January 29, 1980
Page 1054
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, we labor under no illusion about a boycott of the Olympics by U.S. athletes, which we certainly hope will be universal — that may be too much to hope for, but we hope it will be well-nigh universal among our athletes — and we trust that they will realize that the national interest must come before any of our personal interests.
Many have a chance to prove that in an active way almost every day. But, to most, that privilege is denied until we run into an emergency like this. I really feel very deeply about these athletes and for their views as expressed to us yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee by one of their number, Miss DeFrantz, who headed the Olympic rowing team in 1976 and is in training for the rowing team again this year.
She spoke of the strength and endurance of the athletes and of their great disappointment, even though that disappointment will be tempered by the fact that, according to the U.S. Olympic Committee, an Olympic team will be chosen in any case. We have encouraged them in that selection and in assuming that there will be games of a suitable kind to show the prowess of our athletes and the athletes of other countries which join us in this boycott.
I might say parenthetically that that boycott movement is gathering great momentum, Mr. President. We have an estimate of 20 as the number of nations which are likely to join us. My own opinion is that that number is very likely to be materially exceeded. I believe the nations of the world are finally awakening to what is going on beneath their very eyes. The rule of force, if the Soviets have their way, will finally have lead the world to a trial, a grave trial, perhaps even involving even the danger of extinction for the next 10 to 20 years.
And so, when Miss DeFrantz spoke of strength and endurance, it made a very deep impression on me. But that very strength and endurance, Mr. President, emphasized by Miss DeFrantz should now be used by the athletes in the defense of their country, with a real understanding that it sometimes takes more strength and endurance, more than the strength and endurance which athletic participation calls for, to endure a disappointment, when it is called for in the highest interest of a nation which, on the whole, has tried to lead the world toward paths of justice and paths of peace.
I address this to the athletes, Mr. President. They are the ones who are likely to be the most hurt by what has occurred. I hope that they will see that the strength and endurance which made them champions are now equally required, if not more so, by the peace of the world and the interest of our Nation.
Now, Mr. President, why do I say this, when I also acknowledge that it is very doubtful that a boycott of the Olympics by the United States and many other nations will cause the Soviet Union to turn from its aggressive course?
I say that, Mr. President, because we are now in a stage of what another one of the athletes, Mr. Oerter, a discus thrower, who had a different view than Miss DeFrantz on the boycott issue, called the unifying factor for the United States. I think it is a unifying factor for all the forces which, notwithstanding their shortcomings are nonetheless stumbling their way on the road toward a better or more peaceful and a more just world than we have.
Mr. President, there is very rarely an opportunity which is exactly opposite to the situation it relates to. Afghanistan might be considered some peripheral event, half the world away. Many Americans have never heard of it. For the last couple of years, the government has probably been, for practical purposes, very much under the thumb of Moscow, anyhow. Yet all of a sudden, it erupts into a great world issue.
Mr. President, it erupted into a great world issue because it comes at a time and in a place and in a situation which serves notice on the world that there is some new crowd or new attitude in control in the Kremlin that is a lot more reckless than the previous one. Heretofore, Mr. President, it has been almost a maxim that when the Soviets get to the brink, they pull back. They have now put the world in doubt as to whether that is or will be so: hence, the enormous rush to prepare for what we must face if it is not so. Because we cannot risk the chance that the collar of Moscow — once affixed on any country, because of the nature of the system — is almost impossible to break, whether it is on Afghanistan or any other country.
And here is the first time that the Soviet Union, with its own troops — not Cubans or forces which they call fighters for national liberation such as the Vietcong or whatever, but their own troops — have sought to overpower and subjugate a people against their will.
Mr. President, the Olympic games might very well be that unifying factor. Athletics, prowess in athletics, has a great appeal to the heart of the whole world. And the frustration of athletes may very well turn into a determination not to submit to the forces of tyranny and totalitarianism, which are so clearly represented on the other side, on the part of the rest of the world which no other event could have sparked.
So this boycott resolution is important. I hope very much that we will treat it with the seriousness and judiciousness which it deserves.
I believe, Mr. President, that we will see that reaction from other nations and that, whereas, they, too, were inclined to dismiss this as a slap on the wrist and as something which may have been an expression of weakness rather than of strength, they will in the coming days come to realize that this is just such an action which can produce the clarion call to at long last rally the forces of freedom.
When people have to choose, there is no easy way out. They have to choose yes or no. We know what that means in this Chamber.
It is high time that especially our allies, who have on occasion had a free ride because we were willing to carry the ball, take the beating, and we pay the bill, now have to stand up and be counted. This is the first inning, Mr. President, of what may be a long game, and this is the time when we expect people to declare themselves.
So I hope, Mr. President, that our athletes, will have their chance by being chosen on the team, and will have their opportunity in other theaters of competition to show their prowess, without breaking the Olympic tradition. I am against breaking the Olympic tradition. I do not believe we ought to run adversary Olympic games. But I believe that somehow or other the world will hold together and that 1984 will see other Olympic games. We should not destroy the system. Mr. President, to give our athletes, and those of other countries similarly-minded, an opportunity to show their prowess to the world is a good and healthy thing. I hope we go through with that effectively. I would encourage the U.S. Olympic Committee to proceed that way.
I have one other word, Mr. President, and that is about money. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
It costs money to train an Olympic team. I understand about $30 million has already been spent.
Once the people who contribute heard about the fact that the United States was going to boycott the games, contributions fell off very materially.
Mr. President, from the point of view of the expression of the average citizen's feelings, nothing could be worse. I hope very much that people will realize that just as we expect our athletes to give their strength and endurance to enduring this disappointment, so we hope the public will continue, and indeed increase, as its gesture of protest, their contributions to the Olympic teams, so that the training of the athletes may be completed and so that they would, in some proper theater, be able to perform in the way that we hoped they might have performed at the Olympic games in Moscow.
Finally, Mr. President, this resolution is not conditioned on withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, and I am glad it does not, because this resolution should not be conditioned, Mr. President, on their mere military withdrawal from Afghanistan. That is very likely to occur some time in the next few months anyhow, when the Soviet Union has firmly fixed its collar on Afghanistan and effectively controls it with 10, 12, or 14 divisions on its northwest border, so that if Afghanistan breathes too hard, they can move in there in 6 hours. That withdrawal is not going to be the end of this event, Mr. President, nor is it going to teach the Soviet Union that this kind of adventure does not pay.
I believe we have to be convinced in the world that the Soviet Union really wants détente. We ought to persist in seeking détente, but one of the elements of seeking détente is that you know when you are threatened and that you have the means to counter threats. Then and then only can you have détente.
When we are convinced and the world is convinced — not we alone for I am not foolish about that — that the Soviet Union is willing to return to at least a détente course, then, whether it is a week or a month or a year, or 10 years from now, we should be willing to take up that offer.
I am pleased, Mr. President, and I believe the committee is to be commended, for not having conditioned the effect of this resolution on the physical, technical withdrawal of Soviet troops.
Now, Mr. President, I give due thanks to the House under the leadership of Congressman ZABLOCKI and the Foreign Affairs Committee for initiating that resolution, and thanks, Mr. President, to our own Members who led various groups of Senators, first Senator MUSKIE, a member of our own committee, then Senator PRYOR and Senator HEFLIN, all of whom, with many colleagues, introduced resolutions.
And thanks to BILL BRADLEY, Mr. President. It is a great honor to the Senate to have him here as one of the pool of brains and experience which makes these 100 men and women what they have been and still are. I often look around this Chamber, Mr. President, and wonder where are the Websters, Clays, Calhouns, and Borahs of the current Senate.
Well, I think they are here and history will tell us they are here — with different dress, different attitudes, different ideas, but still what we were. I believe an occasion like this summons forth those qualities, evidenced, to my great pleasure, in new Members, and especially a new Member who was a former athlete and who will be, we know, a great Senator.
So, Mr. President, I am very deeply gratified to be the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee in the midst of this maelstrom, keeping its head, pursuing a steady course and doing what has to be done with small beginnings, Mr. President, but with small beginnings which portend much greater and more decisive decisions in the days ahead. I hope the Senate will approve this resolution without change.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
First of all, I thank Senator JAVITS for what he has had to say about the action taken by the Foreign Relations Committee, and thank him especially for those qualities of his which are now legendary in the Senate and which contributed to the shaping of the final resolution.
As he indicated, I introduced a resolution, and other Senators did. I believe the resolution reported by the Foreign Relations Committee is an improvement on all of those which the committee heard yesterday.
Second, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee (Mr. CHURCH) as well as those of Senator JAVITS on their interpretation of this resolution and what the Foreign Relations Committee had in mind in sending this resolution to the floor. I will not embellish the points they have made because our time is limited.
I also want to yield to Senator BRADLEY shortly so that the Senate may have the benefit, of his views.
Before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that Senator LEVIN be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1640 to House Concurrent Resolution 249.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as the Senate considers today the concurrent resolution on the 1980 summer Olympics, I would like to share with my colleagues two editorials, one by Donald K. Powers of the Maine Broadcasting System, and the second, an editorial that appeared this weekend in the Bangor Daily News.
These two commentaries articulately express support for our Government's policy regarding the Moscow Olympics and showing strong disapproval of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Mr. President, I would like to read just a couple of excerpts from the first of those editorials as follows:
Keep politics out of the Olympics? Of course. Americans have long proven they believe in that.
But let's not kid ourselves about the current situation. When Soviet tanks rolled over a neighbor, they "crossed the border" from politics to war. Unless they quickly reverse their field, they will have killed the Olympic spirit as far as Moscow is concerned. For the world community to go play in their backyard this summer would be the height of hypocrisy. Our appearance in Moscow would tacitly contradict our country's vehement disapproval of their war action.
When it comes to speaking out against unprovoked war, Olympic athletes should confirm their support of the U.S. government. If they don't, millions of Americans will begin to question their support of the Olympics.
Keep the Olympics out of politics? . . . of course!
But let's also keep aggressive warring nations out of the Olympics.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorials be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EDITORIAL
JANUARY 14, 1980.
Keep politics out of the Olympics? Of course. Americans have long proven they believe in that.
But let's not kid ourselves about the current situation. When Soviets tanks rolled over a neighbor, they "crossed the border" from politics to war. Unless they quickly reverse their field, they will have killed the Olympic spirit as far as Moscow is concerned. For the world community to go play in their backyard this summer would be the height of hypocrisy. Our appearance in Moscow would tacitly contradict our country's vehement disapproval of their war action.
When it comes to speaking out against unprovoked war, Olympic athletes should confirm their support of the U.S. government. If they don't millions of Americans will begin to question their support of the Olympics.
Keep the Olympics out of politics? . . . of course!
But let's also keep aggressive warring nations out of the Olympics.
[From the Bangor Daily News, Jan. 19, 1980]
BOYCOTT THE OLYMPICS
Following the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, President Carter included among his list of U.S. retaliatory responses the possible boycott by this country of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow.
This week the administration edged slightly closer to "the possible boycott" by announcing an approximate date of a supposed final decision on the boycott threat.
Does the president really have a choice in the matter?
We don't see how. It is growing compellingly clear to us and others that, of all possible nonmilitary responses, a boycott of the Olympics would hurt the Soviets the most.
The Russians have invested all of Moscow's construction budget for the past few years in new Olympic facilities.
From all reports, the Soviets view their hosting of the Olympiad as an enormous political opportunity, a chance for the Soviets to enhance their world image, clinch their frustrated quest for legitimacy, and most importantly, show off the best aspects of their system to thousands of tourists and millions of television viewers throughout the world.
An effective boycott of the Games would be a staggering blow to the Russians. It is a setback that the Soviet Union richly deserves, a retaliatory kick in the behind that just might give both the Soviet people and the Kremlin some idea of our willingness to punish Soviet aggression — present and future.
Granted, the boycott isn't apt to alter in any way the Soviet game plan in Afghanistan. And it is regrettable that devoted, dedicated athletes must be shortchanged by the dictates of global politics.
But anything less than an absolute and unequivocal boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics by this country will send a familiar signal to the Russians that they may on the one hand play host for an international civilized affair while mauling and trampling elsewhere.
President Carter should declare a U.S. boycott of the Olympics immediately.
If an alternate site can be arranged and carried out logistically — such as Montreal — fine. But the feasibility of conducting the Games elsewhere should not influence the president's decision.
The Soviet Union needs to be taught a memorable lesson in the caliber of U.S. resolve.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I share Senator JAVITS' impression of the appearance of Senator BRADLEY before the Committee on Foreign Relations yesterday. It was an outstanding presentation from a Senator who, as Senator JAVITS has pointed out, has experience as an athlete who has played in the Olympics and, who, in addition to that, brings a quality of thoughtfulness and comprehension to this issue which, I think, lends important and impressive support to the action which the Senate is being urged to take today.
I yield to the Senator from New Jersey such time as he would like to take.
Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the distinguished Senator from across the river in New York (Mr. JAVITS) for their very kind remarks concerning my contribution to this debate on the very critical and, in some senses, painful issue that is before this body today.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution that was drafted by the Committee on Foreign Relations yesterday, after lengthy testimony. I think that it addresses the political issues that confront us today as a nation. I think it also addresses the issue of the future of the Olympic games and, perhaps, shows a path that could be followed to make the Olympic games more consistent with the ideal that their founders in the late 19th century had in mind.
Mr. President, it is very clear that the ideal of the Olympics is one that most reasonable people strongly support: the ideal of the oneness of the world, of brotherhood, of mutual understanding.
This is something that indeed, is worth pursuing. However, the reality of the Olympics, over the last 30 or 40 years, has been something quite different from that ideal. It has been marred, time and time again, by nationalistic displays and buffeted by international politics. To see this, one does not have to point only to the "Nazi Olympics" of 1936, or to the withdrawal of the Swiss and the Dutch in 1956 in condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Hungary, nor to the events of 1968 and the assassinations of 1972, or to the withdrawal of 28 Third World countries from the Montreal Olympics in 1976. No, one need not point just to those things. The conduct of the Olympic games makes clear that the Olympics, as constituted today, are far from the ideal that their founders had in mind.
Mr. President, U.S. participation under the Olympic flag in Moscow at a time when innocent Pushtoon people allegedly are being nerve-gassed in Afghanistan, in my view, is not something that would earn this country respect or make us proud as a nation. Therefore, the resolution before the body today clearly addresses the issue when it calls for the withdrawal of the U.S. competition in the Olympic games in Moscow if they are not moved or postponed.
It is my personal belief that they will not be moved. To move them would present enormous logistical problems. Nor are they likely to be postponed. In my opinion the International Olympic Committee has not demonstrated over the years, an ability to respond quickly to changing realities in the world. Therefore, what matters inevitably will lead to is the decision as to whether U.S. athletes should withdraw from the Olympics.
That is a painful decision. It is a painful decision for those athletes who have struggled through many years to have the opportunity to compete against the best of their counterparts in probably the best-known sports competition in the world. But there are times — this is one of them — when the imperatives of a stable and free world order are really more important than the imperatives of the playing field. I hope that this realization is not lost on our allies, who are more dependent or oil imports from the Middle East and have as great, if not a greater stake in preserving the sovereignty and integrity of nations in that region than we do.
Mr. President, there are elements in this resolution which will be, and should be, considered punitive to the Soviet Union. Some people will also feel it deals harshly with the Olympics. But in fact there is an important element of this resolution that is far from punitive. Indeed it is hopeful. It promises the beginning of a new Olympics closer to its original ideal. The element I am talking about is the provision of the resolution that calls for the International Olympic Committee to give urgent consideration to the establishment of a permanent home for the Olympics in the country of their origin, Greece.
Mr. President, there are many changes needed in the Olympics as we know them today if we are to have an Olympic freer of politics. In 1976, after witnessing the increasing politicization of the Olympics over the years, and after having a genuine, worthwhile and memorable personal experience in the Olympics in 1964, I reflected on the changes that would have to be made to return them closer to the ideal and made specific recommendations — such things as having only one uniform standard of eligibility for competition, making skill the only criterion for competition, and abandoning the ridiculous notion of amateurism in a world of differing social and economic systems.
Mr. President, for a moment I would like to reflect on my personal experience in 1964, playing with the U.S. Olympic basketball team. In the finals, we played the Soviet Union. We won. Two years later, I was playing for an Italian meatpacking firm. We played the Soviet team in the European Cup finals. Mr. President, man for man, that team was the same team that played in the Olympics of 1964, except now they were not called the Soviet National Team, but were called the Soviet Army Club Team — amateurs, according to the rules of international competition; professionals, indeed, if viewed from the standpoint of how much time they spent playing the game and what their compensation was. So the first recommendation that I made in 1976 for a purified Olympics was to establish ability as the sole criterion for eligibility.
Second, I suggested that we give everyone who participates a medal — give everyone who participates a medal and save the gold medal for only those individuals who break the Olympic record, who break the world record. Thereby, we would put into the Olympic games that competition against a standard which is the fundamental aspect of the ideals, and remove from the games competition among nations and against individuals who represent them.
Mr. President, I further suggested, as a third point, that we abandon team sports in the Olympic games, because they too easily simulate war games. One only has to look at the Hungarian-Soviet water polo game in 1956, or the Czech-Soviet ice hockey game in 1968, or any time the Indians and the Pakistanis play field hockey, to recognize that these games, indeed, simulate war.
Mr. President, the fourth point I made about reforming the Olympics, was to make them more participant-oriented. In many cases, the athlete has gotten lost amid the gigantic construction projects, the TV cameras, and the hoards of tourists that flock to one site or another in the quadrennial festival. If, indeed, the purpose is to promote mutual understanding and brotherhood, the way to do that is through enhancing the experience of the athlete who lives in the Olympic village and meets and interacts with people from all over the world. That was the most enjoyable and memorable aspect of my experience.
But the experience in the Olympics today forces that to be compacted into a 2-week period, a 2-week period when competition is intense, when training is absolutely necessary, and when national goals and national success is paramount in the minds of the competing athletes.
That is why, Mr. President, I also suggested that we expand the Olympic games from 2 weeks to 2 months, and that instead of recognizing only the quickest and most agile and strongest among the world youth, we expand the concept of the Olympic games so it also recognizes other artistic and cultural qualtities that make the world a wonderful place to live, indeed, that would make the Olympic games more rewarding and genuinely offer the opportunity to promote brotherhood and mutual understanding among men and women.
Mr. President, the fifth suggestion that I made was that the Olympics be located permanently in Greece.
Too often have we been preoccupied with firsts in Olympics: the first Asian games, the first Latin American games, the first games in Germany after World War II, and now the first Communist games.
Not only does that set the stage for the host country to produce a gigantic display of nationalism, but it also encourages a situation where the Olympics infringes into the domestic politics of that host country. For example in the last Olympics, for more than a year the location of the Olympics site and their financing arrangements played havoc with the politics of that nation.
Mr. President, the way to end this kind of quadrennial nationalistic expression is to give the games a permanent home in the country of their origin, Greece, where, according to an expanded concept of them, the world's youth would return every 4 years for a 2- or 3-month period in which they could really interact and really focus on the ideals upon which the Olympics are founded.
Mr. President, I think the Senate is sensitive to the need for such reforms, and that is why the resolution we consider today is designed not simply to condemn the Soviet Union but simultaneously to offer hope for a new Olympics, truer to the ideal of their founders. It is constructive and offers the prospect that, indeed, brotherhood and mutual understanding might become paramount at all Olympic games.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
AMENDMENT NO. 1840
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to substitute the committee's language with respect to the resolving clause of the House concurrent resolution. I ask unanimous consent that it be substituted for the language in the House bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I know of no objection on this side. This is the product of the committee by a vote of 14 to 0, and I hope that the Chair will accomplish that objective.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment (No. 1640) is agreed to.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has made an eloquent statement this morning; he also made one yesterday before the Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of his statement before the committee be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL BRADLEY
Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern-day Olympic Games near the turn of the last century, defined their purposes this way:
"The aims of the Olympic movement are to promote the development of those fine physical and moral qualities which are the basis of amateur sport and to bring together the athletes of the world in a great quadrennial festival of sports, thereby creating international respect and good will and thus helping to construct a better and more peaceful world."
Regrettably, anyone familiar with the Olympics knows that for many years the reality has fallen far short of de Coubertin's ideals. Nationalism has become paramount at the Olympics. Instead of athletes competing primarily against a standard of excellence, they have been turned into agents for nations competing against each other in a highly-politicized environment.
There are many examples of politics intruding into the Olympics: the 1936 games in Nazi Germany, the 1956 games in the shadow of the Soviet occupation of Hungary, the sudden withdrawal of North Korea's team during the 1964 games in Tokyo, the row over South African participation in 1968, the terrorist slayings of Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972, and a boycott by 28 Third World nations and the China-Taiwan dispute in 1976.
Because of all these developments and others, I concluded that the spirit of the Olympics was being extinguished, that an Olympics which encourages political exploitation can be harmed by politics and that some political conflict between major powers inevitably would bring the games to a halt or destroy them altogether unless they were changed in fundamental ways and moved to a permanent home in Greece, where they began 3,000 years ago.
Accordingly, in 1976, as an athlete and citizen, I wrote a newspaper article outlining my concerns and several proposals for reforming the Olympics. In that article, which I will submit for the record, I also said, "I believe the United States should discontinue its participation in the games unless the promotion of mutual understanding among nations becomes a more central focus of the quadrennial festival." That remains my position toward the Olympic Games, as they are constituted.
Now, four years later as a United States Senator, I find myself participating in the controversy which might lead to the demise of the 1980 Olympics. But it must be remembered that what might be destroyed is not the ideal of de Coubertin. After my visit to Moscow last summer, it was clear to me that Soviet leaders will spare nothing to make the Olympics the biggest peacetime propaganda event since Sputnik. Look what they already are saying in a 50-cent party handbook: "The decision to give the honor of holding the Olympic Games in the capital of the world's first socialist state was convincing testimony to the general recognition of the historic importance and correctness of the foreign policy course of our country, of the enormous services of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace."
The prospect of American participation under the Olympic flag in Moscow while innocent Pushtoon people are nerve-gassed in Afghanistan would not be something that should make the United States proud or respected. I therefore urge the United States Olympic Committee to withdraw from competition in the Moscow Olympics if the games are not postponed or moved.
The invasion of Afghanistan violated the most basic elements of international standards for behavior. The United States and other nations can not condone such aggression, or give Soviet leaders any reason to have doubts about where we stand.
By withdrawing from the Moscow games as long as Soviet troops are in Afghanistan, we will show not only that we condemn that invasion but also that we no longer will participate in the political corruption of the Olympics.
Although it will hurt those athletes who have trained hard and long, I believe the imperatives of a stable and free world order take precedence over the imperatives of sports. Our allies should not fail to come to the same realization.
The shock of U.S. withdrawal, along with our allies and some Third World countries, might not end the Olympic Games, but rather offer an opportunity to restructure them more in accordance with Olympic ideals.
The first step toward an Olympics freer of politics is to offer full support for permanent placement of the games in their ancient birthplace, the country of Greece. Urging the International Olympic Committee to establish a permanent site in Greece is a constructive approach. The permanent home would come to be identified with the Olympics as an institution.
The Olympics no longer would be identified with the nationalistic displays of temporary hosts.
If the United States were to take the lead in proposing such action now in addition to declaring our position on the Moscow situation, it would demonstrate how seriously we take the Olympic principles — too seriously to let them be trampled in Moscow, and seriously enough to think hard about how best to preserve them.
It also would communicate to the world's athletes that we take their efforts seriously and are concerned about their future. We want to minimize the chance that politics will mar their human accomplishments again.
Therefore, if the Committee reports a resolution on the Moscow Olympics to the full Senate, I urge it to include language which expresses to the International Olympic Committee the sense of the Senate that the IOC should create a permanent home for the Olympic Games in Greece, the country of their origin.
I ask my colleagues to act now, before it is too late and the spirit of the Olympics is lost forever.
If we act in time, 1980 will be remembered not as the year that politics defeated the Olympics, but instead as the year the Olympics rose above politics and regained its position as the "Truce of Gods."
Thank you.
[From the New York Times, July 21, 1976]
FIVE WAYS To REFORM THE OLYMPICS
(By Bill Bradley)
The Olympic Games are scheduled for Moscow. It is 1980. The political disputes of previous years — the North Korean pull-out in 1964, the racial protests of 1968, the terrorist attack of 1972, and the China-Taiwan dispute of 1976 — are part of the Olympic legacy as much as the spirit of sportsmanship of Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Games. The Russians have spent $2 billion on the stadiums, dormitories and various other monuments. ABC has contributed $100 million for United States television rights. The Soviet commissars of sport expect their athletes to win all the medals except five, which will go to East Germany. Although the United States team, amateurs (high school students largely) , has trained hard, it is no match for the Soviet Army professionals. The Kremlin's propaganda machine prepares story after story about the prospect of nationalistic triumphs and how they will represent the superiority of the Soviet system.
Suddenly, two weeks before the opening ceremony, the President summons the head of the United States Olympic Committee to the White House. Two days later, the highest United States Olympic official, by profession a car dealer, announces our withdrawal from the Olympics, fulfilling a threat made four years earlier in the heat of the China-Taiwan dispute. The head of the United States Olympic Committee and the President justify the action on grounds of national security, and the Soviet committee exiles 40 commissars of sport. A few aristocrats on the International Olympic Committee issue statements about the value of fair play. But the Olympic Games as we knew them in the post-World War II era are dead.
Maybe the Olympic won't end exactly that way, but many people have called for their abolition on the grounds that they have been too expensive and too political. I believe the United States should discontinue its participation in the Games unless the promotion of mutual understanding among nations becomes a more central focus of the quadrennial festival.
First, the Olympics should be open to everyone. An athlete's skill should be the only requirement for eligibility. Amateurism is impossible to interpret or to enforce with uniformity in a world with disparate political and economic values. In 1964 I played on the United States Olympic basketball team in Tokyo. We beat the Soviet Union for a gold medal. Two years later I was playing for the team of an Italian meat-packing firm in the European Cup championship. We met (and defeated) the Soviet team in the semifinal. Man for man they were the same as the Soviet national team in Tokyo, except now they were called the Soviet Army Club Team. They were professionals paid for playing basketball, yet by international standards they were amateurs.
Second, team sports should be eliminated from the Olympics. They too easily simulate war games. One has only to consider the Soviet-Hungarian water polo game in 1956, the Soviet-Czechoslovak ice hockey match in 1968, or any time the Indians and Pakistanis meet in the field hockey final, in order to see that the "friendly combat" of the playing field whips up national passions. Even participants in team sports frequently feel they represent their countries more than themselves and compete for national prestige rather than for the joy of collective fulfillment that a team's quest for excellence can uniquely provide. If the public demands world champions, each sport can sponsor a separate world tournament, but not in the Olympics.
Third, everyone in the Olympics should get a participant's medal. Silver and bronze medals should be eliminated and the gold medal should go only to someone who breaks an Olympic record. Then an athlete would compete against a standard, not against another athlete or another country.
Fourth, the Olympics should be situated permanently in Greece, the country of their origin. All nations who compete in the Games should help underwrite the expense of a permanent facility that ultimately might become self-sustaining. Every four years, the world's youth would return to Mount Olympus in a spirit of friendship to compete in the finest athletic installation in the world.
The present system of financing the Olympics promotes the incursion of the festival into the politics of the host nation. Furthermore, the quadrennial expenditure of vast sums of money ($600 million Mexico City, $800 million in Munich, $1.5 billion in Montreal) for capital projects that are little used after the Games is incredibly wasteful.
If the appeal of a purified Olympics could be parlayed into a sharing of the financial risks and rewards by all nations, each Olympiad could be made a time to focus on the oneness of the world instead of a time to champion the nationalistic grandeur of increasingly expensive physical facilities.
Fifth, the Olympics should be more participant-oriented. The athlete has gotten lost amide the site competitions, the multi-million-dollar construction projects, the TV cameras and the hordes of tourists. I would like to see the Games become more of a festival.
Everything should be aimed toward providing the participant with a unique experience. By lengthening the Games to two months, events could take place at a less feverish pace. Athletes could spend more time in the Olympic Village getting to know each other. The normal diversions of the village might be expanded to include cultural and artistic expressions from various parts of the world. Though the emphasis would still be athletic, the presence of other disciplines would recognize the value of the whole person. In such an environment the stress would lie not on the rewards to be taken home but the experience of living for two months in a microcosm of the world. Such an Olympics might even contribute to mutual understanding among nations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in addition, in his statement yesterday, the Senator from New Jersey quoted Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern-day Olympic games near the turn of the last century, who defined their purposes this way:
The aims of the Olympic movement are to promote the development of those fine physical and moral qualities which are the basis of amateur sport and to bring together the athletes of the world in a great quadrennial festival of sports, thereby creating international respect and good will and thus helping to construct a better and more peaceful world.
Mr. President, I would like to make the point that the resolution pending before us, which I hope the Senate will adopt, is more consistent with the spirit of that declaration than would be our attendance at the Moscow games this year.
This action taken by the United States is pro-Olympics, not anti-Olympics.
There were those witnesses yesterday, motivated by the highest considerations, who lamented the possibility that this action by the United States might destroy the Olympics. I do not believe that will happen.
Second, they lamented that, if that were the case, the United States would be held responsible in the eyes of the world for that destruction.
Mr. President, we ought not lose sight of the fact that the aggressor in this case has not been the United States. It has been the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, when it crossed the border into Afghanistan, violated the spirit of the Olympics.
If they were to succeed, they could destroy the spirit of the Olympics and, in effect, the Olympics themselves.
That is the point I think the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. BRADLEY) is making. He has made it eloquently this morning. I am not going to try to embroider on his eloquence. I simply want to embrace it and commend him for what he has contributed to this dialog.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.