It was quite a match!
The Americans towered over the relatively short Japanese team, but the women in blue held their own quite well. Granted, the Americans produced fancier attacks on goal, and when they scored the first goal, it seemed doubtful that the Japanese could come back. But the Japanese defense held it together, and their attackers continued to generate decent goal chances. Then, when Japan scored their first goal, it was clear that they had no intention of letting the Americans win the tournament easily.
The game's extra time was nail-biting good soccer. Both teams generated good scoring chances, and play kept moving up and down the field. The US scored their second goal relatively late, and again, it seemed that Japan would have a tough time tying up the game. But tie it up they did, scoring a goal that wasn't that pretty, but that was nonetheless the result of hard work in front of the US net.
And so came the penalty kicks. Japan's goal keeper, Ayumi Kaihori, did a great job defending her goal, stopping one shot by lifting up her foot as she dove horizontally!
Congratulations Japan!
There's a nice summary of the game here.
And also, an interesting article about it published in a Korean paper here.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Olympic Costs - Lessons From the Vancouver Experience
Following an initially positive response to the announcement that the 2018 winter Olympics will be held in Pyeongchang, some South Korean press has begun reporting on some possible negative sides of this event. For instance, one article analyzed the games from a geopolitical perspective, and argued that it will be challenging to host the game in the context of the likely geopolitical realities of the year 2018. And in one opinion piece, the estimated economic benefits of the games have been questioned, economic benefits that, according to industry groups, are expected to be in the tens of billions of dollars (or tens of trillions of won).
The 2010 winter Olympic games were held in Vancouver, Canada, and Canadians saw first hand the true costs of hosting such games.
As in Korea, Canadian business groups saw the Vancouver Olympics as an opportunity to make money. But in July 2010, 5 to 6 months after the Vancouver games were finished, a Canadian tax payer's organization was calling for the full accounting of the costs and benefits of the games. It therefore seems that government officials in Vancouver and British Columbia have taken a long time to fully make public the costs of the 2010 games. Granted, it is probably difficult to estimate the true costs of hosting an Olympic event, particularly when accounting for investments in infrastructures that can continue to serve after the games are finished. But one article provides some surprising details about the sources of public financing for the games, and disturbingly, it seems that the government of British Columbia increased its Olympics spending at the same time that it decreased spending on health care. And though it is still today difficult to find a complete cost-benefit account of the 2010 Vancouver games, an analysis of these games produced in 2006 by an economist from Canada's Queen's University concluded that the games would result in a net cost to the public of over 100 million dollars. Finally, in the Washington Post, just prior to the 2010 games, a British economist from London provided some sobering information on the financial burden borne by that city as a result of the up-coming 2012 Olympics.
It also seems that the benefits and costs of the Vancouver Olympics were not shared equally among people in the Vancouver area. The Vancouver Olympics were held on Aboriginal lands that were never ceded to the Canadian government. The Aboriginal owners of these lands saw very little benefit from the games. Furthermore, there is a large homeless and low-income population in Vancouver, and some argued that the billions spent on the Olympics should have been invested in housing and treatment programs for homeless people. Some also argued that the city of Vancouver was trying to hide its homelessness problem from the people who came to see the games.
Finally, there may have been a major safety problem with some of the sporting infrastructure that was built for the Vancouver Olympics. Sadly, just before the games began, Nodar Kumaritashvili, a luge racer from the Republic of Georgia, crashed during a training exercise on the Vancouver Olympics luge track. After losing control of his luge, he flew out of the track, struck a steel pillar located nearby, and died. Though Nodar's death was ruled an accident, an investigation by Canadian journalists revealed that questions had been raised about the safety of the track by professional athletes who had been asked to evaluate it. But it seems that not all of the issues raised by these athletes were addressed by the officials responsible for the Olympic luge event.
In spite of all these negative aspects of the Olympics, I remain in favour of holding such games. I see them as a fun and positive opportunity for bringing together people from all parts of the world. But I am an idealist, and I would like to see Olympic games bring benefits to all people living where they occur. And so, in light of what happened in Canada, I humbly offer the following advice to the Korean government as preparations are being made for the Pyeongchang Olympics...
First of all, Koreans must understand that Olympics are likely to bring more financial losses than gains to their country. This is OK, as there is value to holding the games in spite of this. However, the expenses of the games should be shared fairly among Koreans, and should not be paid for with money that is needed for more important matters, like health care or other essential services or infrastructure.
Secondly, in order to maximize the benefits to Koreans of the Olympic games, it should not be assumed that the sporting infrastructure that will be built for the games will by itself bring financial benefits after the Olympics are finished. Rather, in preparing for the Olympics, investments should be made in roads and in other infrastructures that will clearly be of benefit after the games are finished.
Thirdly, if lands must be acquired for the construction of the Olympics sporting infrastructure, land-owners must be compensated generously, at rates that are higher than market value, taking into account not only the value of the land, but also all losses of future revenue that the sale of the land represents for the original owners. In this manner, no one will be impoverished because of the Olympics, and all those directly affected by the hosting of the games will benefit.
And finally, the safety of the Olympic sporting infrastructure must be rigorously evaluated by athletes themselves. All safety concerns raised by athletes should be addressed diligently by the relevant sporting organizations. Furthermore, the organizers of the Pyeongchang Olympics should be aware of accidents that have occurred during prior Olympic events, like the accident involving Nodar Kumaritashvili at the Vancouver games, and heed the lessons learned as a result of these unfortunate events.
The 2010 winter Olympic games were held in Vancouver, Canada, and Canadians saw first hand the true costs of hosting such games.
As in Korea, Canadian business groups saw the Vancouver Olympics as an opportunity to make money. But in July 2010, 5 to 6 months after the Vancouver games were finished, a Canadian tax payer's organization was calling for the full accounting of the costs and benefits of the games. It therefore seems that government officials in Vancouver and British Columbia have taken a long time to fully make public the costs of the 2010 games. Granted, it is probably difficult to estimate the true costs of hosting an Olympic event, particularly when accounting for investments in infrastructures that can continue to serve after the games are finished. But one article provides some surprising details about the sources of public financing for the games, and disturbingly, it seems that the government of British Columbia increased its Olympics spending at the same time that it decreased spending on health care. And though it is still today difficult to find a complete cost-benefit account of the 2010 Vancouver games, an analysis of these games produced in 2006 by an economist from Canada's Queen's University concluded that the games would result in a net cost to the public of over 100 million dollars. Finally, in the Washington Post, just prior to the 2010 games, a British economist from London provided some sobering information on the financial burden borne by that city as a result of the up-coming 2012 Olympics.
It also seems that the benefits and costs of the Vancouver Olympics were not shared equally among people in the Vancouver area. The Vancouver Olympics were held on Aboriginal lands that were never ceded to the Canadian government. The Aboriginal owners of these lands saw very little benefit from the games. Furthermore, there is a large homeless and low-income population in Vancouver, and some argued that the billions spent on the Olympics should have been invested in housing and treatment programs for homeless people. Some also argued that the city of Vancouver was trying to hide its homelessness problem from the people who came to see the games.
Finally, there may have been a major safety problem with some of the sporting infrastructure that was built for the Vancouver Olympics. Sadly, just before the games began, Nodar Kumaritashvili, a luge racer from the Republic of Georgia, crashed during a training exercise on the Vancouver Olympics luge track. After losing control of his luge, he flew out of the track, struck a steel pillar located nearby, and died. Though Nodar's death was ruled an accident, an investigation by Canadian journalists revealed that questions had been raised about the safety of the track by professional athletes who had been asked to evaluate it. But it seems that not all of the issues raised by these athletes were addressed by the officials responsible for the Olympic luge event.
In spite of all these negative aspects of the Olympics, I remain in favour of holding such games. I see them as a fun and positive opportunity for bringing together people from all parts of the world. But I am an idealist, and I would like to see Olympic games bring benefits to all people living where they occur. And so, in light of what happened in Canada, I humbly offer the following advice to the Korean government as preparations are being made for the Pyeongchang Olympics...
First of all, Koreans must understand that Olympics are likely to bring more financial losses than gains to their country. This is OK, as there is value to holding the games in spite of this. However, the expenses of the games should be shared fairly among Koreans, and should not be paid for with money that is needed for more important matters, like health care or other essential services or infrastructure.
Secondly, in order to maximize the benefits to Koreans of the Olympic games, it should not be assumed that the sporting infrastructure that will be built for the games will by itself bring financial benefits after the Olympics are finished. Rather, in preparing for the Olympics, investments should be made in roads and in other infrastructures that will clearly be of benefit after the games are finished.
Thirdly, if lands must be acquired for the construction of the Olympics sporting infrastructure, land-owners must be compensated generously, at rates that are higher than market value, taking into account not only the value of the land, but also all losses of future revenue that the sale of the land represents for the original owners. In this manner, no one will be impoverished because of the Olympics, and all those directly affected by the hosting of the games will benefit.
And finally, the safety of the Olympic sporting infrastructure must be rigorously evaluated by athletes themselves. All safety concerns raised by athletes should be addressed diligently by the relevant sporting organizations. Furthermore, the organizers of the Pyeongchang Olympics should be aware of accidents that have occurred during prior Olympic events, like the accident involving Nodar Kumaritashvili at the Vancouver games, and heed the lessons learned as a result of these unfortunate events.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Olympics Coming to Korea in 2018
It was announced today by the International Olympic Committee that the 2018 edition of the Olympic winter games will be held in South Korea, in Pyeongchang (평창). The news was well-received in Korea, with celebrations reported in Seoul and at Jogyesa (조계사), one of Korea's most important Buddhist temples.
평창 is located in Gangwon-do (강원도), the north-easternmost province of South Korea. It seems to me that 강원도 is not as developed as the other Korean provinces. A quick glance upon the map of South Korea makes evident that there is more highway infrastructure in the western and southern provinces of the country. So I expect that the coming of the Olympics to 강원도 is likely to be accompanied by some infrastructural development for the province.
Geographically, 강원도 is an ideal location for the winter Olympic games to be held. 강원도 is a mountainous region. The Taebaek mountain range (태백산맥) runs along its eastern side. Within this mountain range is located Seoraksan mountain (설악산). 설악산 is the 3rd highest mountain in South Korea, and a popular hiking destination for Korean nature lovers. And it snows A LOT in 강원도! Last year, a February storm dropped 110.1 centimeters of snow in 24 hours on Donghae city (동해시), a city located on the east coast of 강원도. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this massive snow storm caused some damage to buildings. But the national, provincial and local governments were equipped to deal with the snow, and quickly mobilized their resources to clear roads and rescue people who were stranded.
This morning, as they readied themselves to make their final bid for the 2018, officials from 평창 seemed to believe that their toughest competition would come from the German city of Munich. But they won, and the Olympic torch is coming to Korea for the 2nd time! Congratulations Korea!
평창 is located in Gangwon-do (강원도), the north-easternmost province of South Korea. It seems to me that 강원도 is not as developed as the other Korean provinces. A quick glance upon the map of South Korea makes evident that there is more highway infrastructure in the western and southern provinces of the country. So I expect that the coming of the Olympics to 강원도 is likely to be accompanied by some infrastructural development for the province.
Geographically, 강원도 is an ideal location for the winter Olympic games to be held. 강원도 is a mountainous region. The Taebaek mountain range (태백산맥) runs along its eastern side. Within this mountain range is located Seoraksan mountain (설악산). 설악산 is the 3rd highest mountain in South Korea, and a popular hiking destination for Korean nature lovers. And it snows A LOT in 강원도! Last year, a February storm dropped 110.1 centimeters of snow in 24 hours on Donghae city (동해시), a city located on the east coast of 강원도. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this massive snow storm caused some damage to buildings. But the national, provincial and local governments were equipped to deal with the snow, and quickly mobilized their resources to clear roads and rescue people who were stranded.
This morning, as they readied themselves to make their final bid for the 2018, officials from 평창 seemed to believe that their toughest competition would come from the German city of Munich. But they won, and the Olympic torch is coming to Korea for the 2nd time! Congratulations Korea!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Territorial Disputes in East Asia
One aspect of East Asian politics that I find rather surprising is the fact that there are a number of territorial disputes between the nations of the region.
First of all, there is the territorial dispute between North and South Korea. These two nations, which are technically at war, disagree on the location of their borders, in particular the maritime border in the West sea, known as the Northern Limit Line. But on a grander scale, both North Korea and South Korea seek reunification, which can perhaps be understood as claiming sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula.
These disputes, I knew about before going to Korea, though perhaps not in their minutest details. But I had no idea that there are also territorial disputes between Korea and Japan. Currently, Japan and Korea are in dispute over an island that Koreans call Dokdo (독도). From what I gather from news sources, Japan has begun to claim sovereignty over the islands in recent years. At first glance, this seems silly, as the islands are very small and not very hospitable for humans, but some see economic motives in Japan's claim to the islands. And this year, to the dismay of Koreans, Japan has begun describing the islands as Japanese territory in a large number of its official school textbooks. In response to this, the Korean government and Korean teachers have taken the position that Korea's sovereignty over the 독도 islands must be defended. Therefore, Korea has also begun to emphasize their claim to 독도 in school textbooks. Sadly, the 독도 question is a divisive one, and it strains the relationship between Korea and Japan.
Interestingly, such disputes are not new in Korea-Japan relations. Some Koreans claim that the Japanese island of Tsushima, which is sometimes visible from Busan, is Korean territory.
Furthermore, as I discussed in my previous blog post, there are disputes between Korea and China. Though the Goguryeo controversy currently seems to be only about the interpretation of the history of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo, discussions that I have had with some Koreans have led me to believe that this matter could devolve into a territorial dispute in the future.
Japan and China are also in dispute over the Senkaku islands, currently controlled by Japan, but claimed by both China and Taiwan.
And finally, there is a fourth player in the region, namely Russia. There is a territorial dispute between Russia and Japan, over the Kuril islands, a string of islands stretching from Hokkaido, Japan to the Kamchatka peninsula, in the Russian Federation. Surprisingly, a recently article suggests that the Russian air force, and to a lesser extent the Chinese air force, have carried out a number of incursions into Japanese airspace during the last few years.
I doubt I would have learned all of this had I not moved to Korea.
First of all, there is the territorial dispute between North and South Korea. These two nations, which are technically at war, disagree on the location of their borders, in particular the maritime border in the West sea, known as the Northern Limit Line. But on a grander scale, both North Korea and South Korea seek reunification, which can perhaps be understood as claiming sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula.
These disputes, I knew about before going to Korea, though perhaps not in their minutest details. But I had no idea that there are also territorial disputes between Korea and Japan. Currently, Japan and Korea are in dispute over an island that Koreans call Dokdo (독도). From what I gather from news sources, Japan has begun to claim sovereignty over the islands in recent years. At first glance, this seems silly, as the islands are very small and not very hospitable for humans, but some see economic motives in Japan's claim to the islands. And this year, to the dismay of Koreans, Japan has begun describing the islands as Japanese territory in a large number of its official school textbooks. In response to this, the Korean government and Korean teachers have taken the position that Korea's sovereignty over the 독도 islands must be defended. Therefore, Korea has also begun to emphasize their claim to 독도 in school textbooks. Sadly, the 독도 question is a divisive one, and it strains the relationship between Korea and Japan.
Interestingly, such disputes are not new in Korea-Japan relations. Some Koreans claim that the Japanese island of Tsushima, which is sometimes visible from Busan, is Korean territory.
Furthermore, as I discussed in my previous blog post, there are disputes between Korea and China. Though the Goguryeo controversy currently seems to be only about the interpretation of the history of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo, discussions that I have had with some Koreans have led me to believe that this matter could devolve into a territorial dispute in the future.
Japan and China are also in dispute over the Senkaku islands, currently controlled by Japan, but claimed by both China and Taiwan.
And finally, there is a fourth player in the region, namely Russia. There is a territorial dispute between Russia and Japan, over the Kuril islands, a string of islands stretching from Hokkaido, Japan to the Kamchatka peninsula, in the Russian Federation. Surprisingly, a recently article suggests that the Russian air force, and to a lesser extent the Chinese air force, have carried out a number of incursions into Japanese airspace during the last few years.
I doubt I would have learned all of this had I not moved to Korea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)