Saturday, July 22, 2017

The Bereave of Sports for Development and Peace Values

The establishment of United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace (UNOSDP) in 2000 symbolized the emergence of sport as a tool for social development. Now it is closed.

Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) was always the part of United Nations (UN) agenda. According to the UNOSDP website, they have been a platform for youths from all over the world by giving them access to improve both their projects and their own professional progress in SDP. Another work was to support both Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the UN. Some credible universities and school have also been teaching Sport for Development and Peace.

On May 4, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced the closure of UNOSDP. According to the UN website, the closure of UNOSDP has been replaced by a direct partnership with International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Thus the obvious question: with this move, will we lose the essence of Sport for Development and Peace? The answer, for me, is yes and it is always yes.

Sooner, we are losing the real essence of sport to an organization, the IOC, whose philosophy is pervasive and seemingly different.

The IOC’s mission is to conduct Olympic Games.

It also has a scandalous track record. The 2002 Salt Lake City Game was famous for its bribery scandal, which forced the IOC and Salt Lake to face the legal process and the court of world public opinion.

It is too hard to give SDP openly to an organization that has a corruption history: SDP’s objective is social development.

With its famous Olympic Games, the IOC will be centralizing its focus to persuade already developed nations to host the next editions of Olympic Games. Roughly, they will do whatever they can do as an organization to keep their business cool and gain some money. SDP will have nowhere to go and stranded in the same position without an improvement. Why? Because perhaps what IOC cares about is their business.

Of course, there is an argument to try to counter those two statements.

The IOC, it is said, is built around a concept called Olympism and runs a social development program called Solidarity. They have a partnership with some organizations, and they provide a platform for youths by educating them with certain sports values. In Rio, they have successfully invited a number of refugees to the Olympism. That was powerful, fascinating and amazing. However, much of that can be considered just a part of romanticizing the value of the Olympics; indeed, some scholars consider that Olympism is just a part of the IOC’s PR agenda.

On the other hand:
UNOSDP stated clearly in their mission that they wanted to promote social development through sport. They had a number of projects integrated with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to touch real life, where refugees live. They educated people and made an impact on the society through sport.

The point is, they didn’t need good PR by developing sport to build sustainability. That is what they did. That is what made them have value.

The partnership between the UN and IOC to develop sport was once mentioned as an apparent cost-saving measure. That statement, however, is too ridiculous. UNOSDP had of sponsorships and partnerships with quite a number of International Federations (IFs).

The IOC has its place: as the global sports organization that enjoys a monopoly on the world’s mega-sport event. It should place its organization side to side with UNOSDP with the aim of reaching social development together.

The New UN-Secretary General should think again and give out the best to the essence of sport for social development.

By Deandra Farnita
Indonesia

https://deandra234.wordpress.com

No comments:

Post a Comment