Blog

A poor developing nation exceeding expectations against an EU powerbroker replete with grotesquely paid Champions League stars.

The duty of a WSCIF? blogger should be self-evident. But I’m less a fan of William of Occam than of Adrian Monk. Why accept the obvious solution when there is a perfectly perverse and convoluted alternative just waiting to be put together?

Spain are the only team to follow in the fourth quarter-final of the 2010 World Cup; now I just need to construct a logical case.

In this age of transparency and accountability, the following interest should be declared: I am a football fan and as such hopelessly biased towards Spain. Art historians can enjoy the superficial joys of the Renaissance to their hearts’ content but Europe has never produced an aesthetic spectacle to match Xavi, Andres Iniesta and David Villa working in tandem.

Happily, this blatant conflict of interest does not require justifying propaganda. A closer inspection of the facts reveals Vincente del Bosque’s men really might be the good guys.

Paraguay is the most unequal nation in the World Cup and its low military spending belies a strong naval tradition – 34 surface vessels seems rather high for a landlocked country. Even their creditable 30.8% female representation in government is trumped by Spain, whose 50% is disconcertingly just.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Paraguayans do not even have strong colonial guilt cards to play at this point. Economic irrelevance and geographical distance ensured indifferent Spanish governance virtually from its ‘discovery’. Paraguay has since revelled in its eccentricity, exemplified by their choice of revered national hero, Francisco Solano López.

Solano López was a megalomaniac misogynist dictator who brought Paraguay to the brink of total destruction by instigating the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70) with Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It’s as if tomorrow Albert II of Monaco sent the troops into France, the air force to Italy and the navy to Algeria with inevitable annihilation – only to be remembered with a national holiday of celebration in his name.

This maverick approach is also evident in their current choice of President: Fernando Lugo, a former Roman Catholic bishop with little political experience. In a single week last year Lugo was the subject of three paternity suits from his time in the church but those remain his most noteworthy headlines. An ambitious redistributive agenda has been repeatedly blocked by other branches of government.

In short, while Paraguay is second in our rankings they are an enigmatic curiosity rather than irresistibly deserving of support.

Spain are not without their faults but a WSICF? ranking of eight, below only the Netherlands among European nations, is an encouraging start. The Zapatero Government is the only centre-left administration in any large EU nation and has an admirable list of legislative achievements: withdrew from troops from Iraq, legalised same-sex marriage, reformed abortion law, reduced inequality and increased Catalonian autonomy. The memory of their election victory amidst Aznar’s ‘3/11 bombing’ manipulation – a nation showing intelligence to defeat fear in a moment of crisis – seals the deal.

And so, back to the football. It shouldn’t matter, of course. In fact it doesn’t. But people come together for the World Cup like for nothing else because at its best it’s magnificent. This Spain team is football at its best and if they were also orphan-eating, gun-toting despots it would still be difficult to hide a sneaking admiration for the way they play the game.

Posted in: Paraguay, Paraguay-Spain QF, Spain

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

As soon as the last whistle of the game was blown, car boots opened to let out the drums that had been waiting to celebrate; doors opened to let the jubilant crowd who had been watching the match spill out on to the street so they had more room to party; traffic came to a standstill as roads in South Norwood, London, turned into a makeshift dance floor; champagne corks popped. Ghana had beaten USA and we’re through to the quarter finals.

So now we face Uruguay. In the Who Should I Cheer For social justice rankings Ghana holds the number one spot while Uruguay trails far behind in 21st place. I would have been cheering for Ghana anyway so I will just cheer even louder – especially as Ghana’s percentage of women in politics is 11.8% of compared to Uraguay’s, well – 0%.

While we’re on the subject of statistics, apparently the odds on Ghana winning are 3/1. I know this because since the last World Cup the gambling restrictions in the UK have been relaxed and gambling companies can now advertise their services on tv. This they do during all the ad breaks before, during and after the match. There was a big debate about whether gambling adverts should be allowed, but eventually the decision to allow it was taken as long as ads conformed to a set of rules to ensure they are ‘socially responsible’ and ‘must not show gamblers behaving in a way which is irresponsible or could lead to “financial, social or emotional harm’.

It’s a shame such tight regulations don’t apply to the gambling that is currently taking place on food – banks are earning huge profits from betting on food prices in unregulated financial markets. This food speculation creates instability and pushes up global food prices, making poor families around the world go hungry and forcing millions into deeper poverty. It’s ironic that tv adverts are restricted, but the actions of banks, hedge funds and pensions funds gambling on food are unregulated when their behaviour has not been ‘socially responsible’ and is leading to ‘financial, social [and] emotional harm’ to many people around the world – especially in poorer countries as affordable food is pushed further and further out of reach.

The World Development Movement is campaigning to have the financial markets regulated to stop reckless bankers gambling on food and hunger (www.wdm.org.uk/food or search #hungercasino on Twitter).

The Obama administration and the EU are pushing for regulations but the UK is siding with the bankers and standing in the way of reform. WDM’s campaign aims to remove this barrier change so we can have a safer, fairer food economy.

Posted in: Ghana, Uruguay, Uruguay-Ghana

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

Today is an important day for South Africa, and not just because it’s Bafana Bafana’s second group match of the World Cup against Uruguay. The date has a significant place in the country’s history and the campaign against apartheid and is marked annually with a public holiday to celebrate ‘Youth Day’.

On 16 June 1976 thousands of students from Soweto, a township in Johannesburg, walked from their schools to Orlando Stadium to protest against being made to learn Afrikaans in school. The introduction of compulsory language lessons was part of the overall Bantu education system, which saw separate schools and universities for blacks and whites, with overcrowded classrooms and inadequately trained teachers at black schools.

The students planned a peaceful demonstration and walked singing songs and waving placards. On finding their route blocked by a police barricade they diverted their route so as not to provoke the police. What happened next is unclear, but Colonel Kleingeld who fired the first shot, reported that some children started to throw stones at the police patrol. In response Kleingeld fired a shot from his handgun and chaos broke out.

23 people died that day in what became known as the Soweto Uprising. The most well-known victim was a 12 year old boy called Hector Pietersen. The photograph of the dying boy being carried in the arms of a fellow student and his sister running alongside was published around the world and came to represent the events that happened that day. Over 500 people, many of them youths, were killed in the violence that ensured over the next few weeks, and 1,000 men, women and children were injured.

It took another 18 years until apartheid came to an end in South Africa. In 1994 the country held its first ever democratic elections, and chose Nelson Mandela as its President.

Yet, in 2010 the legacy of apartheid still grips the country, which is evident in WDM’s statistics that rate South Africa only the 28th most supportable team. The country suffers from inequality; there is also a high rate of unemployment and poverty with millions living in townships where conditions are poor. The country also has high HIV prevalence rates, with 2008 figures showing that 16.9 per cent of 15-49 year olds are HIV positive.

But what you don’t see from these figures is the leap the country has made since 1994. The Government has provided electricity, water and sanitation to millions who were previously without. Expenditure on education has increased, and pensions and child benefits are now available to millions, not thousands. The economy has also had the longest period of growth in its history.

These stats also don’t show how South Africa has transformed from a system of apartheid and inequality, to a functioning democracy. Last year it held its fourth democratic elections and has one of the most stable democracies in Africa. The country also has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and is committed to equality for all its citizens, something seen in the figure of women in government, which stands at 41.1 per cent.

The journey South Africa is on to develop and overcome the legacy of its past is, in many ways, exemplified by the story of Bafana Bafana captain, Aaron Mokoena. Last season he played in the English Premiership for Portsmouth and has carved out a successful career for himself in international football, currently he is South Africa’s most capped player. Yet Mokoena grew up in Boipatong Township near Vanderbijlpark, the site of a massacre in June 1992, when Inkatha party members, aided by the police, killed more than 40 people, in what was rumoured to be an attempt to purge the township of its next generation of men.

Mokoena has said:

“I was still young, only 11 years of age, but I remember the following day that I was on my way to school and people were coming back, crying. That’s when we heard there had been a massacre. It happened at night when people were sleeping. It was awful.

After the massacre, there were a lot of rumours saying that these people wanted to kill the young boys. So my mum had to protect me in any way and she decided to dress me as a girl. She also took me to this community hall where there was enough protection for people from the township, especially the boys.”

I’m supporting South Africa in today’s match because in spite of the many challenges the country still needs to overcome, it has come a long way since 1994 and deserves recognition for that. 34 years ago today black and white South Africans lined up against each other in opposition. This afternoon at the Loftus Versfeld Stadium in Pretoria they will stand together as one in support of their national team. I’m definitely cheering for that.

And then of course there’s the football. Tshabalala scored a cracking goal in the opening game against Mexico and I want to see more of the same. Go on the boys……!

Posted in: South Africa, South Africa-Uruguay, Uruguay

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

Earlier this week at WDM we had a very interesting meeting about gender, considering how best to ensure that our practice and campaigns contributed to a post-patriarchal politics. It was intelligent, sensitive and radical.

Then we came to set a date for the next meeting; 2pm on Wednesday the 23rd of June was suggested; and all hell broke loose. Various attendees at the meeting were deeply concerned that this would cause them to miss the start of England’ s third group game, against Slovenia. Would it surprise you to learn that these attendees all belonged to the same gender?

You will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that a compromise was reached and duties to both In-ger-land and the campaigns function meeting will be met in full. But it served to illustrate that even in the most consciously progressive environments, the gender divide is alive and well.

I mention this because this match features two countries with an interesting story to tell about women in government.

Uruguay is one of only two nations in the tournament with no women in its government. Not one. Zero. This despite the fact that Uruguay achieved universal women’s suffrage 12 years before their supposedly revolutionary opponents (1932 vs 1944), not to mention before Portugal, Greece, Italy, Japan, Australia and Canada, and long before infamously backward Switzerland (1971).

France has if anything an even more troubled relationship between women and politics.

The role of women in the Revolution was critical. The Women’s March on Versailles, for example, was arguably responsible for turning the Revolution from a Cromwellian middle-class hissy fit into a working-class movement. Despite this, the first Republic never did grant women the same citizen’s rights as men, and as mentioned it took until the last years of the Second World War for Frenchwomen to get the vote.

Among the British stereotypes of France is that its culture is particularly highly gendered – many even see it as an idealised gender landscape, populated by cool, arrogant alpha-males and coquettish, impossibly stylish women. Certainly this is a stereotype that the First Family does little to dispel.

Despite this, or perhaps even because of it, France’s recent record of women in politics is, though objectively poor, no worse than its near neighbours. With women making up 17% of minsters, it matches the Brown government and outperforms the ConDem coalition by 2%. And Sarkozy himself won the Élysée by only 6% from Socialist leader Ségolène Royal.

Our own country’s politics, particularly within the Labour Party, is now raising fascinating questions about how to deal with this imbalance.

Progressives conscious of the dearth of both black people and women in senior roles are faced with the dilemma of the candidacy for London Mayor of a black woman – Oona King – whose politics arguably represent those aspects of the Labour Party that the self-same lefties find so disappointing.

Another black woman – the first in Parliament, Diane Abbott – makes history again by becoming the first black person to run for Labour leader, but it’s hard to shake the impression that her candidacy is being treated as tokenistic window-dressing by swathes of her party. Should she really be the “black woman candidate” when the fact that she is the “only left-wing candidate” seems to this author so much more important?

And the second woman ever to lead the Labour Party – though like her predecessor Margaret Beckett she is allowed a temporary appointment only – has proposed a rule change to require 50% women in the Shadow Cabinet. Spain enacted legislation stipulating the same for its ministerial posts, and as a result boasts the only 50-50 government at the World Cup.

Far from uncontroversial in feminist circles, the proposal has at least served to highlight a bigger problem than Labour’s internal elections – women’s representation in parliament is so poor that in order to make 50% sound feasible, Harman has also had to propose that the Shadow Cabinet is reduced in size. And this in the parliamentary group with more women than any other, aside from the Greens’ all-female delegation of one.

However the problem is addressed, France’s 17% record on women in government cannot be allowed to remain a perfectly respectable mid-table performance. By the time we do all this again in Brazil in 2014, I hope to see more WIGs than WAGs in the VIP boxes, and neighbouring Uruguay must at least drag itself out of the relegation zone.

Oh, and for the record, I didn’t care when the campaigns meeting was. But then I’m not English, and nationalism is a subject for another post.

Posted in: France, Uruguay, Uruguay-France

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.