Blog

Argentina and Greece are no strangers to economic austerity, right wing dictatorships and perhaps even a little bit of the shock doctrine. It seems appropriate that these two countries are drawn together just as the economic forecast for Greece hits rock bottom. Of course, the footballing styles couldn’t be more different. Lionel Messi is almost certainly the finest player I’ve seen play 90 minutes. Greece are probably best described as attritional.

Greece is of course the oldest western European civilisation, while Argentina’s culture is marked by its period as a melting pot equal to the USA in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. It is a little known fact that Argentina has some of the largest communities of Armenians and Jews in the world. Indeed Efrain Chacurian, who played international football for the USA (once against England – though not in that match) in the 1950s was born and brought up in Argentina.

Both countries have been in the American sphere of influence in the twentieth century, and have had the corresponding economic prescription of austerity for the poor and socialism for the rich. While Greece benefited enormously from the Marshall Plan this was no doubt linked to its strategic importance as a bulwark against communism in the eastern Mediterranean. Of course, membership of the European Economic Community in 1983 moved Greece slightly further from America’s influence. But the historically high levels of welfare spending remained as a concession to social harmony.

The real interest in a comparative economic history of these countries, though, is that Greece is currently going through what Argentina went through in the late 1990s. Dealing with a budget deficit is something that people in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in. That is what the Argentine government tried to do in the late 1990s.

The economy bumped along as a series of politicians tried to sort it out to the satisfaction of the International Monetary Fund. In the end Nelson Kirchner came to power. Part of the package he implemented was to take a number of utilities including the post office and the municipal water supply for Buenos Aires back into public control.

The Naomi Klein scripted film The Take tells the story of how workers took control of factories that was closed as a result of IMF advice. It’s well worth a watch.

Argentina was able to produce export led growth because of a low valued currency. This is a route unavailable to Greece until the leave the Euro. Argentina have ignored neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and have managed to build a wide range of co-operatives, like that mentioned in “The Take”.

Perhaps in 10 years time we’ll be witnessing a resurgent Greek economy marked by the presence of the world’s greatest player, while Argentina return to their worst, as characterised by their performance at the 1990 World Cup. Perhaps Greece will have opted for fiscal independence and will be able to boast an economic recovery like that of Argentina.

Posted in: Argentina, Argentina-Greece, Greece

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

This is a very important match for both teams. Having lost their opening matches, anything but a win this afternoon almost certainly means an early exit from the tournament. Having previously declared my support for Nigeria, I very much hope that the Super Eagles will be able to rise to the challenge.

It’s difficult to think of Greece at the moment without considering its debt crisis. The country has a budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP, a national debt of about £260bn and, in fear of the money markets and credit ratings agencies, has recently accepted an emergency loan from the EU and the IMF of about £30bn per year over the next three years.

As part of the ‘rescue package’, Greece has been forced to make cuts in public sector pay, increase VAT, raise the retirement age and reduce pensions, measures that have hit ordinary people hard and sparked widespread protests.

But does it have to be this way?

Greece has the highest military spending in the World Cup. At nearly £10bn per year – 4.1 percent of GDP – it amounts to almost £1,000 per person per year. If Greece was to reduce its spending on the army to the level of, say Mexico, which has the lowest in the World Cup, it would immediately reduce its budget deficit to 9.9 percent. This is a manageable one percent higher than the 8.7 percent it has had to agree to reduce the deficit to by the end of 2010.

Nigeria, with an income per person of £1,128, is the poorest country in the World Cup. But it also has one of the World’s largest oil reserves, bringing in an income of more than £600bn since the 1960s – an average of £12bn per year.

But this income doesn’t benefit ordinary people. It has been estimated that 80 percent of the oil income benefits only one percent of the population. As I’ve written about elsewhere, instead of prosperity, the oil industry has brought environmental degradation, human rights abuses, poverty and conflict to large parts of the population. The winners are the multinational oil companies and a small wealthy Nigerian elite.

In both countries, ordinary people are well justified to ask – where has all the money gone?

Posted in: Greece, Greece-Nigeria, Nigeria

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

In 1838 in a period of unrest during the fledgling years of the Mexican Republic, a French pastry chef living in Mexico City had his shop destroyed by looting soldiers. Receiving no sympathy from the Mexican Government, he turned to his native France for assistance. Paris responded by demanding 600,000 Pesos from Mexico in compensation – a ludicous amount for a pastry shop – but along with claims of unpaid debts, a good excuse to start a war. That they did and with 30,000 troops in tow, France had its money within the year.

24 years later, the French returned to the shores of Mexico asking for more money and with designs on empire building. The outnumbered Mexican republicans scored a famous victory at the Battle of Puebla on the 5th of May 1862, now celebrated every year as Cinco de Mayo. The republic went on to lose control of the country, regaining it only after three years, with assistance from their northern neigbour, the United States, and a decline of French interest in the teritory.

Intervention in the affairs of a nation dressed up as “settling unpaid debts” was a popular pastime of the French republics and monarchies in the colonial era. Upon Haiti’s independence, the former occupier demanded payments to the French to compensate for lost revenues and slaves which were now part of an independent Haiti.

These are dark tales of a past age where European powers sailed the world, stuck flags on islands, grabbed what they wanted, and left what remained in tatters. Much of this age is mercifully over. Yet the practice of using national debt as an excuse for intervention is not.

Mexico is a poor country, with annual income per person at £6,988. It borrows money from rich countries to help lift its people out of poverty.

France is a rich country, with annual incoming per person at £19,750. It lends money to countries like Mexico both independently and through international organisations like the World Bank.

When poor countries can’t afford to service their borrowings anymore, often because of rising interest rates, rich countries like France, just as in 1862, don’t demand just their money back. Whilst before western lenders would turn up with a flotilla of ships, now they come with bankers and advisers, explaining how if they want to ever be able to borrow again they will do what they’re told: privatise public services, deregulate markets, and lower taxes – a process delicately termed “structural adjustment”. After two centuries of debt disputes, Mexico suffered perhaps its greatest defeat when, addled by debt given by western lenders, it signed up to a structural adjustment package in the 1980s.

Inequality has grown and provision of services has declined, yet, structural adjustment isn’t dead. Countries like France have marched in line behind this modern interventionalist banner both when Haiti required relief after its hurricane in 2009, and in the wake of the Greece’s recent budget crisis.

Mexico and France had the honour of playing the first two matches in the tournament on Friday. Mexico played firmly to draw 1-1 with a South African side that showed occasional, but unsustained vigour. France held a goalless draw with Uruguay which has been described by others as one of the dullest matches they have ever played. For their opening performances alone, Mexico deserve a victory at Polokwane this Thursday.

I urge you to support Mexico for another reason.

We don’t know much about what became of the pastry chef “Monsieur Remontel”, but it seems likely that any compensation he receieved for his flattened shop wouldn’t have made up for the devistation inflicted upon his neighborhood by the full scale French invasion force. Another victim of France imposing its will using debt collection as an excuse. Until countries like France stop using debt of a way to keep the world in check, poorer countries like Mexico will always suffer.

So let us hearltily support Mexico, in eager anticipation of a reenactment of its victory over its unscrupulous lender on Cinco de Mayo, and to many more such victories beyond!

Posted in: France, France-Mexico, Mexico

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

The image of a heartbroken Luís Figo walking back to the dressing rooms, past a team of jubilant, victorious Greeks after the final whistle of Euro 2004 had blown is still one that I recall vividly whenever I think of the Greek football team. The thought of a stadium full of dejected Portuguese supporters, looking on as their was defeated in front of a home audience, even as confetti rained down on a team whose odds of winning had been pegged at 150-1 leaves me with mixed feelings.

While I am neutral towards Portugal, I do have a lot of respect for Figo; not only for his illustrious footballing career, but also his work with charities such as Stop TB, Soccer Aid and UNICEF. It was difficult to watch his career ending on a note of such abject defeat at the hands of the Greeks (Figo had announced that the tournament would be his last, before his departure from international football). However, with the odds stacked up so against them, it was impossible not to marvel at the fighting spirit and resilience that had brought the underdog Greek team to stage their first ever victory in an international tournament, and what has deemed one of “international football’s greatest surprises”.

My feelings towards Greece’s opponents in their opening match this World Cup, South Korea, are similarly undecided, due to a long-standing grudge. Having got through to the quarter-finals of the 2002 World Cup, my hopes were firmly pinned on Spain to win the tournament. I watched in horror as they lost the penalty shootout to South Korea, not quite believing the result when the final whistle blew. Despite all the accusations that home advantage and referee bias had played a part in bringing the Taeguk Warriors, as they are known, to a fourth place in the tournament, one had to acknowledge that it was a pretty monumental feat for them to have accomplished. A team that had been defeated 0-9 and 0-7 in their first World Cup participation in 1954, before failing to qualify for the tournament for the next 32 years, the South Koreans truly proved to be the admirable underdogs at the 2002 World Cup that they co-hosted with Japan.

Given my ambivalence towards both the teams playing in the first match of the day, who then will I be cheering for? Both Greece and Korea are relative underdogs, made more so by the fact that they share a group with the formidable Argentina. The decision is further complicated by the fact that despite the vastly different cultures and values of both countries, their score sheets based on criteria such as income per capita, carbon emissions, life expectancy and female leadership, the countries are well matched. The only major disparity lies in the fact that Greece has one of the highest rates of expenditure on military spending amongst all competing countries, incredibly spending almost twice what South Korea – technically still at war – does.

On the other hand, South Korea’s conciliatory sporting attitude towards their North Korean neighbours despite the recent sinking of a South Korean warship and North Korea’s subsequent violation of the pact of non-aggression is quite admirable – they have not only submitted a bid to jointly host the 2022 World Cup with North Korea, and remain open to co-hosting the event, they also continue to send food and economic aid to the north despite rising tensions, a commendable stance.

Placed 47th in the football rankings as opposed to 13th-place Greece, South Korea are the clear underdogs. However, it is impossible to predict the dynamics of the clash, as the two countries have never gone up against one another before. While I will be cheering for the plucky Taeguk warriors, I’m sure that both nations are bound to put up a valiant fight, making for an unpredictable and exciting start to the second day of the World Cup.

Posted in: Greece, South Korea, South Korea-Greece

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