Side-Swiped: the IOC and the China Issue at the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games By Richard W. Pound | Part 2 The IOC Session in Montreal Opening of the 78th The IOC Session in Montreal began on 13 July 1976, in Session at Place des the midst of the various and daily discussions at the Arts: Lord Killanin Executive Board and efforts to negotiate with the addresses the government of Canada and the Republic of China audience at the delegation. By this time as well, the prospect of a podium of the boycott was also a very real possibility. Several delega- Montréal Symphony tions from Africa and other nations were threatening Orchestra (right). to stay away from the Games in protest against a New Zealand rugby tour of South Africa. Sessions of the IOC are particularly unwieldy as a forum for discussion and solution of complex problems, especially those when the the factual context may be constantly changing and rules were involved in the question, one of which was where there is a dramatically uneven level of know- the rule enabling a change of name of the Republic of ledge among the IOC Members. Killanin was at pains China, requiring a two-thirds majority vote, and that to explain the situation, as well as the various actions it would be wrong to do this in retaliation against the taken by the Executive Board to find solutions to the Canadian government’s "dishonesty". He suggested in- China problem.1 It was nevertheless apparent that many forming Prime Minister Trudeau that his government’s of the IOC Members were inclined to be much firmer decision had seriously embarrassed the IOC, and than the Executive Board had been in the circumstan- inviting him and all members of his political party in ces and Killanin, however defensive he may have been Parliament to excuse themselves from the Olympic sites about the choices he had made and those made by the and social functions connected with the Games. He also Executive Board, had little alternative but to open the felt that Canadian sportsmen who were to compete in matter for discussion by the Session. the Games should be invited to protest in any way they Not surprisingly, the IOC Members were almost uni- felt appropriate. He suggested calling an extraordinary versally hostile in their attitude to the Canadian meeting of the NOCs to support the resolution of the IOC government’s actions. The descriptions which follow are so that the Canadian government would be fully aware included to show the range of proposals advanced, as of the demands of sportsmen from all over the world. well as the unsuitability of a group of some 67 IOC Mem- Finally, having heard that a similar situation had ari- bers (at that time) as an effective decision-making body. sen in Canada in November 1975, he wondered why this Reginald Alexander (KEN) pointed out that a number of had not been taken up by the IOC as a warning of what 1 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, pp. 6-8. A certain amount 2 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 8. of documentation had already been distributed to IOC Members, 3 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 10. including a circular letter dated 1 July 1976 (IOC Historical Archives, 4 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 12. It is not clear what this document M/F/C1101), the letter from the Acting Secretary of Sta- was supposed to mean and Roosevelt gave no further reported de- te for External Affairs dated 28 May 1976, Killanin’s reply dated 8 tails. It is particularly puzzling, given the terms of the possible US June 1976, Killanin’s telex dated 24 June 1976, the telex dated 27 non-participation on the basis of an IOC withdrawal of its support June 1976 from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a letter of Games in Montreal, all of which depended on an action on the dated 11 April 1976 from the Federal Immigration Co-ordinator for part of the IOC to withdraw its sanction of the Games, not an inde- the Montreal Games to the Montreal Organising Committee Director pendent action on the part of the USOC. of Accreditations and Attachés, letters dated 21 May 1969 and 28 5 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 8. November 1969 respectively, from the Prime Minister of Canada and 6 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 8. This discussion during the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and an extract from the the Session was prior to the change Killanin negotiated with the Mayor of Montreal’s speech at the IOC Session in Amsterdam in 1970. Prime Minister on 15 July 1976 regarding use of the flag and an- Copies of press releases issued by the IOC since arriving in Montreal them. (infra p. **) (Annex 4, pp. 62-68, Annex 5, pp. 68-69) were also distributed. 7 IOC Session 13-16 July 1976, Montreal, p. 9. 34 was now happening.2 Julian Roosevelt (USA) suppor- but the ROCOC should be urged to cooperate fully. Marc ted this resolution. Manuel Gonzales Guerra (CUB) did Hodler (SUI) supported Thofelt’s proposal, but was con- not think the Session should make a separate motion cerned that if the ROC team was asked to march under and should leave it to the Executive Board to continue the Olympic flag, then other teams should be allo- its discussions.3 Roosevelt intervened later in the dis- wed to do the same. Sir Ade Ademola (NGR) conside- cussion to say that if the United States team withdrew red that, as a vote of sympathy for the ROCOC, all NOCs and returned home, it would be difficult to keep the should be made to march under the Olympic flag and US government out of the USOC’s administration.4 Jan that national anthems should be abolished. Lance Cross Staubo (NOR) thought it was too early to vote on such (NZL) supported the complete abolition of names, flags a proposed resolution and that negotiations should and anthems of countries in future and agreed with be taken up again and, in the meantime, members’ Alexander’s motion as a last resort.9 Rivera Bascur (CHI) opinions could be referred back to the Executive Board.5 supported the use of the Olympic flag and favoured ur- General Vladimir Stoychev (BUL) felt that it was clear that ging the ROC to participate under it, showing the world the relationship of the Canadian government with the the solidarity of the Olympic Movement. Raymond PRC was more important that the Olympic Games. At the Gafner (SUI) intervened later in the discussion to say that same time, however, the ROCOC’s decision not to accept if all NOCs agreed to march under the Olympic flag, they the proposal to participate without using its country’s would all be competing under the same conditions and name, flag and anthem was purely political. He urged would be proving their solidarity with Taiwan, which Hsu to use his influence to persuade the ROC team to would put the Olympic Movement in a strong position in compete under the Olympic flag.6 Gunnar Ericsson (SWE) the eyes of the world.10 remarked that this was the first time the IOC had had The Marquess of Exeter (GBR) expressed the view that to give up against political pressure, but felt that the it should be made quite clear that the whole situati- Executive Board’s decision should be accepted by the on had come about because the Canadian govern- Session, under protest.7 Dr. Eduardo Hay (MEX) referred ment going against its word. It should be made clear to to the 1968 Games when a similar political problem had the ROC athletes that the IOC was on their side. Ahmed existed. The Mexican government did not recognize the Touny (EGY) considered that the IOC was obliged to accept Spanish monarchy and gave refuge to its exiles. In spite the conditions of the Canadian government while on of the diplomatic problems in raising the Spanish flag Canadian territory. He concluded that the Session should and playing the national anthem of Spain, the Mexican accept the Executive Board’s proposals, but that the en- government had agreed to abide by the Olympic rules. tire problem should be studied, so that the same situ- He wondered why the Canadian government could not ation did not arise at future Games. These views were do the same.8 shared by Syed Wajid Ali (PAK), who emphasized the General Sven Thofelt (SWE) considered that the problem responsibility of the IOC to the athletes of the world to arose from the fact that the IOC rules contained stipu- provide the Games.11 Louis Guirandou-N’Diaye (CIV) lations which it could not control. The IOC did not have was much more alarmist, saying that in accepting the any power over the names, flags and anthems of coun- government of Canada’s decision against the ROC team, tries, although it might, if these attributes belonged even if an alternative solution were found for its parti- to the NOCs. He suggested that the ROC team compete cipation, the IOC was signing its own death warrant and with no name, flag or anthem at all. The most impor- was accepting a breach of its rules regarding discrimina- tant factor was the athletes. If the IOC did not succeed in tion.12 Reginald Honey (RSA) said the Canadian govern- assuring the participation of ROC athletes, then it could ment had acted dishonourably and dishonestly and the consider ways of showing up the Canadian government, IOC should not compromise with it.