Leaping Hurdles

THE TORCH is at Lake Placid. They carried it all the way from Olympia for the first time in the history of American Olympic Games, and nobody would have known the difference if they had lit it with a bic. But the authenticity of the Olympic tradition--and the universal respect that this tradition elicits, has suddenly been threatened by the United States. The Olympics are an endangered species--a venerated institution that represents more than athletic competition.

The Olympic torch, and all that it symbolizes, should not be exploited to make a political statement or to strengthen our foreign policy. Yet President Carter demands that we boycott the summer Games in Moscow not only for the symbolic significance of such a stand, but also to hurt the Soviet economy and wound their pride. By not participating in the Games, he hopes to make an international statement of our condemnation of their occupation of Afghanistan (and also of the way that they treat dissidents), yet it is doubtful this statement will have any effect on the USSR. When Vladimir Pozner, a Soviet radio commentator, was asked about the boycott, he replied that if we were trying to punish the USSR by boycotting the Olympics, we would fail. The Soviet Union, like the United States, is too proud and too powerful to be punished in such a way, Pozner said.

But the argument in favor of a boycott has gone beyond the hopes of wounding the Kremlin, and the most optimistic Americans hope to reach the general public of the Soviet Union--illustrating the Western disapproval of Soviet aggression through absence at the summer Games. Even if we were successful in rallying the support of all other Western countries, we could not successfully "reach" the Soviets. If they were successfully deceived as to why tens of thousands of troops moved into Afghanistan, they can certainly be deceived as to why tens of thousands of troops moved into Afghanistan, they can certainly be deceived as to why the West did not participate in their Olympics. We cannot expect Soviet citizens to experience a revelation when they arrive at the Games only to find no Westerners there.

In addition to not having its intended effect, a United States boycott may mean a regression to cold war relations between East and West. Since 1969, steadily improving relations have given rise to new trade, loans and tourism between East and West, as well as a trend toward westernization. Several members of the Soviet bloc have relaxed political restraints on individual liberties, showing greater toleration of expression and worship than exists in the Soviet Union. These nations, especially Poland, conceive of themselves as bridges between East and West and do not want to break ties with the United States. Unfortunately, a boycott might force them to revert to subordination within the Soviet system.

Although the boycott will guarantee a deterioration of our relations with the Eastern bloc, we have no assurance that the Soviets will interpret it as a unified Western reaction because our allies have expressed extreme reluctance to stand by us.

Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain has declared that she will stand by the United States' decision, but a Paris meeting of officials from Great Britain, France and West Germany, Britain changed the essence of this support when Lord Carrington stated that he would like to take a stand apart from that of the United States.

These three Western allies met last week to discuss the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan and to develop a common position with other Western European countries. "It would be a mistake to assume that the reaction of each country be the same. The West should sing in harmony but not in unison," Carrington said. The United States should be prepared to stand alone because although Western countries are now expressing their support for the United States' position, they are also exercising extreme reluctance as to whether or not they will boycott. While France and West Germany have condemned the Soviet military intervention, they have not guaranteed they will participate in an American-led boycott. At present, the boycott is an American act which will be read by the Soviets as a symbolic gesture of nationalism, a product of Carter's campaign passion rather than a unified Western reaction to Soviet aggression.

WHILE INVOKING a boycott to demonstrate our disapproval of Soviet violations of human rights, we ourselves breach the rights of our athletes. Those who will compete on our national team have sacrificed scholastics and career options in order to train for these Olympics. Since the United States does not support our athletes until they have made the national team, they must pay the expenses of training and traveling that are necessary when aspiring to reach Olympic competition. These individuals not only sweat through grueling training, but also suffer the financial woes of supporting themselves. The U.S. has developed a system in which the struggle to make the Olympic team is an individual one. It is inconsistent to expect a sudden and overwhelming sense of national unity or a rush of patriotism to induce them to support a boycott.

Even more importantly, it is unjust to single out this strain of Americans to carry the national burden especially when the situation will not be resolved through such a course of action.

The effectiveness of Carter's request for a boycott is dubious--the consequences should not be tolerated. In August 1980, the flame from Olympia will be in Moscow--so should the U.S. Olympic Team.