3. The last 20 years

Being cast into the world of international sport fundamentally changed
the dynamics confronting Aikido organizations, Hombu, IAF and national
organizations alike. The dynamics can be described as one revelation after the
other leading to the need to adapt to new conditions.

When Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba was convinced that the Aikikai should
enter GAISF (now SportAccord), the IAF soon found out that it could join the
IWGA as well. This led to participation in the World Games. This forced the IAF
to find a compromise in participating in the competitive world of sport,
without succumbing to the pressure to introduce competition. But this forced
national organizations to start really and practically cooperate in the
organization of the World Games demonstrations of Aikido. If forced the members
to deal with far larger budgets than their annual contributions. It exposed
them to other challenges than doing Aikido had prepared them for.

But what also happened that for the first-time representatives of
organizations would come to meetings who were not direct students of Japanese
teachers on top of a national organization. In Britain Chiba Sensei had left;
in Sweden Ishimura Sensei was gone; in France Christian Tissier had separated
an organization from Tamura Sensei; in the Netherlands Tamura Sensei was no
longer in charge of the Aikido organization. Of course, several countries
remained where the old situation continued: Tada Sensei visited Italy, Ikeda Sensei was in Switzerland, Asai Sensei
still is in Germany, Kitaura Sensei was still in Spain. And new instructors
appeared on the playing field: Kanetsuka Sensei went to Britain, together with
Fujita Sensei he instructed in the Netherlands. Hosokawa Sensei and Fujimoto
Sensei were important instructors in Italy.

But because this new generation of representatives were younger
Aikidoka, were not accustomed to the strong impact the old Shihan had on their
students, and because they were representing their national organizations in
the European Aikido Federation as well, they became a new influence. They were
far more ‘democratic’ for lack of a better expression, simply because they were
not aware of the ‘Japanese’ way of working.

At the same time it is surprising to see that to this day ‘the Japanese
way’ is being presented to students in Aikido dojos around the world, even if
their source of knowledge of this Japanese culture is extremely limited.

One example of how this worked for me, was when we organized the World
Games in The Hague in 1993. As chairman of the NCAF, a very small organization,
I experienced first-hand how organizing the Aikido demonstrations worked out.
For instance, the IAF did not have budget to organize the event, but neither
did the NCAF. So, it was democratically decided that the IAF would cover any
losses. From an organizational perspective the event was a success. We worked
closely with Hombu and many other countries. Even a large delegation from
Taiwan came to participate. Okumura Sensei, Yasuno Sensei, Yokota Sensei and
Kobayashi Sensei all represented Hombu. From a commercial perspective it was a
failure. The Games in The Hague were a fiasco for the IWGA, and for the IAF. So,
there was a financial deficit. But at the next general assembly of the IAF an
issue arose unexpectedly. During the report on the event, we were all of a
sudden informed by the Japanese that it was a matter of honor that the NCAF
should cover the loss, and that it was unbecoming that the IAF would be charged
for the loss. As chairman of the NCAF I stood my ground and argued that I had
announced the risk, allowed the IAF to choose beforehand, and was not going to
make any concessions just on the grounds of a claim on Japanese culture. This
wasn’t the end of it. Even though I proposed a compromise in which the IAF
would not have to cover the debt in cash but it would be resolved by
installments on the membership fees or the NCAF in the coming years, at two or
three consecutive congresses the issue was raised time and again, with exactly
the same argument.

During that period of time I started to travel more for the NCAF and had
more opportunity to talk to representatives from different countries. I quickly
became apparent that in countries where there was a Japanese instructor the
attitude towards Japanese culture as an argument was much more favorable than
in countries without one, where the attitude was much more ‘democratic’.

But the world of sport changed continuously and the World Games in The
Hague soon were behind us and other developments became clear. The IWGA quickly
made it clear that the demonstration status of Aikido would not be continued
indefinitely. This led to tensions in the IAF. Some parties argued that any
discourse with IWGA was unacceptable. Without exception these would be Japanese
Shihan or seniors directly related to them. All others argued that competition
was out of the question, but that as a member of an organization an open debate
was the least one should allow. This conflict was again argued with a very
‘Japanese’ attitude: Aikido is Japanese, we do not allow any compromise on the
position O Sensei has taken, that Aikido has no competition. For those in the
position that they had to discuss the matter in the world of sport, it was an
embarrassing position. I consider it a demonstration of the loyalty of the
representatives at that time, that they managed to keep the IAF on board in
IWGA and GAISF, despite the attitude they were representing.

Luckily for the IAF, the world of sport evolved and the SportAccord
Combat Games were established. This led to a new opportunity for Aikido to
participate in the community of combat sports and martial arts. Instead of
being isolated and isolating itself, Aikido quickly became a respected and
strong partner within the SportAccord Combat Games community. Luckily for
Aikido, the chairman at the time, Hein Verbruggen, knew Aikido and appreciated
its position on not holding competition. Other martial arts like Kendo
supported the position of the IAF, or respected it (Kick-Boxing, Karate, Judo).
Others simply accepted the demonstrations as a fact. But to my surprise this
was not much appreciated by some of the Shihans. While none of the members of
the IAF objected, strong opposition came to both the name change (from
SportAccord Martial Arts Games to SportAccord Combat Games) as well as to the
mere participation because it would inevitably compromise ‘the spirit of
Aikido’. As Goldsbury argues in his essays, a claim on Japanese culture was the
main argument.

But as these events took place and were successful, the IAF became a
stronger organization. Also, through its activities it learned what was
relevant, and how the world of sport worked. It became a more interesting body
both for national organizations as well as for individual practitioners. I
believe it is this learning curve that opened up the third step for the IAF.