London is one of five cities competing to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Since the modern Olympics began in 1896, London has hosted the games twice, in 1908 and 1948. My grandmother was a gymnast and wished to take part in the 1912 games but at that time women were not allowed to compete in this sport. So she and her team had to be content with a demonstration while the games took place in Stockholm. The first ever women's Wimbledon champion was a British lady, Charlotte Cooper, who won gold in Olympic tennis in 1900. Women's participation in gymnastics came later and my grandmother was the Women's team manager at Amsterdam in 1928.
The games now are a vast entertainment spectacular where individual and national hopes rise and fall over a three-week period. The competitors themselves and the games' hosts spend a fortune in time, effort and money in preparation. In the early games, preparation and training were not always necessary or even thought desirable. The games were for individuals, not nations; and for amateurs, not paid professionals. One former British athlete refused to leave his fishing holiday in Norway, preferring to turn up the day before his competition. He won. Such an attitude is unthinkable now.
Cheating in its various forms has been a feature since the beginning. An early candidate in the cross-country race was disqualified for using a motor vehicle for part of his race. Drugs became popular later and now are rigorously sought out and users stripped of their titles and banned. However, technology may be used in other ways -- for example, in running-shoe design, skin-tight swimsuits, special steel in skis and highly complex bows in the archery competition. Whatever the progress on eliminating drugs, the days of pure competition between human bodies have long gone.
Hosting the Olympics is both an honor and a nightmare. On the one hand, the games sometimes mark the progress of a country into the developed world, for example, Seoul in 1988 and Beijing in 2008. On the other hand, they can be a nightmare to stage, such as when terrorists struck in Munich in 1972; or a budgetary nightmare afterwards where the costs are not recovered. In some games, politics intrude to an extraordinary degree, such as the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980.
Others have been spectacular successes. In the brighter days before Sept. 11 and the war in Iraq, the Olympics in Sydney in 2000 were generally believed to be the best ever in terms of host organization and entertainment. Last year, Athens wisely decided not to follow this example but to cut its cloth more to its country's small size and wealth. Despite all the misgivings over the slow pace of preparation, these too were a success.
The World now has three main entertainment spectacles to choose from: the Olympic Games, Holly- (or Bolly-) wood films and the US presidential elections. In terms of cost, there is not much to choose between them. In terms of worldwide interest they are very similar. The presidential elections, however, outlast the other two in terms of duration, and in terms of the exhaustion of participants and spectators. Of course, you might ask which brings more good to the world? An impossible question, though I suspect that the Olympics tend to produce more prolonged pleasure. I know that my grandmother was proud of her involvement and contribution to the growth of the modern Olympic movement.
I too am involved in the Olympics. Part of my work here, like other British representatives overseas, is to promote -- discreetly and fairly -- the claims of London to host the 2012 Olympics. We want to show why London will be better than the other cities. The London bid uses the theme "Towards a One Planet Olympics." It links the staging of the Olympic Games and the Paralympics in London to the creation of stronger inner city communities through sport, the environment and health. The plans involve low-carbon and zero-waste strategies in a comprehensive approach to tackling climate change issues.
The new Olympic Park and much needed new sporting venues in east London will provide the best possible conditions and facilities for athletes. They include healthy, energy-efficient buildings that will be "climate-proof" to minimize greenhouse emissions.
"Environmental excellence will go hand in hand with sporting performance at the London 2012 Olympic Games," bid chairman and Olympic champion Sebastian Coe has said.
The new Olympic Park will also transform the surrounding east London neighborhoods, which include some of the poorest and most physically deprived areas of the UK. They will become a sustainable new urban quarter for the capital, with sport at its heart, just 10km from central London.
London bid officials worked closely with many environmental and sustainable development organizations and experts from around the world -- in particular the World Wildlife Fund and BioRegional. The plans are regarded by international experts as a model for tackling common inner-city and urban-community problems.
Other cities have their strong points, too. Tomorrow, we shall know which city has won when the International Olympic Committee makes its choice in Singapore. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and football great David Beckham will be there to support London's bid. As in all sporting events, I wish all cities the best of luck.
Derek Marsh is director general of the British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers