The Olympic Games this year glimmer on London’s horizon, but the Games are more than a smiley-faced sportstopia. The cost of hosting the Olympics has skyrocketed while private funding has evaporated, leaving the British government holding the fiscal bag. Meanwhile, security officials have the green light to militarize the public sphere. The Games have become the pure-grade expression of celebration capitalism, the feelgood complement to Naomi Klein’s “disaster capitalism.”
Host cities routinely underestimate the costs and overstate the benefits of the Games. London is no exception. The city’s bid proclaimed: “Every sector of the economy will benefit from the staging of the Olympic Games.” Originally slated to cost about £2.4 billion (US$3.81 billion), Olympic costs had jumped to £9.3 billion by 2007. The UK’s National Audit Office noted that public sector funding has almost tripled, while private-sector contributions dwindled to less than 2 percent. Recently, the House of Commons’ public accounts committee revealed costs were “heading for about £11 billion.” Meanwhile, Olympics critic Julian Cheyne of Games Monitor calculates costs at £13 billion. A Sky Sports investigation included public-transport upgrade costs, catapulting the five-ring price tag to £24 billion.
The public-pays-private-bails theme crystalized in the construction of the Olympic village. Originally envisaged as a £1 billion centerpiece of London 2012’s urban regeneration plan, the village was to be financed by Australian developer Lend Lease. (The deal reeked of cronyism — David Higgins, the chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority until February last year, previously headed Lend Lease.) However, the 2008 economic collapse and credit crunch led private capital to abandon the project, leaving it to the British government. In spring 2009, Olympics honchos admitted the village would be “fully nationalized” — that is, paid for by taxpayers.
Olympics history is marked by the production of metropolitan jungles teeming with white elephants. London organizers were anxious not to add to the herd, so in August last year they sold the village at a taxpayer loss of £275 million to the Qatari ruling family’s property firm. Quizzically, British Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport Jeremy Hunt championed the transaction as a “fantastic deal that will give taxpayers a great return and shows how we are securing a legacy from London’s Games.” Such surreptitious subsidies are standard practice with Olympic-induced urban development. Host governments have the incentive to backstop projects to avoid embarrassment on the global stage, while private firms punt responsibility when the going gets tough.
Meanwhile, security officials are exploiting the Olympics as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to multiply and militarize their weapons stocks, laminating another layer on to the surveillance state. The Games justify a security architecture to prevent terrorism, but that architecture can double to suppress or intimidate acts of political dissent. The Olympic Charter actually prohibits political activism, stating, “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” What “other areas” means is open to broad interpretation. So despite Olympics human-rights rhetoric, the charter dictates — if indirectly — that local authorities squelch political activism. On cue, London police recently vowed to scour social media to sniff out any organized protests or disruptions.
The Olympics will militarize London, with surface-to-air missiles at the ready, a Royal Navy battleship moored offshore and soldiers on patrol. After initially estimating 10,000 security guards would suffice, the London organizing committee determined more than double that number would be required. The UK Ministry of Defence is filling the gap with about 13,500 military personnel, 4,000 more than are currently based in Afghanistan. Not placated, the US declared it would send its own security to London, including 500 FBI agents.
The Olympics afford an opportunity to test-drive high-tech equipment in an urban setting. Lightweight aerial drones will hover above while “combined firearms response teams” — elite police units replete with snipers — roam below. Thus London 2012 will tender a legacy not touted in bid materials: a repression-ready security state. The military-grade technologies secured during the Olympics-induced state of exception become normalized for workaday policing in the wake of the Games. And this repressive urbanism is expensive: £1 billion and counting.
In The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein explains how capitalists unabashedly capitalize on catastrophe. Disasters create collective states of shock that soften us up to the point where we hand over what we would otherwise ardently defend. In the wake of disaster, while the general population reels in chaos, corporations and their government collaborators ransack the public sphere and slosh thick dollops of neoliberal policy on to the public’s plate.
The 2012 London Olympics are shaping up like a gold-medal playbook for “celebration capitalism” — disaster capitalism’s affable cousin. Both occur in states of exception that allow plucky politicos and their corporate pals to push policies they would not dream of during normal times. However, while disaster capitalism eviscerates the state, celebration capitalism manipulates state actors as partners, pushing economics rooted in so-called public-private partnerships. All too often these public-private partnerships are lopsided: The public pays and the private profits. In a bait and switch that is swaddled in bonhomie, the public takes the risks and private groups scoop up the rewards.
The Olympics promise to conjure athletic dexterity and scintillating competition. However, like it or not, other games are in the works — Olympics bigwigs are uncorking celebration capitalism.
Jules Boykoff is an associate professor of political science at Pacific University in Oregon.
Copyright: Guardian News & Media 2012
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under