
The
beautiful game as a political football
July 2006
|
|
|
Is this a new breed of peacekeeper or the face of future fanaticism? |
|
“The World Cup makes us at the UN green with
envy,” admitted UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in an opinion piece. “It is one
of the few phenomena as universal as the UN. You could say it’s more
universal.”
Love the game or hate it, few can deny its
global appeal and the wonderful carnival atmosphere – despite the occasional
outburst of hooliganism – the World Cup brings around every four years. It
allows nationalist sentiment to be expressed and diffused in a largely harmless
setting. As ugly as England-Germany encounters can become on the front pages
and on the streets, this is still preferable to the devastation of real war.
Far better the football field than the battlefield. Despite the World Cup’s
astronomical price tag, it still costs less than war and makes people happier.
In an ideal but impossible future, war could be averted through a football match between top-ranking officials on both sides of a festering conflict. As the quagmire in Iraq constantly demonstrates, modern warfare is ugly and dangerous and any measure that can circumvent it is welcome.
The European Union may have made war
unthinkable in Europe, but in other parts of the world forcing leaders to do
their own dirty work is one way of preventing or mitigating conflict. In the
build up to the invasion of Iraq, I urged President George W Bush to take up
the Iraqi
challenge to a duel between him and the former Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein as a way of settling the dispute.
Needless to say, Dubya the Kid and his crew
ignored the chance to fight their own battles and to avoid the mindless loss of
thousands of innocent lives. Football offers less selfless leaders a distinct advantage
over duels in that it allows them to resolve conflicts without endangering
their own precious behinds.
Another distinct advantage of football, Annan
tells us is that “everybody knows where their team stands, and what it did to get
there”. Imagine how much easier it would have been, for instance, if the Oslo
Accords had been conceived as a football tournament, rather than barren, vague
and unenforceable documents lacking any clear objectives or timetables.
In such a scenario, the Israelis and the
Palestinians would field a team each to play a series of ‘home’ and ‘away’
matches – preferably on neutral territory – to resolve all the thorniest
sticking points: the status of Jerusalem, the Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount, and
other hotly disputed pieces of real estate; the right of return or compensation
to Palestinians living outside historic Palestine. With so much to play for,
before long, Palestine and Israel might find themselves competing with the
world’s footballing giants.
Football offers an interesting way out of
entrenched conflicts which are often prolonged through a massive power
disparity in which the more powerful side does not feel obliged to make painful
concessions and places the burden of compromise on the weaker party. By
levelling the playing field, football could potentially provide a breakthrough.
As Annan points out about the World Cup: “The
competition takes place on a level playing field, where every country has a
chance to participate on equal terms. Only two commodities matter: talent and
teamwork.”
For me, the main appeal of using football as a
weapon of mitigating disputes is that it would help small countries to survive
on the world stage without being bullied by larger countries and it would cause
larger countries to think more carefully before rattling their sabres – the
United States and England may be tough players in the modern version of the
‘great game’ but they are hardly invincible when it comes to the beautiful
game.
But best of all, it would make the ridiculous
$300-plus billion the USA sinks into its armed forces every year appear even
more fickle and irresponsible.
However, football is and can be double-edged.
In the right hands (or should I say, at the left foot?), it can be a powerful
force for tolerance and empowerment. In the wrong hands, football can be a
powerful weapon of mass distraction and even deception.
An interesting case in point is Iran. In the
1998 World Cup, the Iranian football team took home a one-nil victory against
its arch political enemy, the United States. This was a proxy battle, if ever
there was one. The win emboldened Iran’s restive youth – who have for years
been pressing for sweeping political reforms – to take to the streets in a bold
act of moral defiance against the strict behavioural codes imposed by the
clerics.
A year before the student unrest in 1999, tens
of thousands of Iranians, mostly young people, sang, danced and even cast off
their headscarves to celebrate the victory. “Here was a bold, defiant
demonstration of the power of the masses, and of their youth, in the face of
rigid authority, and authority had backed down,” wrote American journalist
Elaine Sciolino in her book Persian mirrors – the elusive face of Iran.
“For one glorious summer night, ordinary Iranians proved themselves capable of
bursting out of their lethargy not for God, but for soccer.”
But it was a minor advance for the young in a
long battle as the conservative clerics scurried to reclaim the football
victory and clothe it in the garb of revolutionary rhetoric. “Tonight, again,
the strong and arrogant opponents felt the bitter taste of defeat at your
hands,” Ayatollah Khamenei told the winning team, apparently unaware of how
comical his hyperbole sounded.
With or without Maradonna’s famous ‘hand of
God’ incident, the Iranian political class keeps a careful eye on the football
pitch. The revolution’s original spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini refused to
heed the calls to ban the beautiful game made by ultraconservatives in the
revolution’s early years.
The former reformist mayor of Tehran,
Gholam-Hosein Karbaschi, who was disliked by the conservative Council of
Guardians for his support of reformist president Khatami, had one session of
his televised trial – which had been dubbed Iran’s own OJ Simpson trial –
rescheduled because it clashed with one of Iran’s World Cup matches.
If the United Nations were to function more like
FIFA’s World Cup, then we would redefine the current world order. Footballers
would become not just overpaid sporting and entertainments stars, but would
also add ‘warrior’ and ‘statesman’ to their portfolio, sidelining women even
further. David Beckham could become the king of England while Ronaldinho could
run for president in Brazil. Pele for UN secretary-general, Kofi?
Being an untested quantity as a major world
player, Brazil might make a novel superpower. But with that much power at its
feet, would it remain just as cuddly or would it lose its samba innocence? How
would Germany, Italy and Argentina fare?
Then again, would the current superpower roll
over so easily and concede that the game is up? Might it not, in classic ‘with
us or against us’ logic declare that a soccer UN is irrelevant and that
American Football is the only acceptable way to resolve international disputes?
Even if it accepts the tutelage of soccer, what
then? Many people believe that the US military is running a secret research
programme to design cyborg super soldiers. But what if the USA diverted this
programme into developing and building the super ‘dream team’ for football, how
would the rest of the world compete against these cybernetic organisms? If you
thought one Wayne Rooney was enough to handle, just think what a whole army of
genetically modified, computer-enhanced Rooneys would be like!
Of course, some people might argue that
football is already replete with cyborgs, that peculiar synthesis of living
tissue, artificial parts and machine. Few footballers would attend a tournament
or be seen about town without their silicon wags (i.e. wives and girlfriends).
Take the silicon-breasted, gym-enhanced plastic queen of football and former
‘Posh Spice’, Victoria Beckham. She’s reached the stage where nearly half her
diminishing body mass is no longer identifiable as human!
A world dominated by football might be an
improvement on the current one, or, succumbing to human greed, it may function
much like it does now – albeit with more Adidas and Nike sponsorship. But the
only thing I know for certain is that it is better to make beautiful football,
not war.
ã2006 K. Diab. Unless otherwise stated, all the content on this website
is the copyright of Khaled Diab.