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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS