IN THE end, the Athens Olympics proved a resounding success in every respect, with Greece earning well-deserved plaudits from everyone. The planning and organisation were impeccable and everything went smoothly, making a mockery of all the disaster scenarios which preceded the event. At least CNN, which had repeatedly questioned Greece’s ability to stage the Games, had the decency to post a letter of apology on its website in which it admitted it had been wrong.
However, no amount of apologising by the media will cover the huge cost of the unnecessary, extra security measures Greece was forced to impose, under pressure from the United States. So much was made of the terror threat and the alleged lack of adequate security in Athens by the US media that an additional 1.2 billion euros had to be spent to make America’s multi-millionaire athletes feel safe.
It was outrageous that the Greek taxpayer, already faced with a huge bill for the Games, will also have to pick up the tab for the level of security demanded by the Americans. But the alarmist reports about the poor security also had another adverse effect, discouraging tens of thousands of people, especially Americans, from going to Athens and depriving the hosts of significant revenue. It is all good and well to apologise now, but the negative financial consequences caused by the US media cannot be reversed.
Perhaps, in future, the security cost for the Games should be shared out among all the participating countries, in accordance with each one’s GDP. Why should a host-city be forced to foot the bill for what one American magazine described as “our paranoia”?
If this “paranoia” persists, which small country will be able to afford to stage the Games? If all countries contribute financially, they will also have to agree on the type of security measures that need to be taken, thus preventing the US from making unreasonable demands of the hosts. And if the Americans are still not satisfied they can foot the bill for additional measures or stay away altogether.
Terrorism is an international problem and the cost of security for major events should be the responsibility of the international community rather than the host city. This would show that the international community is united in the fight against terrorism, rather than it being perceived as an exclusively American affair. But to have the US insisting that a host city spend obscene amounts of money on security so that their athletes and spectators feel safe is totally unreasonable.
