Wings Over Scotland

When watching the Olympics over the coming couple of weeks, it’s probably not likely that you’ll be pondering the massive spending that goes into the defence and security industry as a result of such events. Yet in both superficial and deeper senses, it now represents the primary purpose of the Games, with sport merely the disguise under which the true agenda is smuggled past the unsuspecting public.

The precedent for this phenomenon was set over 70 years ago, by the event which would go on to become the template on which all subsequent Games were based. We refer, of course, to the 1936 Berlin Olympics in Nazi Germany.

On the 13th of May 1931, the International Olympic Committee awarded the 1936 Summer Olympics to Berlin. The choice was intended to signal Germany’s return to the world community and its rehabilitation after the defeat and humiliation of World War I. However, two years after the award was made Adolf Hitler seized power, and spurred on by his Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels he set about making the games a showcase for Nazi Germany.

The intention was simple – set up the games to portray the new Germany in the best light possible. The Games were to be a place to play down plans for territorial expansion, and would be exploited to instead bedazzle foreign spectators and journalists with an image of a peaceful, tolerant Germany. The opportunity to portray an image of how the Nazis wanted to be seen, with the world watching and listening, was too good to pass up, and so political will was deployed behind the Games, with Hitler himself becoming an ardent supporter.

Plans to boycott the Games in response to the maltreatment of Jews and non-whites already apparent under the regime were discussed in the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands, but were short-lived. The outcry was more vociferous in America, but the President of the American Olympic Committee at the time, Avery Brundage, declined to back a boycott, on the now-familiar grounds that “The Olympic Games belong to the athletes and not to the politicians”. Little did he know what the Nazis had in store.

In order to make the Games a political success the Nazis needed to add some showmanship to the simple athletics meeting they still were in the 1930s, and set about concocting fake ancient rituals to give the event an air of history. Two of the most noted examples were the creation of the Olympic torch relay and the prominence of the Olympic Rings. Although a sacred flame did burn 24 hours a day at Olympia, the games were not heralded in this fashion as ancient Greeks worked by word of mouth, sending heralds – not torchbearers – running through the streets. But the imagery was powerful (and fitted with existing Nazi pageantry) and so was utilised.

Likewise, the rings were not yet a universally-recognised symbol of the Olympics, having only made their debut at the 1920 Games in Antwerp, Belgium. Originally designed in 1913 by Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the IOC, to symbolize the first five Olympics for a World Olympic Congress in Paris in 1914, they had to be abandoned at the outbreak of World War I. Having been resurrected in Antwerp, they too were drawn into the Nazi spectacle.

Leni Riefenstahl, the “Olympia” filmmaker who also chronicled Hitler’s rise to power, had the rings carved into a stone altar at the ancient Greek city of Delphi, creating the myth that they were a symbol dating back more than two millennia. Pushed by Hitler, the rings became part of modern Olympic symbolism and have been the universal emblem of the Games ever since.

To maintain control over the Nazi efforts, the Reich Press Chamber, under Joseph Goebbels’s Ministry of Propaganda, exerted strict censorship over the German press, radio, film, and publishing, issuing numerous directives regarding coverage of the Olympic Games and limiting the scope and content of reporting by German journalists. The Ministry of Propaganda also had laws amended in preparation for the arrival of Olympic spectators, with Nazi officials ordered that foreign visitors should not be subjected to the criminal strictures of the Nazi anti-homosexual laws.

 “German newspapers will print at their own risk reports from the Olympics released prior to the official press report.” July 22, 1936

 “Press coverage should not mention that there are two non-Aryans among the women: Helene Mayer (fencing) and Gretel Bergmann (high jump and all-around track and field competition).” July 16, 1936

 “The racial point of view should not be used in any way in reporting sports results; above all Negroes should not be insensitively reported… Negroes are American citizens and must be treated with respect as Americans.” August 3, 1936

 “No comments should be made regarding Helene Mayer’s non-Aryan ancestry or her expectations for a gold medal at the Olympics.” February 19, 1936

 The northern section of the Olympic village, originally utilized by the Wehrmacht [German army], should not be referred to as ‘Kasernel’ (the barracks), but will hereafter be called North Section Olympic Village.” July 27, 1936

Everything was falling into place to ensure that the propaganda machine was in full swing by the time the Olympics started. “Undesirables”, including 800 Gypsies, were rounded up into detention camps, and to ensure that everything went according to plan a crude CCTV system was devised, the first of its kind.

This event marked the beginning of states using the Games to test out technologies and approaches to control their populations. The control of media, removal of dissidents, innovative use of surveillance technology and altering of laws to suit the Games’ agenda brought the Nazis the result they wanted – the New York Times reported that the Games put Germans “back in the fold of nations”, and made them “more human again”.

That success is why the modern Games are now more important as a political platform than as an opportunity for athletic achievements. Other countries have used the Games to boost their national image and feather the nests of vested interests, but it was China that took the Olympics to a new level of propaganda choreography.

In 2008 the country was facing a cultural backlash from the western world regarding the Games, with political repression, epitomised by brutality in Tibet, mass censorship of free speech and choice, and suppression of any information that cast the state in a bad light. The most pressing threat to the country’s international standing was its public perception. All of its most important strategic challenges, from sustaining economic growth to Tibet, were rooted in a connection to China’s national image.

The Beijing Games, however, helped China to portray a successful national “brand”, depicting it as an emerging global power with growing influence on the world stage and enabling it to present its positive side. It was a much-needed one – the country was renowned for a poor human rights record, the invasion of Tibet, being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and at the time was also supporting the Sudan government while genocide was happening in Darfur. Clearly some PR was required.

The efforts that the Chinese went to were awe-inspiring. In order to combat the image of being a large polluter, the government ordered that all commuters within the Olympic region would only be allowed to use their cars on alternate days – half the population one day, the other half the next. This had the effect of significantly cleaning up the air and presenting a far less polluted city for the games.

The effort even went as far as engaging in cloud seeding so that the event wouldn’t have any rain to spoil the effect – August is the rainy season in Beijing but the “Beijing Weather Modification Office” prepared for seven years to be sure that not a single drop would fall on the stadium during the opening ceremony.

It also emerged later that during the opening ceremony Lin Miaoke, a nine year old girl who appeared to perfectly sing China’s national anthem, mimed to a recording by another girl. The instruction to ban the real child singer, Yang Peiyi, was issued by a Politburo member as the girl was deemed not to be “cute” enough, and came on top of revelations that much of the incredible firework display beamed onto TV screens around the globe wasn’t real, but a computer animation.

The Chinese government ruthlessly seized any opportunity which could be turned to the benefit of the Games as a political tool. The Sichuan earthquake disaster of May 2008 claimed over 70,000 lives, but also bolstered the Games by diluting public opposition – Dick Pound, a senior IOC official from Canada, reportedly confirmed (on CBC News) that the earthquake changed the political and public mood of Canadians about an Olympic boycott. The earthquake featured in opening speeches, and the Chinese national team was led by Lin Hao, a nine-year old survivor of the disaster, turning a national tragedy into a winning Olympic story.

To understand the relevance of this to the London 2012 Games, we need to look at how the United Kingdom is perceived at home and abroad. At home the Scottish independence movement looms large over the Westminster coalition. The Olympics have offered the government a chance to hang the Union on a convenient peg and we can expect much repeating of images, anecdotes, symbols and beliefs in order to reinforce a “British” identity.

But the other crucial aspect of the Games with regard to the domestic audience is that during the largest austerity drive in history, when budgets are being cut and even the police are close to striking, the Olympics cannot be seen to be a waste of money.

The government is getting around this in three ways. Firstly, by attempting to hide the true cost of the Games by having certain large expenses accounted for in other budgets, such as domestic infrastructure. Secondly, by trying to convince the public that the Games will actually turn a profit once all of the increased revenues associated with them are taken into account, so it’s good for the economy. (Of course this only works if the first objective is implemented and reduces the headline figures.) And finally, by insisting that the Games will provide a long-lasting legacy, and as such should be looked at over a period of decades rather than in the immediate aftermath.

(Awkwardly, these strategies contradict and undermine each other somewhat. If the Olympics are such good value, for example, then why is the legacy being pushed so forcefully? If they’re a long-term investment, why hide the true costs in other budgets?)

Internationally, the image issues facing the UK are that it’s nearly bankrupt due to austerity, British military strength is declining and the country is no longer the innovative economic powerhouse of old. So a huge effort will be made to put on a spectacle that defies (or at least ignores) the lack of money and presents the UK as having a strong, vibrant economy, while also subtly reinforcing the impression of Great Britain’s military might.

We can illustrate the former by looking at the costly preparations. Even the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has grave doubts on the Olympic budget. At the heart of their concerns is how the original “official” security budget of £282m was allowed to double to £553m – and including the military resources drafted in at the last minute to fill the gaps left by G4S, tops £1 billion.

The PAC also criticised LOCOG (the organising committee) for agreeing the new terms of its contract with private security provider G4S. While the number of guards covered by the new contract has increased six-fold, G4S’s programme-management costs have increased nine-fold, and operational costs 20-fold, yet no negotiation was done to try and reduce the G4S profit margin as a result of the ballooning costs. This, remember, is purely the civilian security apparatus.

(Even that wasn’t enough for the USA, who declared that 500 FBI agents would be in London to assist in protecting its team.)

The total number of people involved in the security operation has been increased to 41,700, with the military originally planned to have a low-key presence, providing just small naval support off the Weymouth area near the Olympic sailing venue. Today the plan has altered so that HMS Bulwark and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Mounts Bay will now patrol off the town, as well as supplying specialist equipment to the Met Police operation in that area. Specialist military units such as explosives-disposal teams and sniffer-dog units will also be engaged in the operation, HMS Ocean and its helicopter fleet will be docked on the Thames and batteries of surface-to-air missiles will be positioned throughout the capital.

It’s not clear what such a move achieves, unless the MOD are expecting an attack from conventional armed forces. In that event, fighters stationed close by could provide the same support, more discreetly, and in any event any flights that are thought to be suspicious are to be diverted to Prestwick Airport to be dealt with by Strathclyde Police. (An honour that’s costing the people of Strathclyde millions, on top of the £1.2 million burden of having to host some of the game’s football matches at a half-empty Hampden. Again, these figures are not included in the official Olympics budget.)

HMS Ocean has a fleet of helicopters that can give air support if needed, but in and of itself does not add any relevant value to the defence of the Games. The helicopters could have been stationed in London at one of the many airports without attracting any attention. But this is not the point of such a deployment. Discussing the increase in security spending on the Olympics, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said:

 “These numbers will be in addition to the ceremonial role which the armed forces will play during the Olympics, which will showcase our armed forces to the world”.

The ostentatious military presence isn’t for the purpose of protecting the Games, but rather is simply a grandstanding piece of imperial posturing, intended to convey the image of Britain as a still-great military power.

The coalition might be building aircraft carriers with no fighter jets on them, but HMS Ocean will be made to stand in as a helicopter platform to maintain the illusion of “punching above our weight”, with the UK taxpayer picking up the tab, despite an admission from Hammond that there is no “specific” threat to the Olympics.

The focus on security will also infringe on the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens, with the police now being granted powers to enter homes to remove posters of a political nature, and peaceful demonstrators being repressed on draconian terms by the state. Such a case is that of 29-year-old Simon Moore, who committed the heinous act of protesting against a practice basketball court being built near the Olympic Park in east London. Now under a banning order, he faces a 5-year jail sentence if he ventures “within 100 yards of Olympic venues, homes of participants, officials or spectators and the route of the Olympic torch”.

Given that Mr Moore lives in the area and it’s going to be pretty difficult for him not to bump into spectators, it’s a harsh punishment for exercising his democratic right to peaceful protest. Moore told Russia Today that the legislation was being used as a pretext to curtail demonstrations against “aspects of the Games that are undemocratic or unpopular. It’s insane.  I think it shows the prevailing state of consciousness in our governments and the world, which is one of fear – fear and control”.

(In a further ingenious twist, protesters who are arrested may find themselves detained for the duration of the Games, as courts will be forced to close due to the overstretched London transport system making it impossible for defendants, lawyers and court staff to get to work.)

Following the template laid down by Adolf Hitler, the London 2012 Games are being used by the UK government as anything but a celebration of sporting achievement. Instead they’re a distraction from disastrous economic policies, an aggressive military parade designed to intimidate other nations, a massive corporate annexation of public land and a testing-ground for oppressive policing tactics. Enjoy them, because you’ll be paying for them, in countless ways, for a long time to come.