I was going through some old postings and came across this entry from July 26, 2006. Given that it was written shortly after the last World Cup, I think it's fitting that I post it again in the run-up to the next one.
Wednesday, 26 July 2006—Twenty of the world's most influential power-brokers congregated in Rome on Tuesday with the objective of sorting out the 15-day-old conflict between Israel and the Lebanon-based militias of Hezbollah. Among the international figureheads to arrive were U.S. Secretary of State – Condoleeza Rice, Canadian Foreign Minister – Peter MacKay, and UN Secretary-General – Koffi Annan.
The result of the Rome meetings is likely to be something of a unique impasse. Traditional Middle-East mediators, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are rather sidelined in this conflict. The Hezbollah militias are funded and supplied by governments in Damascus and Tehran, negating the accustomed influences of Cairo and Riyadh.
Furthermore, the United States has evidently lost considerable credibility in its position as a negotiator. The ongoing intrusions into Iraq and Afghanistan have found the Americans unwilling to stomach a third front in the region – the proposed buffer-zone between northern Israel and southern Lebanon. Moreover, the Bush administration's unequivocal support of Israel has damaged its aptitude in mediating a ceasefire between the two sides.
This leaves Koffi Annan. The Secretary-General has offered understated criticism of the exaggerated Israeli retaliation to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah militants. Unfortunately, though the chief of the international governing body seems to present a rare voice of impartiality in Mid-East affairs, his power of enforcement in significantly limited, if not altogether non-existent. Fancy, if nothing else, begs the question: In strictly political terms, who has more power – Koffi Annan or Sep Blatter?
Mr. Blatter is the president of FIFA, the Federation of International Football Associations. Both he and Mr. Annan head international organizations which include the memberships of a comparable count of nations around the world. But in real political terms, does Mr. Annan actually possess a level of power comparable to his counterpart?
In theory, the United Nations convenes to sift through problematic international issues, to referee disputes, and reconcile sparring nations to one another. In practice, the UN is little more than a glorified lobby-group; a threshold of schmoozing and cronyism at the highest level. In reality, the UN does not possess the mandates and forces to implement its edicts and sanctions.
As a result of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, member states often resort to unilateral action on the world stage, or simply bypass the diplomatic process altogether. We have seen it time and again – Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003. Countless conflicts in Africa which demand legitimate intervention are left to their own devices as bitter memories of UN forays into Somalia and Rwanda continue to linger in memory.
By contrast, Sep Blatter and FIFA seem to hold their member nations to relative accountability. As recently as June, FIFA suspended Greece indefinitely from all international competitions citing government interference in sport. Within days, the Greek government reversed its controversial policies and its football federation was reinstated.
During the recent World Cup in Germany, an international debate erupted over the participation of Iran. Many football pundits asserted that the fundamental Islamist state be banned from participation due to human rights violations, predominantly the discrimination of women. Similar arguments must have been made in previous World Cups over the inclusion of nations such as China, North Korea, and Haiti.
The brilliance of FIFA, however, is simply its inclusion of such countries. Mr. Blatter and his organization recognize that suspension and penalization only serve to further isolate the nations in question. By including them on an international stage as significant as the World Cup, FIFA affords the viewership in places such as Iran a rare opportunity to witness the various cultures of the developed world and embrace the openness and inclusiveness of the event.
Perhaps the UN is even jealous of the penetration of FIFA's influence. Would it not be remarkable if North Korea functioned as a full participant in the United Nations, as it does in FIFA? Would it not be extraordinary if the United States was but an equal, or even inconsequential, constituent of the United Nations, as it is in FIFA?
Politically speaking, FIFA may well represent more of a populace than most international governments. While many ruling parties around the world are fortunate to form an administration with a minority of 30-40% of a votership which hovers around 60% of the eligible public, football's governing organization is the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of entire households, cities, and populations.
Football and politics each possess the intangible ability to bring people together. Politics brings people out to demonstrate hatred, express frustration, and reveal aggravation. Conversely, football brings people out to articulate joy, celebrate brotherhood, and exhibit nationalism. Political gatherings are provoked by repression. Football gatherings are induced by celebration.
Citizens of any nation, the world over, will certainly prioritize joy above suffering. They will associate themselves with celebration before anger. They will be more likely to value ecstasy above distress. Their allegiances will lie with the things in their lives that embody their aspirations, not their sorrows. In a word, FIFA represents not only a broader slice of the population than the United Nations; the ingredient of football is more likely to command the public allegiance than that of politics.
Sep Blatter and FIFA insist that their influence includes only those elements which contribute to international football. They refrain from admitting any responsibility in global affairs beyond sport. But are they right in doing so? Does the potential of football's power compel its administrative body to a higher moral responsibility? Fancy, if nothing else, begs the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment