Following the publications in the European press, the article looks at the English and French bids, and at why London has become the host city.
(First published at Exzibit.net on 07 July 2005)
Ever since 1066 England and France have been connected firmly by either cultural or political ties, and given this fact it is easy to see why there is still so much to debate. Be that politics, or sports, or arts, the Lion is always eagerly up against fleur-de-lis, or vice versa.
Centuries ago, during the Hundred Years, this rivalry was conducted through creating an image of an enemy. The French, of course, considered themselves more refined, while the English saw in their mirrors a reflection of sheer sophistication. The English said the French were cowards; the French said the English were drunkards. The discussion did not evolve around men only, it also included women. The English thought French women were ugly and deceitful; the French thought English women were deceitful and ugly. On the intimate matters the French wrote that because of their eternally drunk husbands, the English ladies have to please themselves, unless they wanted to wait till the second kingdom for their men to do anything. In response, the English author explained, why Joan of Arc was a virgin: she was so hideous, he wrote, that no man wanted to lie with her.
Five centuries after France beat England the two nations were again competing against each other in the race to host the Olympic Games in 2012. Like his predecessors, Chirac didn’t spare England of angry comments on their food. He went as far as to remind everyone that it was the British who imported ‘mad cow disease’ in Europe. And, truly, I wonder what he will be thinking in the forthcoming few days at the Gleneagles, where he will be eating British or at least British-cooked food. Most probably, he will be biting his tongue, but not because the food is atrocious. It will rather be a post-factum action that he should have performed at the time when the comments of English food were leaving his lips.
This time, thanks to the Olympic Committee, England responded in the best way one could only imagine. A comment on BBC’s Have Your Say read: ‘The face of Jacques Chirac will now be like the snails he eats’. And it’s not the first time in this year, unfortunately, that Monsieur Chirac is being gravely disappointed. First there was a parliamentary crisis, then the EU vote was lost despite all attempts to raise the ‘yes’ bid, and now the Olympics will be held in London, even though Paris was far better prepared in almost everything. Most of its infrastructure would only be improved, whereas the Olympic village, provided it was to be built, would subsequently become a new city quarter, thus leading to Paris’s expansion.
Unlike Chirac, Tony Blair’s 2005 has so far been lucky. He managed to stand up against all critique in a fierce electoral campaign in spring. His reputation has been tarnished by Iraqi war, education and health care problems, crime and tax rise, but whether with the help of Chancellor Brown or without it, Blair got the historic third term for Labour. And now he’s sealed his fortune with a historic battle in the Olympic bid, by winning at 54 votes against 50 in the closest ever race. He is the chief of the European Union, and keeps his cards close to his chest, like a true Grey Cardinal. And now he is also hosting the G8 summit, hoping to persuade the other seven richest countries to revise their African policy. And he backed Geldof’s initiative in calling in for music stars to press on the politicians. He had all the reasons to punch a fist in the air – it’s not the time to think of the political etiquette.
Of course, not everyone is happy. I spoke to Mancunians who were almost praying for Paris to win, because of London’s arrogant attitude to Manchester’s own Olympic bid. Even Londoners are concerned that the money which London needs to perform at the best level as the Olympic host will be extracted from their pockets. You may say it is pretty evident, but then in spring Tony Blair promised no tax rise, so now it seems to be the first promise that is severely and openly broken. The pressure on London is as bigger as the city has not hosted the Olympic Games since 1948. On the other hand, Paris has last been an Olympic capital in 1924.
So, while the Londoners cheered, what did the Parisians do? The video coverage on LeMonde.fr showed Parisians assembling at the ground near the Hotel de Ville to watch the announcement of the bid winner. As Moscow, New York and Madrid were being eliminated, anticipation intensified with every passing second. But as the name ‘London’ has left the lips of Jacques Rogge, a loud groan of disappointment and disbelief covered the ground. A little girl who was crying helplessly may remember this day all her life, so upset she was. London’s victory was a huge loss for Marseillais, who came to Paris all the way from his native city by an early morning train. A young lad with a Paris 2012 sticker on his forehead looked devastated. The ground in the centre of Paris, so full with people, emptied within minutes, and there has been no reaction at all, except for shatter and a total sense of devastation.
No-one on the French side can explain what happened. Indeed, throughout the race up until the announcement Paris was the favourite, having almost all major sport venues at hand. The video was compelling, made in the best traditions of the French cinema, somewhat nostalgic, very classy, with a little hint of miraculous grace of Amelie. Not only did high officials appear in the film backing up the Parisian bid, but also some stars, like the actor Jean-Paul Belmondo and the rock-singer Johnny Halliday. The entire bid, according to the TV presenter Michel Drucker, was telling ‘a love story between France and the Olympic Games’. However, the Olympic “Shrew” happened to be untameable. As Thierry Rey, former Olympic judo champion put it, following the loss of the bid: ‘We don’t understand… what more could we have done? I wonder if sometimes people don’t want us?’ [Reuters].
And that is a rather rhetoric question. Do people want France, and who actually speaks for them? The French may well organise furious demonstrations outside the houses of Juan Antonio Samaranch and Jacques Rogge, a la the G8 protesters, which of course will change nothing. As it happens, the decisions are made by those to whom power is delegated, and in this case it is the Olympic Committee, who knows better which city can be the best host.
Is London really the best host? Time will show, as the British capital first needs to deliver all its promises. However, as the Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoe said, the French ‘don’t have the same culture of lobbying, as the Anglo-Saxons’ (Le Monde, July 6th 2005). Instead of promoting the infrastructure and facilities of the city, Lord Coe’s delegation turned to the Olympic ideals and principles of business. Paris did the same, but it was too eloquent on the occasion.
The key words of Paris’s presentation were ‘frankness, openness, humility and energy’. And they did address children, starting with the opening song by Charles Trenet about a man who recalls himself being a little boy in Paris. He adores the place, he is ‘only a little Parisian/Only a child/So simply’. Along with the steadiness, there was a constant nostalgic sense, and if anything else, it has definitely decreased Paris’s chances to win. It was as if Paris was more inviting people to visit France rather than showing France’s commitment to the Olympic movement and its future.
On the contrary, London came along with the promise of magical experience, best partnership, and the ‘lasting sporting legacy’. There was no word said about either media representation, or food, or London’s Olympic passion. Instead, all eyes were turned on the future of the Olympic sports, which are indeed the children. And so implicitly the British team has broken an Olympic golden rule. In the words of Le Monde correspondent, it is never the Games that need the city – it is the city that needs the Games. London needs the Olympics to transform the dens of the East End into a flourishing quarter. However, by focusing on children more than on anything else the team made the Olympic Committee feel like London is the only city out there that can maintain the sporting spirit. This is not to mention the wholehearted support of the Olympic bid from the government and the Royal House all the way through the campaign. And never mind the small businesses in the East End that will be ditched to make the dream come true. They will be dispersed for the sake of the future and children, and this is all that matters.
One should not of course discard the “lobbying culture”. However, Paris will have reconsidered its bidding approach, if it decides to re-enter competition for the Olympics 2016. The French may think it is not polite to press on the Committee in Lord Coe’s manner, but they have to listen to his words. Time and again in his speech he underlined the fact that nowadays it is more and more difficult to involve a child in a sporting activity. Thus, pressure is inevitable, but in this case the goal may well justify the means. The French were well prepared, and spoke from their hearts, and spoke a lot. But perhaps for their next bid they will need to reassess the legacy of de Coubertin and to rejuvenate the spirit of the presentation. And for once take the British as an example.
