives and injuring
700 which came the day after it was announced that London had
been awarded the Games. It is the only city to have hosted the
Games three times and it was the place of the first Paralympic
Games (then called the International Wheelchair Games) in 1946.
It is also the place where the world came together in 1946 for
the First General Assembly of the United Nations in Methodist
Central Hall and the first meeting of the United Nations Security
Council. It is the place of the Downing Street Declaration. It
has played host to the Live Aid Concert which drew an international
response to the famine in Ethiopia and to the Live 8 concert and
the jubilee campaign for debt forgiveness.
I believe that the Olympic Truce, as originally intended,
could be a powerful force in the public diplomacy efforts of the
FCO.
25 November 2010
| 
