The Robert MacNeil Report; 21st Olympic Games

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. Robin is off tonight. The biggest political story of this day is not the happy one, Democrats glorying in euphoric joy over a peanut farmer, love and unity. It`s the spectacle of the 21st Olympic Games, supposedly a symbol of international cooperation, caught in an embarrassing, joyless muck of hate and disunity.

As of tonight, the Olympic Games will begin tomorrow in Montreal, Canada as scheduled. But Taiwan will not be participating, neither may 16 African nations who are upset over New Zealand`s sports involvement with South Africa. It`s a mess. A mess that has nothing at all to do with discus throws, high jumps, pole vaults and gold medals.

The details of the Taiwan story are well known by now. Taiwan, the island off the coast of China, where Chiang Kai Shek fled after the Communists took over the mainland, had been certified by the International Olympic Committee under the name, The Republic of China. The Canadian government which recognizes the mainland government as the real China, said Taiwan could not participate. Things got hot, and the United States finally said that unless Taiwan was in, the U.S. was pulling out taking its multimillion dollar TV income among other things, with it. Other nations threatened to do the same thing, and the Games were in serious jeopardy. Then came talks and conferences and nasty exchanges between the U.S. and Canadian governments, and finally a compromise of sorts. The Taiwanese could participate, and even fly their own flag and play their national anthem, but not under the name, The Republic of China.

This morning Taiwan said no thanks. In a supporting gesture this afternoon, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also said no thanks to an invitation to attend the Olympics. But marred, scarred and flawed, the Games will now go on unless something else happens between now and tomorrow morning.

Tonight we examine the details of this specific dispute as well as the broader questions concerning international politics and the Olympics.

Bob Lipsyte, formerly a sports writer with the New York Times, is now a freelance sports writer and author of the book, Sports World. Bob, first, is there something inherent in the basic set up of the Olympics that makes political interference inevitable?

ROBERT LIPSYTE: From the very start it was a shady business. The legend that I like best, and I hope it`s true, is a Greek tyrant who challenged any comer to race him on the road to Corinth in chariots, the winner to get the tyrant`s daughter and the kingdom. And after some 13 had tried and failed and gotten the obligatory spear in the chest, Pelops challenged the king.

LEHRER: Good old Pelops.

LIPSYTE: Good old Pelops. And the night before the race, he pulled the linchpin on the chariot wheel. In the resulting traffic accident the next day the king died and Pelops got the daughter and the kingdom. And either out of guilt or commeration created the Olympic Games, in that very spot.

LEHRER: Moving right along . .

LIPSYTE: Moving right along, it went on with olive oil scandals, under the table payments to athletes, amateur controversies - this is in ancient Greece now - any athlete that won could count on a tax exemption when he got back to his city state. Politics. Spartans, for example, couldn`t compete in boxing because Spartans never surrendered you know. And just plain silliness. Nero went around the Olympic course in a chariot, drunk, and demanded a gold medal at the end.

Moving right along, in 1896 when the whole thing started all over again, a French Baron named Coubertain who came from a military family and had been brought up to regret the Franco Prussian I-Tar and the fact that French youth were disorganized and soft, felt that a way to get them in shape for a rematch with Germany would be structured, organized athletics. Hence, the Olympic Games which he then tried to ban Germany from in the early years. He failed. Germany participated and a lot of other countries participated in the last 80 years with one controversy after another. I don`t think an Olympics has passed in which somebody didn`t complain about name, or flag, or anthem.

LEHRER: Nothing new then?

LIPSYTE: Nothing new in that sense.

LEHRER: All right. What about Canada`s actions specifically in this thing. In other words, the power of the host country to affect who participates. Is that unique too, or has that happened before? I mean in recent history.

LIPSYTE: I don`t think that a host country has ever before barred a team. However, I can`t get too passionate about this because there were signs for a long time. Besides the fact that since 1970 Canada has not recognized Taiwan as China. In 1974 at the World Bicycle championships held in Montreal, the Taiwan team was not allowed to compete and recently at a pre- Olympic boxing matches held in Montreal, the Taiwan team did not compete. So, obviously there`s a gap in our information here. There must have been negotiations going on, and what seems like a very precipitous decision by Canada may not actually have been.

LEHRER: But it certainly has been portrayed that way, hasn`t it? That the Taiwan athletes were already in the United States training, and then suddenly this decision is made by Canada.

LIPSYTE: Well, we`ve been getting all our information from people sitting up there, you know, waiting for the orgy to start.

LEHRER: Let me just ask you bluntly then, what do you think about what Canada did?

LIPSYTE: I think that it`s reasonable within the kind of grotesque distortion of nationalism and commercialism that has marked these Games from the beginning.

LEHRER: In other words, they`re no bettor or no worse than what people have been doing for years.

LIPSYTE: Absolutely not.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you very much. Canada, of course, has been catching it on the chin for what they did do. They`ve heard hardly an encouraging or supporting word until tonight, from Bob Lipsyte at least. Even the Canadians according to our reports have not been pleased with what their government did. Well, Russ McKinney who is the Canadian Charge D`Affairs in the United States, is in our Washington studio. Sir, let me ask you. You have been catching it. Give us the explanation from your government`s point of view as to why you folks did what you did.

RUSSELL McKINNEY: Yes, I`ll be glad to Jim, although you did quite a good summing up there at the beginning. I wouldn`t agree with all your descriptions such as mess and so on, but . . .

LEHRER: Journalistic perogative, sir.

McKINNEY: The simple fact is, Jim, that at no time has Canada sought to bar these athletes from Taiwan as athletes, from our country. There have been, I think, during a rather hectic week this week, at least two formula put to the Taiwanese athletes and their International Olympic Committee officials. Both of those formula would have been quite satisfactory to the Canadian government. One of them was . . . I think it carne out on Tuesday . . ., that they might march behind an Olympic banner and use an Olympic anthem and that sort of thing. And then, in the last 24 hours, a formula has been put to them which is the so-called Rome formula, worked out by the IOC for the 1960 Olympics in Rome whereby they could use their flag and their anthem. They could not represent themselves as the Republic of China, but very welcome to come. Now, they`ve turned both of these down, and I must say on behalf of Canada in this country, and I know it`s my government`s feeling that we certainly regret Taiwan`s decision not to accept either of these proposals and come along and participate in the Olympics as, on behalf of all Canadians, they are completely welcome to do.

LEHRER: Let me ask you a very blunt question, Mr. McKinney.

McKINNEY: Sure.

LEHRER: What difference does it make to Canada whether or not the Taiwanese want to call themselves Republic of China or any thing else? What possible difference does that make in terms of the Olympic Games?

McKINNEY: Well, you alluded to some of the background in what you said at the beginning, but of course, it does reside and derive from our China policy which is a one China policy if you like to put it that dray. We did recognize in 1970, and since then we

have had an invariable practice and -regulation in Canada that while people from Taiwan are free to come on a people to people basis, to conventions, to sports events, to whatever, they may not publicly proclaim themselves as the government of all China. This is almost an imposterous act to do that, and this is very consistent. This is not a policy that we invented for the Olympics you understand.

LEHRER: Well, when this thing has come to a head in these last several days . . . my question is this. Why would you all jeopardize, and it looked like the Games themselves were in jeopardy. The Canadian government has 1.5 billion dollars, I think, invested. Why would you jeopardize their entire shooting match on this issue. Is it that important to you folks?

MCKINNEY: Well, I`m not sure Jim, that I would agree with your premises that the existence and conduct of the Games was ever seriously in jeopardy. There has been, as you are quite aware, the most lively controversy about this question, but I have never, and I don`t think anyone close to the scene has ever imagined that it was all going to collapse in a heap.

LEHRER: I see. So you did not see this as seriously jeopardizing the Games. It was just a routine thing for you all to exercise your one China policy.

McKINNEY: No, it did not jeopardize the Games, and as I say, there`s nothing new about this policy. Earlier, one of your panelists there, Bob Lipsyte?

LEHRER: Uh-huh.

McKINNEY: Said that there must be something not evident, and of course, there is. And what that is basically is that we have been asking the IOC for well over a year now, a year and a half now to for heaven`s sakes, straighten out this question of Chinese representation because we told them in April or 1--lay, March or April of `75 that it was going to be a problem, and they didn`t straighten it out until today when, as you know, they passed a resolution, amending their own rules, and I may say that the resolution was passed by I think 58 to 2 with 6 abstentions, requiring that the Republic of China compete under the name of Taiwan rather than under the name of The Republic of China. A great pity, I think, that the International Committee didn`t do that six months, or a year, or two years ago when, you know, they should have foreseen, and had been told that there was going to be a problem about this.

LEHRER: All right sir. Thank you, Air. McKinney. Robert Christopher is Editor of Newsweek International and has been supervising his magazine`s coverage of the Olympic story. You`ve heard now, Mr. Christopher, Air. McKinney`s explanation and Robert Lipsyte. How does this whole thing sit with you? Do you think Canada did the right thing?

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER: Well, I guess perhaps, in view of the fact that some of my numerous Canadian relatives and friends might be watching, I`d better start out by saying that my lifelong affection for Canada is undiminished. I feel obliged to say that because no, I don`t think Canada did the right thing, and I think that the victory that Canada won in.-this matter, if you can call it a victory was a very empty one. I very much doubt that Canada will derive any concrete benefit from this in its relations with China. I doubt that Peking will buy another bushel of wheat or in any way in crease its trade with China - with Canada as a result of this, and I also think that Canada has unnecessarily exacerbated its relations with the United States in this matter. I find it impossible to believe that the Canadian government wasn`t aware in advance that by taking the action it did it put the United States government into a very difficult position. Now, President Ford who is fighting for his political life against Ronald Reagan and must appeal to Conservative voters at this stage of the game, couldn`t possibly let this action pass unchallenged. Beyond that, and much more important in a long run I think, is the fact that the matter of the status of Taiwan is a very delicate thing indeed in terms of relations between the United States and Peking. The United States is trying over a period of time, to work out an arrangement whereby we can recognize Peking fully without sacrificing Taiwan, and clearly, the United States could not have accepted quietly the Canadian government`s action without encouraging Peking to think that we had weakened our stand on Taiwan. Many of the actions which the Canadian government has taken in the past which adversely effected American interests never reached the attention of the American public. This one obviously has. I think it`s created a very bad impression in the United States, and I don`t think that was to Canada`s interest.

LEHRER: What do you think of that Air. McKinney?

MCKINNEY: Could I go back; first to what the panelist - I`m sorry, I`ve forgotten .

LEHRER: Mr. Christopher.

McKINNEY: Mr. Christopher. Bob Christopher said right at the beginning. He said he didn`t think we would sell another bushel of wheat because of the policy that we`ve insisted upon. In this case, may I say that that has never been the objective. I`ve seen, as you have, all this press comment this week to the effect that we were operating somehow rather from mercenary motive, but of course the fact is that in recent years and in any given year, the People`s Republic of China has never taken more than about 1.5 of our exports. So this is not the sort of situation that puts you in hostage as it were in a matter like this.

LEHRER: Let me put the question then, a little more directly... did the government of mainland China contact your government and say, "Hey, keep those folks out of there. That`s not right. Don`t let them call themselves the Republic of China."

McKINNEY: No. They went further than that. They certainly did contact us, and I think their latest representations were made some time today. But the position they took was, we would ask you not to allow anyone from Taiwan in, whether he calls himself Republic of China or Taiwan or in any other guise. Now we have of course, refused to do that. And I`m not sure that they`re all that happy with Canada at the moment either, because, as I explained earlier people to people relations and admission of these people to Canada was never a problem for the Canadian government.

LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Lipsyte a question about the United States reaction to all of this. You know President Ford made his comments very strongly as Bob Christopher said, and Mr. Kissinger is not going now. What do you think? Do you think we handled ourselves well in this controversy?

LIPSYTE: Well, the joke is that we did it all before. In 1959 the IOC, a group that exists merely to continue the Olympic Games and to compromise whenever it`s necessary, ruled that Taiwan did not represent all of China, and they wanted them to change their name to Formosa which they did; this is the Rome agreement. They carried their banner, Formosa under protest. Eventually there was very strong U.S. pressure. It was said that it was anti-communist feeling, and Melvin Laird who was then a Congressman wanted to bar U.S. Army personnel from helping out in the Winter Games in Squaw Valley in retribution for this. Ultimately the IOC, you know, understanding that it`s big box office always being the United States and the Soviet Union, these are the countries that you have to deal with if you are going to make money on these Olympic Games, eventually changed its policy and of course, eventually we got the Republic of China.

LEHRER: In other words you think, particularly using Mr. Christopher`s line, in terms that it was consistent-with our policy and the sensitive situation that existed in our policy toward the two Chinas, we didn`t have any choice.

LIPSYTE: It`s necessary in a case like this to pay lip service to whatever is necessary, but you know, everybody was bluffing, but nobody was going to go too far.

LEHRER: You don`t think the U.S. would have pulled out?

LIPSYTE: No way. No. I think that, first of all . . .

LEHRER: Mr. McKinney is right. In your opinion the Olympics really were not in jeopardy.

LIPSYTE: I don`t think they were ever in jeopardy. In fact the best thing that came out of this was during a week in which nothing else got on the front pages because of the Democratic National Convention, those Games got front page coverage, and that is not going to make anybody turn off the TV tomorrow.

LEHRER: All right. The international politics of this aside, the real suffers of course are the athletes involved. Marty Glickman has a special perspective on that side of the problem.

In 1936 he was one of two Jewish members of the U.S. Olympic team, and he was not allowed to participate because those Olympics were held in Berlin, Germany. Mr. Glickman, of course, is now the well known sports broadcaster. Based on your experience, Mr. Glickman, what are the feelings of the athletes that get caught up in a thing like this?

MARTY GLICKMAN: Terrible loss. I was an 18 year old kid. Sam Starlow was 22. He and I were the two Jewish boys on the team who were not permitted to run.

LEHRER: You were a sprinter, right?

GLICKMAN: Yes. We were both on the 400 meter relay team, a cinch to win gold medals. The team ultimately won by 15 yards on 400 meters which is an enormous distance in that race. Loss. I still miss having a gold medal in my house today, and that was a long time ago, 40 years ago. But we spend a good portion of our lives aspiring to make the Olympic team, aspiring for the opportunity of winning a gold medal. Aspiring to compete, to win, to play.

And we were denied the privilege that we thought we had earned.

LEHRER: These Taiwanese kids are in the same boat.

GLICKMAN: Oh, absolutely! There`s no question about it. Thus far, in the minutes of this program, we haven`t even talked about sport, and that`s the whole point of the Came. The point of the Games is to bring together the athletes of the world, have them compete against each other, hard and fairly, get to know each other, to understand each other, to-love each other. That happens. It happened with me. Even though I didn`t compete in the Games themselves, I lived with the various members of other teams, practiced with them . . .

LEHRER: You were there. You were there in Berlin?

GLICKMAN: Yes. Oh, yes. I didn`t get to compete the morning of the day I was supposed to run.

LEHRER: Oh boy.

GLICKMN: It was a beaut. A shock. So great a shock that Starlow who was 22 and a senior at Michigan never raced again, and I, a freshman at Syracuse, at 18, determined to win in 1940. In 1940 there was no opportunity. There was a war on.

LEHPIER: Well, what about the role of the athlete in terms of the politics. Now, there have been also incidents . . . take your case as one; the Taiwanese case today, now; the governments pretty well made the decision for the athletes. But there have been cases through the years where the athletes themselves made a political decision. in fact, that`s what`s really involved now in some of the African nations, who are upset at New Zealand`s policy toward South Africa, and some of the individual athletes have decided to boycott. Now hour does that fit in? The individual athlete`s role in the political thing? Say I`m not going to compete because of my politics versus another country that is there, and I don`t agree with their politics.

GLICKMAN: Jim, I`m not aware of any athlete who chose not to compete when he could. Are you, Bob?

LIPSYTE: No, I think that in every; case these athletes are controlled by the committees of their government. These are the people who are paying their ways to these events, and these athletes are pawns in the thing. Marty made the point about, you know, losing sight of sport. I`m not so sure that sport any longer is the important factor in the Olympic Games. I think it`s nationalism, and P4arty and I have talked about it, commercialism. The kind of thing that is really beautiful within the Olympic Games, the best athletes of the world competing against each other, meeting each other in friendly competition, and ultimately giving entertainment and inspiration to the rest of us perhaps could be best served in other kinds of international sporting events rather than in such a highly structured thing as the Olympics as we know them now.

LEHRER: I stand corrected on - if you don`t say that. I know I`d gotten the impression that . . . but let me ask you. Are you saying that athletes do not have politics?

GLICKMAN: Oh, I didn`t say that at all, Jim. No.

LEHRER: It`s overridden by their desire to compete.

GLICKMAN: Remember, I had my own politics as an American Jewish boy who wanted to help disprove that myth of Nazi, Aryan supremacy. Heck, if I could beat some German kids, and I`m Jewish and I knew I could beat them. I ultimately did in other track meets, and so did Sam, before the Games. Eric Borghmeir was the best German sprinter, and I beat him in Hamburg. But certainly we have politics, but that`s not the point. And I agree with Bob that if they were structured differently . . . there`s no point to getting 5,000 athletes in one venue at one time and have them compete simultaneously all over the lot. Now, why can`t we have a track meet in one area and a swimming meet in another area, every four years apart and field hockey in yet another area. Why all together with new stadia and new facilities? Purposeless.

LIPSYTE: We kind of know the reason though. The reason to a great extent is money. The reason is an opportunity for politicians and host cities to have great capital expenditures, very often to their advantage. It`s television money, and it`s the continuation of the IOC, this great shadow government which is a direct descendant of this little French baron. Seventeen of them are titled.

LEHRER: All right. Let`s look ahead now for these final few minutes. You have said that it`s always been this way through history. Phil Crom, who is President of the U.S. Olympic Committee, aid this morning on the Today Show that he feels the politics of the Olympics are going to get worse before they get better. How do you feel about it Mr. McKinney. You obviously have an interest in this. I mean, is politics just part of the Olympics. 1Te`re going to have to learn to live with it, or is it going to destroy the Olympics? Do you have any view on that, sir?

MCKINNEY: Well, I think we`ve almost got a consensus here that politics has been part of the picture for a long time, and certainly the Olympic movement of course, claims to be a private organization, and because it`s a private organization political considerations shouldn`t enter in in any way at all, but look what happens in connection with a typical Olympic Games. The participation is organized on a national basis; the athletes march in under national flags; they accept their awards under national anthems, and there`s nothing much more political than that in a way. Starting right from there. I know, in the good deal of thought that has been given to this in Ottawa this week, one recurrent theme certainly is that if there is any way or any international movement that can be gotten under way to depoliticize and denationalize these Games, no one will be more pleased than Canada.

LEHRER: Mr. Christopher, what`s your view. Is it possible to depoliticise the Olympics?

CHRISTOPHER: Not entirely, clearly. But I think it`s possible to perhaps prevent the further spread of, or the further pervasion of the 01-:-mpics by politics, and I frankly think that the action of the government of Canada was a long step in the wrong direction. Canada didn`t have to do this. It didn`t stand to suffer if it didn`t do it. And once you have an action such as that of the Canadian government, and action such as that of the Tanzanian government, it`s perfectly logical. And I see no end to this unless governments such as the government of Canada take a firm stand and don`t intrude their own political interests into the situation.

LEHRER: All right, gentlemen, we are out of time. Mr. McKinney in Washington, thank you very much. Gentleman here in New York. Of course the Olympic Games are to start tomorrow. We`ll see what happens. I thank all of you for your being with us, and I`m Jim Lehrer. Robert will be back on Monday. Have a nice weekend. Thank you and good night.