Olympic U-Turns

A Less Publicised Olympic Legacy

For the people of Stratford in Newham, London, and the neighbouring boroughs, the residue of the Olympic circus is about as important as the games themselves. The Olympic Delivery Authority’s (ODA) official website claims that “after the Games the Olympic Park will be transformed into one of the largest urban parks created in Europe for more than 150 years”, with an aesthetically pleasing computer visualisation of said park. The page goes on to describe the more specific features of the park, such as the range of trees to be planted, as well as the housing units, shops, cafes, and development of the local transport networks. All this in the name of rejuvenating a highly neglected area of London.
A key element of the London Olympic bid included promises to “embed” sustainability within the process of the construction of these games, to make them “the most sustainable ever”. The ODA has outlined specific points as to how this is to be achieved: “use venues already existing”, “only make permanent structures that will have a long-term use after the games” and “build temporary structures for everything else”. Moreover, the ODA has outlined 5 key themes within its sustainability drive, which include: (most relevantly for the purposes of this article) “minimising the impact on wildlife and their habitats in and around Games venues”.

All well and good, but a cursory and slightly more critical scan of reports from communities directly affected by the Olympic Park yields slightly less idyllic impressions. The Soil Association, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) and Sustain have produced a 36-page report, Feeding the Olympics, which outlines how the ODA can take steps to achieve its aims of supporting the “consumption of food that is ‘fresh, local, seasonal, and organic’”. Yet a local community of allotments, established 100 years ago, producing exactly the kind of food that the report specifies as necessary to maintaining some of the various green pledges, has been evicted, because they lie smack-bang in the middle of the Olympic Park. The Manor Gardens Allotment Society (MGS) has been involved in a running battle with the ODA, and has seen the sharp end of the Compulsory Purchase Order driven through their long-established community.

The location of the Olympic village was chosen because it is, we were told, a run-down, derelict area of London desperately in need of development. Unfortunately, this does not give an accurate image of the immediate grounds, which are actually flourishing with wildlife: a nature reserve and areas of parkland, but these are on the verge of seeing massive ecological disruption in the construction process. In an article in the New Statesman, Andrew Simms, policy director at NEF, makes this point, and even cites a common phrase of “green lungs for this part of east London”, due to its astonishingly diverse ecology (including Kingfishers). This already seems to retreat on the pledge to minimise impact on wildlife.

A map showing where the allotments lie in relation to the rest of the Olympic village on the campaign website set up by MSG, lifeisland.org, demonstrates fairly clearly that the eviction of these allotments is arguably arbitrary. They are to be replaced by an easily reworked system of pathways that appear to offer no other benefit than design aesthetics. Given that part of the drive of these Olympics is to encourage and highlight health and sustainability as well as implement it, the removal of the allotments for nothing other than easily reworked pathways seems at best counter-productive and most cynically a retreat on the bid’s various promises. Having a source of local, organic food within the grounds of the games would give the Olympic village a unique physical manifestation of its pledges and set a precedent for future games. A precedent not just in terms of sustainability, but on the inclusion, rather than eviction, of local communities.

Although the London Development Agency (LDA) promised to relocate the MGS, lifeisland.org describes how

In the first week of November (2007) plot-holders were finally able to move in and try to start new gardens on the bare new site at Marsh Lane, Waltham Forest – formerly a horse-grazed meadow valued by locals. Most had to give up their plots on the Olympic site in July, abandoning valuable mature fruit trees, asparagus beds, grape vines and swathes of naturalised herbs and flowers.

Again, the bulldozing of naturalised plants and herbs stacks up against the pledge to minimize ecological disruption, especially when there is the potential for them not to be removed at all. The promised aid in relocation apparently consisted of nothing more than cramming possessions into shipping containers and leaving them a good 200m from the newly allocated spaces. Moreover, the new plots have been blighted with problems, the least of them not being severe flooding. Compounding all this is the fact that after the games, the new plots to be given back to MGS are at opposite ends of the park, and that “the earlier promises that the allotments would be ‘moved back’ to a location near the old site and would be of improved quality have been broken”. Again, all this is made worse the fact that, as the Feeding the Olympics report outlines that the 5 Olympic boroughs, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Greenwich, are among the poorest in London, and are classed as suffering from ‘food poverty’. The bulldozing of and subsequent refusal to reallocate the established spaces for growing food within these boroughs then runs completely contra to the promises outlined in the bid for the legacy of the games.

When stated earlier that the residue of the Olympics are as important to the local communities as the Games themselves, the use of ‘residue’ was both figurative and literal. According to documents seen by Paul Charman and Mike Wells on gamesmonitor.org.uk, the site will remain a contaminated brownfield site. Even to the extent that “carcinogenic asbestos-laden material has been left in place in many areas, the levels being so high that the soil would be classified as Hazardous Waste if excavated during future construction activities”. According to Charman and Wells, the material being used as ‘filler’ contains a level of asbestos on the border of being classed as Hazardous Waste, at 0.1%. Even this is 20 times higher than the level of that of the material being used at the surface, which itself has levels 5 times higher than the 0.001% accepted level, before asbestos becomes an airborne hazard. This has led to the release of a document from the ODA, containing the warning that “future use of the site should not include the construction of private gardens or growing of edible crops”. This is another massive blow to the thousands of people on waiting lists for allotment space, who could have benefited greatly from a more thorough clean up of the space, and more focus on provision to the local communities embedded within the legacy plans.

The publication of these various reports seems to describe a current development trend of the Olympics disingenuous to the pledges that secured the games for London. Moreover, these policy retreats have been aided by next-to-no recognition in the mainstream press; a quick search on Google’s news function reveals no recognition of the battles between the ODA and MGS, and only four results on the standard web function. The bulldozing of such a well-established allotment community would be an unfortunate blow to London’s urban farming community, which has seen massive interest and growth, both in the soil and in the London zeitgeist.

“Now, on the main field, the the Race for Private Security...”

In August of this year, Hamid Karzai gave private security contractors operating in Afghanistan fours months to pack their things and say their farewells. An interesting move, and given that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen an explosion in the use (and dependency) of the privatised military and security sector, one that is not likely to prove popular. Reports suggest that the motives for such an announcement lie in the rapidly increasing antagonism between said firms and the Afghan people, as the issue of civilian casualties become an ever increasing headache for both the Afghan government and the image of western forces, both private and government-based. Case-in-point, the firm formerly known as Blackwater, now known as Xe standing trial for the alleged murder of Iraqi civilians, and the release of the now-infamous US military files via wiki-leaks. According to a number of mainstream news sources, this phase out is due to be completed by 2011.

Yet not all is doom and gloom in the private military sector; as Karzai announced what at least appears to be an end to the Friedman-esque market policies in military protection in Afghanistan, just two weeks prior an Associated Press dispatch outlined of the possibility of terrorist attacks at the London 2012 Olympics, issued by the director of security for the Olympic organising committee, Ian Johnston. This warning also came with the acknowledgement that private security will play a huge role in policing the games.

Incidentally, Johnston was the head of the British Transport Police during the 2005 bombings on the London underground, the day after London had been awarded the right to hold the games. During the games, the threat level will remain at a steady ‘severe’, just one below the highest level ‘critical’.

The sentiments and concerns of Johnston have been echoed by a former US intelligence officer based in London, Bob Ayers, who gave this ominous threat “if you rank the order of the countries that al-Qaida wants to do things to, it’s the `Great Satan’ (United States) first, and it’s the Brits second […] here’s this massive event coming up. You know exactly when it’s going to occur … If you’re a terrorist planner, it doesn’t get any better than this”. Who better to fill the policing gap for the games than the still burgeoning private security industry, about to be expelled from its current play-ground.

On the 16th July, David Evans, the project director of the 2012 games for the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), a lobby and umbrella group representing the UK’s private security sector, released a statement confirming the cosy relationship between the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the BSIA: “… the BSIA has been at the forefront of security planning for London 2012. Working alongside Government departments such as the Olympic Security Directorate and Olympic Delivery Authority, as well as the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the BSIA has helped to identify both the opportunities and challenges that both public and private sectors will face in securing the Games”.

Opportunities? What does he mean by opportunities? Opportunities perhaps to utilise security companies expelled from Afghanistan? Two companies (possibly as well as others) currently operating in Afghanistan that have been awarded contracts to police the Olympics are G4S Securities and Ageis. According to the business networking site competeforlondon.co.uk. G4S Securities, who also have their subsidiary, AmourGroup operating in Afghanistan, have been awarded the contract of security guarding. The Afghanistan section of the G4S website proudly claims

G4S provides experienced, well-qualified, Close Protection (CP) teams and Personal Security Details (PSDs) for government and commercial clients, ensuring their employees and their families are protected in their offices, residences and while travelling. G4S also offers expertise in ordinance management (mine clearing) and close guarding, a useful service with so many heads-of-state and other dignitaries visiting such an apparently likely target for terrorism.

In may of this year, David Insberg of the Huffington Post reported that on the 17th of February the defence contractor Ageis, which also has Iraq on its portfolio, was awarded a contract to provide security consultancy services (helpfully supplying the contract number: Lot 3. Contract Award Notice No.: 2010/S 33-046942, Contract No.: 9938).

Unfortunately, British private security contractors don’t have a squeaky-clean record in the conflict. The offices of contractor Olympus Security Ltd were raided and shut down by Afghan soldiers after it was found to be operating illegally. Similarly, Ageis was involved in a law suit after its employees shot U.S. Special Forces sergeant Khadim Alkanani at the entrance to Baghdad International Airport, where it was heard in court that there was no hostile activity taking place. Alkanani subsequently developed hepatitis C, and has not recovered the full use of his foot, but his case was thrown out of court because Ageis’s defence argued that at the time of the shooting it was not registered as a corporation, and therefore did not exist, even though the facts of the event were not disputed. To reiterate Insberg, lets hope the ODA have contracted a company that “is officially incorporated and deemed to legally exist”, rather than the phantom mercenaries form they took in Iraq.

Neither G4S nor Ageis appear on the BSIA website after a search in the ‘company finder’, and after searching the 2008 directory of security contractors compiled by the BSIA and the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers (APPSS), G4S receives a brief mention as the parent company of AmourGroup, and Ageis doesn’t appear at all. However, the directory does list a number of contractors likely to allay fears of terrorism, such as SDS Group, whose services include, armour, bomb disposal clothing and bomb suppression, explosion detection and x-ray equipment. Another is HVR Consulting services, a subsidiary of QuinetiQ, who are listed as providing ‘counter-terrorism and disaster management’ services. As well as this, Ian Johnston’s promise that the discreet approach to policing the Olympics will be made easier by Seven Technologies’ statement in the 2008 index that “We believe we will be able to add to the security services covert surveillance operational effect during the Olympics by using our hard fought experience to provide key enabling equipment and training where required”.

Returning to the AP dispatch, member of the House of Lords John Patten claims that ‘authorities’ are worried about the use of improvised chemical bombs, or ICDs, which, according to General David Richards, requires specialist military teams, usually deployed in Afghanistan, to check for roadside bombs. In fact, Liam Fox has actually confirmed that discussions are underway to determine the role of Britain’s military forces in policing the games. Yet none of this will be visible, apparently, because Johnston has also confirmed that there won’t be a heavy-handed approach to the policing, but that security will be “discreet and effective”. Discreet? Or perhaps Evans uses ‘utilise’ to refer to the introduction and testing of new security technologies, which the AP piece states will include CCTV systems to check for suspicious activity among spectators and unmanned drone aircraft to monitor crowds. The inspiration for using unmanned drones must have come from their use in Afghanistan, where their stirling performances have caused the UN to request that the CIA cease their use of drones in ‘targeted’ killings.

Maybe the AP got it wrong, because the idea that the games will require a host of new technology directly contradicts the statements made by Olympic games security minister Lord West, who, when addressing representatives from the private security industry in February of this year told them that focus would lie in tried-and-tested methods. Then adding a slightly ominous glimpse at the government’s plans for post-2012 security arrangements: “I look forward to building a longer-term partnership with the industry. This will assist with the success of the broader CONTEST counter-terror strategy beyond the Olympic Games.”. From the look of things, the possibility of terrorist attacks during the 2012 Olympics is being used as a justification for the expansion of the domestic security sector in Britain far beyond what is currently in place. This will prove especially useful now that the police forces are looking at significant cuts.

A continuous stream of vague threats from official sources was, however, the method used to justify policing tactics at the G20. During the build up to the demonstrations, the London daily free-bees depicted running battles between faceless ‘anarchists’ and the police, and pained a picture of London under siege from sinister black-hooded forces. Warnings were issued from the Met about violent protesters attacking bankers, and advice was given to those going to work in the City that day to wear casual clothes to avoid being identified. Interestingly, none of these threats actually came from the protest organisers.

Or maybe, the both Lord West and the AP are right, and that the Olympics will see a host of new security technologies, but ones that have been sufficiently trialled in the run-up to the games. According to statements made by Met Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, who heads London’s Olympic security directorate, the met have “installed a technological footprint across London” and that extensive technology is “the first level of policing”. This technology, while including the less sinister ticket tracking systems, it will cover identity-recognition techniques, enhanced car number-plate recognition and three new helicopters to monitor crowds. The labour force building the Olympic park is already being screened through biometric fingerprinting. These comments were made back in ’08, its now 2010. The two years between will have been long enough to get some technological trials up and running. But even beyond the games, with all these now tried-and-tested methods in place, how many of them are going to be relinquished after the games finish? The ticket tracking that links the ticket to the identity of the owner? Possibly, although it’s entirely possibly that this will become standard practice for large music venues, such as Wembley stadium or the O2 Arena. It’s hard to imagine the Met uninstalling this sophisticated surveillance network, especially if something were to happen during the games to justify its continued use in the public.