Blog

Following the inability of their ‘star’ players to practise the simple skill of passing and controlling a football on Friday, I said I would not support England anymore. But like any good addict I will be back on Wednesday for another excruciating performance from England on the world stage.

One measure England do beat Slovenia on is the amount of aid they give. In 1970 the countries of western Europe all agreed to spend 70p out of every £100 they earn on overseas aid. England has never done this; it is currently spending 47p. But according to official figures, Slovenia isn’t giving any.

Slovenia isn’t as rich as England, but it is still well-off in world terms. The eastern European country has an income higher than Portugal.

‘Aid’ is a term which can mean lots of different things. During the Cold War, the western and eastern blocks used ‘aid’ to advance their military aims across the world. The people of Slovenia, then part of Yugoslavia, stood aside from this competition. Whilst Yugoslavia was communist, it was one of the founder-members of the neutral non-aligned movement.

‘Aid’ is also used to win valuable contracts for a country’s companies. In 1994, the World Development Movement won a landmark court case when it proved that UK ‘aid’ for building the Pergau dam in Malaysia had been given to win contracts for British companies, including arms deals, rather than for tackling poverty.

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s ‘aid’ has been used to force developing countries to deregulate their economies for the benefit of multinational companies. The Conservative party prior to the 2010 UK election said that aid should be used to privatise public services in developing countries.

Despite all the problems of ‘aid’ the whoshouldicheerfor rankings still list it as positive. Aid seems like it should be a good thing; those with a lot give a little bit away to those with a lot less.

An alternative view of aid is to see it as compensation for past wrongs. From its central role in the transatlantic slave trade to its central and continuing role in causing the climate to change in catastrophic ways, England has a lot to compensate for. Slovenia would have a reasonable case that its compensation payments should be a lot less.

Central to compensation is not to keep on committing wrong. Any benefit from UK aid dwarfs in comparison to the way our unregulated banks increase hunger and the effects of our climate changing greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why I am proud to be part of the World Development Movement which campaigns to abolish the wrongs of the UK which cause poverty, rather than just giving the sticking plaster of aid.

Posted in: England, England-Slovenia, Slovenia

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

After using the ‘Who should I cheer for’ website to compare Argentina and Nigeria, I was struck by the many compelling reasons to cheer for Nigeria in this match. For example, the average Nigerian is thirteen times poorer than the average Argentine and as such Nigeria is definitely the underdog in the match. While Nigerian’s emit nearly 75 per cent less CO2 per person, and the country spends less on its military and has more women in government.

However, the whole concept behind ‘Who should I cheer for’ is to get people thinking differently and not just conforming to their normal national ties and prejudices. Being English, not supporting Argentina would seem a little too much like conformity. After all the English enjoy hating Argentina (along with Germany) almost as much as they love supporting England. This national dislike of Argentine football teams is a mixture of geo politics and footballing grievances. First, came the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, when both Thatcher and the Argentine Junta used the blood and bodies of their countries’ youth to whip up support for their deeply unpopular domestic policies; the ensuing state violence left 258 British and 649 Argentines dead. And then if war wasn’t enough, to top it off, this was followed just four years later by the infamous Maradona ‘hand of God’ incident during Argentina’s 2-1 victory over England in the World Cup quarter final. To say nothing of David Beckham’s red card in the second round of the 1998 World Cup.

So to avoid bowing to conformity, I will be cheering for Argentina in solidarity with the workers of occupied cooperatives.

In the wake of the 2001 IMF sponsored economic meltdown, millions were left jobless and had their savings wiped out. Meanwhile, the rich who had benefited from the IMF economic policies upped and left the country taking their savings with them and leaving the country to fend for itself. But the people who had been locked out of their bankrupted workplaces chose not to stand idly by. They refused to allow their livelihoods be sold off to the highest bidder to satisfy the profits of foreign banks. Instead they broke in to their old workplaces; armed only with sleeping bags and simply refused to leave, defying the banks, their former bosses, the police and judges. Around 200 factories, bankrupt and abandoned by their owners, were taken over by their workers and turned into co-ops. And the workers began to produce goods for the community – providing both much needed work and goods. From tractor plants to supermarkets, printing houses to aluminium factories and pizza parlours, decisions about company policy were made in open assemblies and the profits split equally among the workers, they turned former exploitive sweatshops into a real alternative to private corporations.

In the wake of our own economic collapse and under threat of devastating public sector cuts and mass unemployment, it’s time for the English to look past their differences with Argentina and learn from Argentine workers. The millionaires that make up Argentina’s national team must also learn from the occupied factories and start playing as a collective like the workers of the cooperatives do; if they are to progress in the World Cup.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Nigeria, Matches, Nigeria, Teams

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

Group A

South Africa

The host nation has had some great results recently, including beating Guatemala 5-0. Historically, home nations always do well, with six out of the seven World Cup champions winning on home turf. However, as the lowest-ranked country to ever host a World Cup, South Africa will struggle to make it past the first round.

In the run up to the World Cup, South Africa – 15th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings – has received criticism over large numbers of evictions of vulnerable people to make room for World Cup infrastructure. War on Want is highlighting these issues through an interactive map of Cape Town.

Mexico

The attack-minded Mexicans, with Manchester United’s recent signing Javier Hernandez and Arsenal’s Carlos Vela, are one of the group favourites. Recent losses against England and The Netherlands have disappointed, but they beat Italy 2-1 in their last match before the World Cup.

Mexico, 28th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings, spends the least on weapons out of all the countries in the World Cup. In the WDM office we are keen on the Zapatistas – a movement of indigenous people whose ideology, Zapatismo, is a combination of libertarian socialism, anarchism and traditional Mayan thought – with at least two staff members having been to visit them before starting at WDM.

The Zapatistas are vehemently opposed to neo-liberal globalisation, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has forced Mexico to end its crop subsidies while not placing similar conditions on the United States. NAFTA also forced Mexico to remove a section in its constitution which guaranteed indigenous people land rights. Their website is in Spanish but works quite well with Google translate if you don’t speak it.

Uruguay

The two-time World Cup winners also have an offensive team with Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez and beat Israel 4-1 in their last match before the World Cup. Only just qualifying after 1-0 win over Costa Rica in the South American play-off match, Uruguay is a bit of a wild card in this group.

Uruguay is the 21st most supportable team in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings and is one of only two countries – Slovakia being the other one – with no women at all in government. Uruguay will forever be remembered as the first ever nation to win the World Cup in 1930.

France

Les Bleus have a great team on paper and must be group favourites. However, they only just qualified through the controversial play off match against Ireland where the referee missed Thierry Henry’s handball.

France is the 18th most supportable team on the Who Should I Cheer For rankings and comes in middle of the table across all the indicators, although we at WDM think they should be shamed for falling short of the OECD’s aid target of 0.7% of GDP.

Group B

Greece

In the Greeks’ only previous appearance at a World Cup was 1994, they lost all their matches and didn’t score a single goal. But they did go on to win the European Championships in 2004. Theo Gekas of Bayer Leverkusen was the leading scorer in the European group stages of qualifying, scoring 10 goals.

It’s difficult to think about Greece at the moment without considering its economic crisis. Last month saw large protests as people feel that the harsh austerity measures imposed by the IMF will mainly affect the poor. Greece is 30th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings, doing particularly badly on military spending. Perhaps that should be the first thing they cut?

Argentina

2010 sees the return of Maradona as manager of the team he infamously won with as a player in 1986. But will Lionel Messi be able to show the same brilliance that he’s shown all season for Barcelona – where he scored nearly 50 goals – in the World Cup? It remains to be seen. In Argentina – the birthplace of Che Guevara – the Church of Maradona was established in 1998 and now has over 100,000 worshippers.

Nigeria

The poorest country in the World Cup in terms of GDP per person but should have a reasonable chance of getting the second place, especially with new coach Lars Lagerbäck who took Sweden to five successive tournaments 2000 to 2008. Nigeria is the largest country in Africa in terms of population size – every fifth African is Nigerian.

South Korea

South Korea, who will probably be battling it out with Nigeria for the second place in this group, had an amazing run in 2002, beating Portugal in the groups stages before knocking out Spain and Italy on the way to the semi-finals. This year’s team also looks stronger than in 2006 where they got knocked out in the group stages.

South Korea also does badly in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings when it comes to military spending, perhaps countered by the fact that the head of the UN, Ban ki-moon is from the country.

Posted in: France, Group previews, Mexico, South Africa, Uruguay

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

Help! My home is already taken over by World Cup frenzy. My 7 year old, football obsessed son has posters all over the house, tracking the teams and their prospective games; he’s been collecting special world cup stickers of all the players with his best friend for the past month, comparing statistics. Meanwhile, the husband has marked key matches he’ll be in the pub for in the family diary. (our television screen is apparently WAY too small).

I must admit, I quite like the World Cup – having grown up in Canada, where American-dominated sport pretends to represent the world, it’s refreshing to be living in a country where a genuinely global sport is the norm. But at the same time, I have a negative reaction to pure nationalism – sport is one thing, but I don’t want to live in a world where we seek to look after ourselves, before thinking of others.

Unfortunately, that’s the way we’re going. Just looking at the comparative stats on this site, you find that most of the rich countries fall down on their long-standing commitments to providing more aid to developing countries; and have per capita carbon emissions that go far beyond their fair share of the world’s resources.

The Con-Dem nation coalition seems set to withdraw Britain internationally, too. While I’m no big fan of Gordon Brown, he did serve to put some social justice issues on the global political agenda – like aid and debt relief, and convinced other world leaders to follow. Unfortunately, we just found out that the new Prime Minister, David Cameron seems to bear no such global gravitas, given that the UK has lost its seat on the critical UN climate finance panel. Meanwhile, there are rumours that the UK’s Department for International Development will be merged with the Foreign Office – a retro-grade step that means we’ll only do something for the world if it’s in Britain’s immediate political interests – rather than what’s right for equity and justice. Will this mean a return to the bad old days of tied aid?

The World Cup isn’t about politics – it’s about friendly sport, putting players on a level-playing field. Unfortunately, for the world’s poorest, beyond the football extravaganza, the world simply isn’t a level playing field. Perhaps we should model all international institutions – from the UN to the World Bank, on World Cup processes? You would have to pass a qualifier to get to the end game, but in this case, countries would have to pass a social and environmental justice qualifier to join. It could end the domination of rich countries over poorer countries (would the US and Britain be out of the ‘tournament’?), and give a stronger voice to poorer countries, like Ghana, who are working hard to eradicate poverty.

So while my family dons England paraphernalia during the home team matches; I’ll be watching the World Cup this year with a different lens, with an eye on how to ensure Britain keeps its social conscience. It’s cheering for nationalism, with a global justice twist.

Posted in: Global injustice

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