The World Cup: A weapon of mass distraction

Most of us might know Albert Camus as the French-Algerian novelist and philosopher whose arguments on existentialism transcended his time. We know him for his ability to force readers into facing the harshest questions and looking morality dead in the eye. One would find it somewhat strange to classify Camus as a sportsman as well, but that he was. Camus was a goalkeeper for his university team in Algeria who was inspired by football and the sense of responsibility it bestows on each player. Standing solitary between the goalposts Camus reflected on his absurd position of being at no fault if his team scores but fully to blame if the opposition did and is quoted to have said, “All that I know most surely about morality and obligations I owe to football.”

I can relate to Camus’s appreciation for football for I too am an avid fan of the sport who revels in the poetry and artistic intellect of the game. I find the camaraderie that football brings to people from all walks of life inspiring. But every four years, when the biggest celebration of football takes place in the form of the World Cup, the true lover of the sport is no longer necessary and the football connoisseur feels outnumbered. Because for one month every four years, regardless of your passion for the sport or even your knowledge of the game’s rules, you find yourself entranced by the events unfolding as nations compete for one title. 

It is quite frightening to be able to create an event that transcends cultural and religious barriers, speaks to all ages, and overcomes gender differences. An event, which has the ability to keep the whole world captivated, one that is designed to be a psychological weapon of mass distraction. 

As the hypnotised masses have their heads turned towards television screens and their voices raised to cheer on their favourite teams, they would like to believe that there is no world outside the borders of the cup-hosting city, yet the world still moves.

The first World Cup was held in 1930 and has been played every four years ever since. As far as the history books have recorded there has been a great political movement shaking the world while these World Cups were being held. For the sake of this argument I wish to go back thirty years or so and bring to your attention the events that have unfolded in the Middle East during these cups. 

In 1982 the World Cup was being held in Spain and in that same month the Lebanon War began. As the fires raged in Lebanon the world screamed and hollered, not at the sight of the Israeli forces invading Southern Lebanon or at the sheer injustice and agony, they cheered for Kuwait’s team appearing in the World Cup for the first time and hollered as the Algerian team was knocked out from the first round. In 1982 Lebanon was at war and Italy won the World Cup.

In 1990 the World Cup was being held in Italy and I recall this one vividly for the United Arab Emirates team was making its first appearance in the World Cup. That year Iraq invaded Kuwait and the seeds of war were planted in the Gulf, changing the way we view our region forever. West Germany won the cup and the Arab world lost the war.

In 2002 and on the first day of the World Cup being held in South Korea and Japan Israeli troops entered the West Bank through Nablus as the Arab world cheered for the Tunisian and Saudi Arabian teams and the rest of the world fixated on the excitement they have been waiting for for four years. Brazil took that cup.

In 2006 Germany hosted the World Cup and Israel launched Operation Summer Rains as it hailed attacks on the Gaza killings and injuring innocent Palestinians in its wake, Italy won.

In 2010, South Africa hosted the World Cup, meanwhile the United States was backing Iranian protests against then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad where hundreds of protesters fell victim to military violence. Iran was being represented in the World Cup as their team wore green wristbands in solidarity with the opposition movement, the world complained about the annoying sounds of the vuvuzelas. Spain won that title.

And here we are today, 2014 and Brazil is hosting this World Cup. We find ourselves once again being held captive by the exhilarating atmosphere and the great football being played. We got caught up cheering our only Arab representative in the World Cup, Algeria, meanwhile Iraq is being swallowed up by the worst case of extremism we have seen yet and succumbing to vicious sectarianism that is ripping it to shreds. 
Israel is on the offensive once again threatening to bomb Gaza, the reasons are many, proof is optional and the result is one.

Who will take this World Cup is yet to be seen but the one thing we know for sure, if history has anything to teach us, is that some huge political plan is being hatched to be deployed four years from now as we settle in to watch the next World Cup hosted by Russia.


This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 6 July, 2014 http://bit.ly/1qYAHew
Arabic version published in Al Khaleej newspaper http://bit.ly/1mvgpKd

The True Colours of Liberty

Intangible as it may be, freedom is the single most valuable aspect of a creature’s life. Humans and animals alike would fight to the death for freedom. A man, a woman, a child can never be truly free as long as their home, their country is under siege. That sense of belonging to a place that does not belong to you is one of pain and sorrow unfathomed by a person whose land is free. It is this pain that countries fight against in the pursuit of gaining and maintaining their freedom. 

A country is represented by a set of colours, its flag, the identifying symbol and proof of its existence as an independent entity. For centuries countries have fought to either plant this flag into or rip it out of the earth. Many a war has been waged to make sure that no colour but that of the native land flutters against a country’s sky. 

The British Empire colonised most of the world, including most Arab countries, and for decades the countries under its grasp fought to see the Union Jack unearthed from their soil. For those who come from countries that were once not theirs to rule, the sight of the British flag is not necessarily a pretty one, for it evokes memories of losing that intangible thing one holds dear, losing freedom.

Flags planted in areas other than their own mean occupation, it is a simple gesture to portray an invasion of sorts, and it is an unwelcomed one.

After years of British sovereignty most countries regained their freedom and claimed their independence. Their lands no longer carried foreign colours but were saturated with the colours of liberty.

Yet, no sooner have foreign flags disappeared from the political scene than they found their way back through fashion. In the late 80s and throughout the 90s the American flag dominated the fashion scene. We saw the Star Spangled Banner everywhere from shirts, to caps and even shoes. The American flag represented freedom and so, American or not, everyone wanted to feel free. 

In the Arab world, mainly the Gulf region, America was seen as a saviour during the Gulf War and so some Arabs wore it as a sign of appreciation for saving Kuwait. 

Many blunders, disappointments and wars later the image of America, the land of the free and home of the brave, was tarnished in the eyes of the world. This allowed the Union Jack to come full circle and somehow find its way back to all those territories that once shunned it, the British flag came back to take centre stage in the fashion world.

Today it has become a common sight to see the British flag in all its glory sported by people from around the globe. The only flag fashionable enough for the world to wear from head to toe and not look like an extremist or a lunatic. So what does it mean when an Indian, African or even citizens of Gulf countries don the Union Jack? And if there is a fashion statement to be made then what is it??

One might say, it is harmless, just another fashion fad that will soon be replaced with another country’s colours. Sadly this is not the case, for this globalised nationalism is privy only to certain countries. If indeed it is harmless then wearing the flag of any nation should be accepted as such, yet when British actress Tilda Swinson appeared in Vogue magazine’s UK edition wearing a scarf of the Palestinian flag, her fashion statement was seen as anything but harmless. Swinson was ostracised and attacked, some people even went as far as comparing her choice of colours to sporting the Nazi swastika. 

It is this blatant hypocrisy that boggles the mind and angers even the most passive of us. When rules are made and manipulated according to a certain segment of the world, rules such as deeming it trendy to sport colours that once cost people their lives and freedom while vilifying others. Fashion is indeed self- expression and self-expression is as much political as it is creative. It has chosen for us who the good guys are, for it is fashionably acceptable to wear the colours of countries that have waged wars and soiled their hands in blood but not for others who remained peaceful throughout history. 

Self-expression is the essence of freedom but if self-expression deems fashionable the red, white and blues then where does that leave our red, green, white and blacks?

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 5th August, 2012.

Arabic version of this article published in Al Khaleej newspaper 5th August, 2012: http://bit.ly/McWfCB