Blog

In September 2007, the Spanish ombudsman, a national human rights institution investigated a report into allegations made by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) regarding the mistreatment of child immigrants by the hands of detention centre guards and security forces in the Canary Islands. Over 900 unaccompanied children arrived in the Canary Islands by boat from Africa in 2006. In response, the Islands opened up four emergency centers as a temporary solution. HRW stated that the migrant children ‘do not enjoy access to public education, they have limited opportunity for recreation and leisure, and they are unduly restricted in their freedom of movement’.

The ombudsman found the allegations to be true and that one year after the HRW report, the care of unaccompanied migrant children in the Canary Islands was still unsatisfactory. This was despite efforts to improve the facility with renovations and better structuring of how the children were grouped together. In particular it was found that children in the La Esperanza centre were often housed for up to a year in overcrowded, unsafe, and substandard facilities and detained in police stations upon arrival.

Violating a host of child protection laws, and basic human, not to mention vulnerable child rights, I’d send Spain off for this.  Although I would generally be cheering for Spain and their rather shiny record of respecting human rights; in this game I can only place both thumbs firmly down and boo.

Honduras. Not a glowing example of a human rights based utopia, and with more coups than fake injuries on a football pitch, it doesn’t take long to write a list of social injustices associated with the country. Migration for Hondurans and those traveling through Honduras to arrive at the good old land of the free is often traumatic and unsuccessful. Paved with ill treatment, racism, abuse and a host of sexual violence towards women, migration of Hondurans and those traveling through risk life and dignity in the dream of reaching the promise land (our friend the USA).

Sadly, many don’t make it alive, and are usually denied entry or can’t afford the corrupt methods to get in. Obama is hardly standing there with arms wide open. The experiences of migrants are often unknown and rarely documented. Yet most that do speak up and report living through or witnessing a traumatic experience such as psychological or physical abuse, injury, rape, or death at the hands of gangs, Mexican authorities, or freight trains along the way.

Within their journeys it is actually Mexico that poses most of the threats to the desperate migrants, not the USA. Many Mexicans particularly are not fans of Hondurans and all levels discriminate against them, including police and gangs. A film I recommend in particular to highlight the plight of Honduran and other migrants is Sin Nombre.

I could go on about migrant policies, laws and support groups, but like my interest in football I’ll keep this short and sweet. So I am sending a ‘red card’ both countries for Spain’s treatment of child migrants in the Canary Islands and the treatment of Honduran migrants in Mexico and the land of the brave.

So who will I be cheering for? For freedom. For our right to live and move to where ever we like with dignity and armed with our right to live. I am cheering for all of us lucky ones unlike the Honduran and African migrants who have their human rights respected and don’t feel they have to risk their lives for a better future.

I am cheering for democracy and freedom.

Posted in: Honduras, Honduras-Spain, Spain

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

In what has the potential to be quite an interesting group (despite the presence of Switzerland) Honduras sit astride the Who Should I Cheer For? rankings like a veritable colossus. Chile, on the other hand, rank the lowest of any of the South American countries and lie a lowly 23rd. However, these bare statistics cover a multitude of subtleties.

On the footballing side, Chile finished second only to Brazil in South American qualifying, cutting a swathe through the continent with their ultra attacking line-up, starring play-maker Matias Fernandez, the twinkly Alexis Sanchez and tubby goal machine Humberto Suazo. And thats without even mentioning one of the greatest of a long line of flop Liverpool wingers, Mark Gonzalez. In a frustratingly cagey tournament thus far, Chile, with their 3 at the back formation and commitment to pouring numbers forward, bear a weight of expectation, and unlike many of the teams in the past week, will be eager to get a victory under their belt in the opener, with tougher games to come.

Honduras passage to the finals was somewhat less stylish, edging out Costa Rica in the CONCACACACACAF section, but they will be hoping to prove the doubters wrong over the next few weeks. The three Palacios brothers, including star midfielder Wilson, add a touch of pathos to the team, having discovered last year that their younger brother Edwin, who had been held hostage by a gang in Honduras for 2 years, had been found dead.

Despite relatively high levels of inequality, Hondurans desperately low national income, high numbers of chronically hungry, low carbon emissions and low levels of military spending means that they are ranked highly in the supportability stakes. However, it should be borne in mind that the current president was elected under the conditions of a military coup dtat last year, and many countries around the world, including those of MERCOSUR have refused to recognise the results.

Leftist President Manuel Zelaya had been ousted by the military after a constitutional dispute with the Honduran Supreme Court, and the national teams qualification for the World Cup last year was achieved against a background of the suspension of human rights.

Chile offer quite a contrast to this turmoil. In the twenty years since the military junta of General Pinochet was ended by plebiscite, Chile, thanks to stable government and sensible economic policies, has prospered. From the depths of poverty in the middle of the last century, Chile is now one of the most prosperous nations in South America, and last year became the first country in the region to join the OECD.

Poverty has been reduced from 45% in the 80s to below 14% today, and Chile is a net creditor rather than a debtor, a remarkable achievement.

This has been achieved under a series of centre left governments, culminating with the 4 year term of Chiles last president, Michelle Bachelet. The first woman in Latin America to hold such an office, Bachelet is a qualified paediatrician and epidemiologist, an avowed agnostic, and in 2008, was voted 15th in Time Magazine’s list of the worlds most influential people.

Furthermore, her father was tortured to death under the Pinochet regime, and she pledged her presidency to eradicating poverty in Chile, and reducing one of the highest rates of inequality in the world. She built huge numbers of crches for poorer children, established a minimum state pension, significantly extended free healthcare, and abolished the last of the slums with an enormously subsidised housing programme, ending her term earlier this year with approval ratings of 84%. That said, the less said about her Harvard-educated right-wing billionaire successor the better.

The already impoverished Honduran people have had a lot to put up with in the past 12 months, and their underdog credentials are undeniable, but while the Who Should I Cheer For? rankings may give the impression that this match is a cut and dried affair, Chile’s achievements in escaping from poverty and despotism should nonetheless be celebrated. And if they bring their form from the qualifiers to South Africa, their football could be similarly fted by a worldwide audience starting become jaded by footballing conservatism.

Posted in: Chile, Chile-Honduras, Honduras

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Group G

Brazil

Brazil’s major worry coming into this tournament is, almost unbelievably, a lack of creativity. Without an in-form superstar in their attacking line-up, a weight of expectation is on the shoulders of Kaka, who has spent much of the last 12 months alternating between injured and out of sorts. With Julio Cesar, Lucio and Maicon in their back five, it is defensive solidity that is their strength this time around, much to coach Dunga’s delight presumably.

Despite 7 years of the left-wing Lula administration and social programmes such as the Bolsa Família aimed at eradicating hunger, Brazil nonetheless enter the World Cup firmly in mid-table in the Who Should I Cheer For league, thanks in part to a persistently high level of income inequality.

Ivory Coast

Like Didier Drogba’s arm, the Ivory Coast’s health system appears to be comprehensively broken, with maternal mortality figures through the roof at 944 per 100,000 births. Despite this, low national income and extremely low carbon emissions lead Cote d’Ivoire into 4th place in the Who Should I Cheer For standings.

Drogba, despite his infuriating on-field personality, is actually one of football’s most prominent champions of the poor. He is a UNDP goodwill ambassador, and once donated his £3m fee from a sponsorship deal to the construction of a hospital in his hometown Abidjan. Nonetheless, about a quarter of the population live below the $1.25 a day international poverty line, and in a group of death, and potentially without their inspirational captain, they may not gain much succour from this tournament.

North Korea

Well, what can you say really? Even the most avid of contrarians will struggle to get behind a team representing one of the most repressive regimes in the world. While their audacious attempt to sidestep FIFA’s silly mandatory three goalkeepers rule was both amusing and admirable, it is nonetheless indicative of the disconnect between incredibly strict rules at home and a cavalier disregard for international standards. With approximately 900 people per 100,000 held in prisons or labour camps, I dread to imagine the consequences of defying any of the Supreme Leader’s goalkeeping-related regulations back in Pyongyang.

Portugal

Portugal’s main failing during their recent ‘golden generation’ years has been a lack of killer instinct, which belies their curiously high military spending. Similarly, their often generous defending fails to reflect their significantly less generous 0.21% of GDP given in international aid, placing them comprehensively to the bottom of our standings, if not the FIFA world rankings.

Nonetheless, their appetite for a major trophy reflects the 6% of the country that remain chronically hungry, and with the poor form of the team under Carlos Quieroz mirroring an economy described by the Economist as “the new sick man of Europe”, riddled by both debt and corruption scandals, it’s not looking great for either.

Group H

Chile

Chile’s hosting of the World Cup in 1962 is a case in point for the often vexed intersection between football and poverty. The 1960 earthquake had devastated the country, yet Chile vowed to press on: “Because we have nothing, we want to do everything.” While it is arguable that resources for rebuilding may have been better directed elsewhere, one should not underestimate the effects of football on national morale, and a successful World Cup, coupled with an impressive third place for the hosts had a deep restorative effect on the country.

Despite sitting at a lowly 24th in the most supportable country stakes (largely due to somewhat extravagant military spending), after another enormous earthquake this February, the damage for which has been estimated at around 10-15% of GDP, Chile may be a great deal more sympathetic than it would appear.

This is without even mentioning their cavalier attacking football, typified by the free-scoring Humberto Suazo, that brought them to second place behind Brazil in the qualifiers, and may well see them get out of the group.

Honduras

After scraping through to the World Cup from a poor CONCACAF qualifying tournament, the Hondurans appear set to be the most whippingest of whipping boys, despite the presence of Premier League talents Maynor Figueroa and Wilson Palacios. A desperately poor country, the Hondurans’ delight last year at qualifying for their first World Cup since they took a point off Spain in 1982 occurred during a constitutional crisis that resulted in left-leaning president Manuel Zelaya being removed and exiled in a military coup d’état. The subsequent election has been condemned as illegitimate, with most of Latin America and much of the rest of the world refusing to recognise the election of Porfirio Sosa.

2009 also saw a period where freedom of expression, movement and habeus corpus were all suspended, somewhat belying their position at number 3 in the Who Should I Cheer For? standings, albeit perfectly encapsulating the tension between whether you would be cheering for the people, or the State.

Spain

Having posted the best inter-World Cup set of results of any international team ever, it would seem that Spain are deserved favourites. With a superabundance of attacking talent at their disposal, a world class goalkeeper in Casillas, and a surprisingly resilient defence that benefits from the opposition almost never having the ball, surely only injuries can dent Spain’s chances of finally joining the elite of World Cup winning nations. Football being football however, come the latter stages (and Spain have a relatively tough route to the final) nothing is a certainty.

Nonetheless, one can but applaud the quality of football they play, and, for a European country, a fairly respectable 8th place in our standings (thanks to low military spending, and an incredibly high rate of women in parliament) mean that Spain are a very attractive proposition for the neutral indeed.

Switzerland

Low income inequality, low military spending (surprise) and relatively low carbon emissions mean the Swiss occupy a reasonable 10th position in our standings.

While legendary coach Ottmar Hitzfeld has offered them new attacking impetus, for a famously neutral country, their team is remarkably poor at attracting neutrals of the footballing variety. Specifically, that 10th place fails to take into account their 0-0 draw with the Ukraine in the last 16 of World Cup 2006, which, though it has yet to be put to a vote at the UN, can only be described as a crime against humanity.

After a controversial plebiscite banning the construction of minarets was passed last year, liberals, Muslims and fans of enjoyable football alike may find it difficult to forgive and forget this summer.

Posted in: Brazil, Chile, Cote d'Ivoire, Group previews, Honduras, North Korea, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.