Football Diplomacy

Croatia's top football team, Dynamo Zagreb, announced it is organizing a "friendly" match in Pristina against a local Kosovo side, Trepca 89. According to balkaninsight.com, this match is part of Croatia's ongoing bilateral initiatives with Kosovo, with who they have "positive relations." This is, of course, the same Dynamo Zagreb that was involved in the famous 1990 clash with Red Star Belgrade, which was the prelude to the break up of Yugoslavia.

Belgrade hasn't shown much reaction yet, but it will obviously see this as a direct slight by their neighbors. It is not like Serbia and Croatia are exactly best friends, but this is a strong statement by Croatia. Football maybe only a sport in some eyes, but its global popularity and financial value make it much more than that. In this case, where Croatia is further legitimizing the independence of Kosovo by sending its best soccer team in, the game has political significance. Serbia does not recognize the independence of Kosovo, nor is it going to any time soon, and thus seeing its neighbor to the north make such a clear statement of its own, which is in direct opposition to Serbia, is a studs up diplomatic tackle.

What is the motivation for Croatia in all this?, would be the key question. Politically it is clear that Croatia is working hard to get a spot in the EU, and since 22 of the 27 EU states have recognized Kosovo, it is fairly clear that Croatia is following the trend (the same argument can be made for Montenegro and FYROM by the way). Croatia is gaining some bonus points by engaging with Kosovo on the civic level, as well as on the political and the economic. But I think one needs to look deeper than that as this is also a move to shore up internal support for the Nationalistic government currently in power in Croatia.

Croatia has benefited in the past from taking aim, literally and figuratively, at Serbia. Likewise, Serbia has done the same to Croatia and benefited as a result. During the 1990's the Tujman and Milosevic regimes were rather complementary in achieving their designs for the territory of Yugoslavia. Their vicious brands of Nationalism, Leftist in Serbia, and Rightist in Croatia, enabled them to mobilize their people to break free from Yugoslavia and from each other, and to make their claims over Bosnian territory. So while they were in direct conflict with each other, they were actually helping each other at the same time.

While the context is different now, and there is less perceivable benefit for Serbia in this, beyond what Carl Schmitt would argue is giving Serbia a clear enemy against which to define itself, Croatia can marginalize its own Serbian minority from the political and cultural sphere, keep the nationalists happy by poking Serbia in the eye, and please Europeans by being a nice brother to little Kosovo. This also serves the American agenda that, for very unclear reasons, seeks to keep Serbia down. Having regional actors, especially such 'clean' ones as Croatia (an image not at all justified) engaging with Kosovo only blosters the inevitability of its de jur status as a Nation-State.

So football has a clear political agenda here. It serves Croatia in sprucing up its image abroad and in securing support back home; it serves Kosovo because it gives legitimacy to the institutions (such as the Kosovo Football Federation) and the government itself; and it serves the Pro-Kosovo international community in legitimizing its bid for statehood. 

On Gaza

I have been plagued with a strange guilt for having been unable, for the last three weeks to write about the horrifying conflict in Gaza. I, a student of political science, must have something to say? But it feels as though no-one with the ability to make a difference is even listening. Only the fringe voices appear to be speaking out: Moon, Kucinich, etc.  I then reminded myself, difficult though it maybe, silence equals consent. If I don't write about this, about my interpretations, and my feelings on the conflict, then I am letting these events happen in my name. In short, I become complicit and responsible for the atrocities.

I sat in the cafe today, reading, and trying to think of a hook. How to get at the heart of this conflict? I began to wonder how I would, were he old enough, explain this to my nephew. I imagined myself writing this beautiful child a letter, trying to explain why we do the things we do to each other. Explain, not as an excuse or apology, in a way his innocence would understand, and not be devastated. A tall order, to be sure.

I might begin this letter by arguing that each earthling on this planet is unique and beautiful, and fundamentally we defy classification, stereotype and logic. We are, non of us, born with anger in our minds, nor are we born racists, sexists or facists. To paraphrase Rousseau, we are born free of all this, it is not 'till later that we put on those chains. The point being, all of the physical and mental borders that exist between earthlings are pure constructions. They are not natural, nor are they necessary for our survival. We are, in a manner of speaking, free to cross them anytime, we just have to be able to see the other side for what it is, simply another way of doing things.

But the inquisitive mind might ask, then why do they exist, these borders and prejudices? This is the difficult part to answer, and as a caveat, I remind you that I am also someone subject to these tendencies and constructions, thus my answer, sure to be incorrect in someone's mind, is but my experience, tainted by my own ideological lens. I believe the answer to this question lies in our notion of power and to some degree, our belief in religious dogma and nationalism. Power, to give woefully short definition, is the ability to impose yourself on someone else without the use of physical coercion (the point in which weapons are introduced, power becomes terror and violence). An individual or an idea is only powerful so long as you go along with them or it. There is nothing inherent about power, and it can be taken away at any moment. Our problem has been, historically, that we value power as an attribute in Men (I chose to add gender here fully aware of what it implies), not as something to be fearful of. We do not recognize the fact that in consenting to an individuals power, we are in fact giving up our own power to that person. We are saying, "I am willing to let you control my fate and make my decisions for me".

This is our choice to make, and we do not have to make it that way. We can say no any time, though it is the more, much more, difficult choice, and often leads to extreme forms of violence. As I mentioned above, the moment power employs weapons to ensure its hegemony, it is corrupted and becomes violence. Unfortunately, when power is threatened, the response tends to be a violent one. When people stand up and say no! power is threatened. In some sense, this is precisely what happened in 2006 when the people of Gaza rejected Fatah and elected Hamas. They were not voting for terrorism, not for the destruction of the Israeli state, but they were simply saying no to a corrupt government that was failing them. Of course, by voting for Hamas, they unfortunately simply shifted the power from one side to the other, rather than reclaiming it for themselves. Tragically Hamas has also exploited this position to further its own goals, rather than really serve the voters.

The question of religious dogma and nationalism is really just an extension of the ideas I suggested above. Religion and national identity give people a sense of belonging to something, but the consent of the people means Religion and Nationalism have power. In demanding allegiance they create the physical and mental borders that lie at the root of conflict. They create unity in opposition to difference. This means we define ourselves by what we are not: I am American because I am not Palestinian, French, Canadian or Russian, etc... Furthermore, to consent to this position of being American (for example) we simultaneously reject all other possible identities. Rejection is then a suggestion that these other experiences are some how less relevant, less good. Thus we are willing to go to war, to crush those who are different. In short, the power of religious and national identity is in its ability to convince us of its importance, superiority, territorial claim and power. We are meant to believe that we are not safe without such subscriptions: the unfaithful end up in hell, or as Canadian citizens!

So, to my dear nephew I would say, there is war in the Levant because both Israel and Hamas are afraid of losing their power, they are afraid of each other, and the way they can convince themselves to remain loyal, to their respective ideologies, is to directly confront the other, to prove that they are superior, and in the event of a defeat, they can play the victim card. I don't support Hamas, but I don't support Israel either. I support peace. I think war is unnatural and always unnecessary. The people of the Levant should do the same. They should reclaim their individual power, and realize, in doing so, they can co-exist. They are simply kept apart by artificial notions of power, faith and national identity. There is a choice, there is always a choice.

For the fact that there is always a choice, the situation is all the more tragic.

One more for good measure

Rob Hughes wrote recently that football must take care of its own. He was discussing the Icarus-like life of many stars of globalized football. Specifically, he mentions Gazza and Best as the fallen ones. Best died of alcoholism and Gazza may soon find a similar fate. I am mentioning this because, in part, I agree with Hughes, and in part, I think there is no true remedy.

Football, the sport and all those who control it, is responsible for those who make it their life, their source of income, and their identity. Football is attractive and alluring, it awakens passion, love and hate. As a little boy and an adult man, I have often dreamed of donning the shirt of FCB and running out with the lads, splitting the defense of the opposition with a deft pass, or stealing the last minuet winner. I wonder if I wouldn't give up everything to be endowed with good timing and golden legs? Of course, for most of us it is a fantasy to be indulged in as a fantasy.

But for many it becomes a reality. And one the individual is incorporated into the system of professional football, well, then the system carries some responsibility. Of course, all individuals have a choice at every given moment, but the system is responsible for its output: i.e. the players. While part of what is seductive about football is the physical contest, the other part is the glory. The glory today, as always I suppose, is fame and fortune. Soccer players are celebrities, fashion icons, goodwill ambassadors and movie stars. In short, they are brands.

This affords them much attention, wealth, luxury and excess. They are, in a sense, free of much of what keep the rest of us behind the desk, behaving in a moderate manner. But this is also where the danger lies, as in the case of Gazza and Best. Once you taste the sweet nectar of fortune and fame, who wants to go back? Some of us simply cannot handle that pressure and go mad. Soccer stars become drunks, criminals and megalomaniacs. And it is the sport and those behind the sport, which created this, thus they share the burden of responsibility. When Gazza gets wasted in a bar and gets in a fight, he is doing so, I would argue, because he needs the fight, the attention and the distraction.

But there is an even deeper problem here, one which is fundamental part of the sport itself (indeed, this is part of team sport in general). That flaw is the fact that football is at its essence a game of combat, of tactics and moves designed to crush the opponent. As such, it doesn't allow for understanding of the plight of the others, nor of the weak members of your own. It is highly aggressive and at times violent. This, in turn, is how the individuals within the sport are brought up, cultured, and expected to perform. In order to succeed, this becomes their life, and more often than not, it spills over into their private life: with violence, with drink, and with drugs. This is particularly acute in the post-career period, when the one thing you spent your life working on, is no-longer available to you, it is only natural that you also experience a loss of identity. Loss of identity, as we know from nationalism, always paves the way for violent counter-reaction.

But I also suggested that the sport cannot solve this problem, and I said so because it would mean introducing ideas, through counselling and adapted training methods, etc., that are antithetical to competition, professionalization, and war. For these types of individuals not to emerge, the focus on competition, besting, success, and glory would all have to be removed. An then? Well, then it just wouldn't be football anymore. Then there wouldn't be any Gerd Mullers, or Lionel Messis, there would be no games on TV, and at the World Cup, everyone would win.

Of course, what has been done, can be undone. That means that though the sport cannot ever avoid the creation of Icarus, it can help catch them on the way down, provide them with post career counseling, etc., what ever they need to not destroy themselves and their loved ones.

Captain Tsubasa. I reconnected with this series, thanks to youtube. It's a Japanese Anime series from the 1980s, which appeared both in Manga comics and as TV shows from the 1980s through today. As a kid in France I discovered the show by chance, and through it improved my French, where it was called Oliver et Tom.

The opening lines of the first episode caught my attention as I re-watched it for the first time recently. Tsubasa is in the process of moving to a new town in order to develop his football skills an become a professional. He is looking at a picture of the Italian national team celebrating their victory in the 1982 World Cup in Spain. Over the radio we here a voice announcing the Italian victory, and then speculating when Japan will be there, the best football nation in the world. The radio voice concludes that it should happen soon.

This scene is clearly setting Tsubasa up to be the hope for Japan, but more interestingly, it is also instilling a sense of National honor in viewers of the show (mostly young boys, I assume). This suggests that Football was one way for Japan to (re)claim national standing (which had been a touchy subject since WWII), and even that there was an imperative to do so. As such, football can be one way to promote national glory, to inspire the young to be proud of Japan, and maintain a healthy youth population.

There are also other indicators of cultural ideology present in the show, such as the housewife mother of Tsubasa, who only seems to exist in order to provide a home in which Tsubasa can become the hope of Japanese football. She spends her days cleaning, worrying, and providing, but never working.

What? Its snowing again?

March 12th already, and this is the first entry for the month... it's been a minute. The progress report is that I have, in theory, two thirds of the thesis written now, and what I think is the most difficult chapter (the middle one) done.

"done", what do I mean by done (Briggs, 2007)? In a rough draft anyway; it is now a platform from which I can build up and out. Done has a lot of finality behind it, perhaps to much, we are never done, not even in death.

I had a conversation with Briggs about the proper use of the ';' today. Apparently it is the abused child of the punctuation world, being incorrectly employed by more people than any other. Poor thing. I'm sure I have been responsible for victimizing it a time or two. It should be used as a pointer; it should indicate that what follows is an elaboration on the idea of the words preceding it.

The other important topic that came up was placing more emphasis on 'I'; putting more of myself into the project by weaving in personal experience. One of the critiques of the first chapter was lack of, not context, but something similar. What would be a useful addition in the first chapter is more examples of how the theories might be weaved into the practice of soccer, by weaving soccer into the discussion of theory.

One way I can achieve this is by bringing in a picture to analyze that can tie in all the elements of the theory. My first thought was a picture of the French National team from 1998. The team was composed of players from the remaining or former colonies. This would give me a reference point for race, colonialism, multiculturalism and nationalism. For power and civil society I would need a different one, but maybe I could work it in.

Then I thought I could just use the picture of CD El Salvador and the Somali Youth from the final of the Fathers Day tournament. It's a picture of a Latino team next mixed in with a Somali team, and a few Europeans mixed in. Black next to tan, next to white. All is soccer kit, all in America, unified by the game and competition, yet divided by color, history, class, and team.

Culture is a verb

The violence in "that" region called the Balkans is once again based on "that" myth called nationalism. As I read the news stories and blogs about what is happening, I think back to Bjelic's comment from the MUN panel, that we have two choices if we want peace: accept the status quo of borders as they are, or dismantle them entirely. Kosovo didn't accept theirs, but they didn't dismantle them, rather they built new ones. Now Serbia is rejecting this challenge to the status quo, so we have violence. Now I read on Yahoo! that Serbian football hooligans are joining the fight. I appreciate that they are assisting me with my thesis, but my stomach turns at reading such things...

...I want so badly for soccer to be a game of peace, of pleasure, and of understanding, but it has so much violence in it.

Been thinking a lot about how culture is a construction. It isn't rooted in hard biological fact; we are not who we are, on a cultural level, because of DNA, but because of what was put into our brain as we grew up. Education (in its many forms) and experience are the two obvious culprits who "produce" culture. This, in itself is not such a radical idea, but people often react as if it is. How else are you going to have an identity? It does challenge the notion of a free will however, and maybe that is why it is controversial.

If culture is constructed, then it can be deconstructed. This means it is not a real thing, but simply something we create in order to make sense of the world around us. In many ways it is unavoidable. The fact that nature can be deconstructed means it can evolve and change; it is an active thing, not a static one. We should treat it as thus and reject racist ideas (like the Huntington thesis) of cultural status quo.

How often have you hear people say things like "well, X is like that because they come from ... and that's just how they are there!" As if to suggest the person could never change, never come to a new identity. It is no different from Huntington suggesting that certain cultures are unable to achieve democracy "because that's just the way they are". Crap!

This is why I love watching Predictions of Fire and the work of NSK, they challenge culture to be full aware of itself. Their method is to perform the rituals of culture, national identity, etc., in a stylistic manor, thus confronting people with their own identities, thereby forcing a self-reflection. As Zizek said, they are not the answer, only the question.

Can soccer be such a mirror? Can it be held up to the public eye and force introspection? Can the rituals be a subversive critique of social life? I thought about these questions as I went through my warm up 'ritual' before last nights game. It was the first time I had been so aware that my actions were in fact ritualistic in nature. Here is how it unfolded:

1)undressing, taking of clothing, selecting the 'uniform' that I felt most attracted to. Yesterday it was last years MeMUNC shirt with the number 7. The dark color was what did it. I wanted people to ask about it. I put on the Adidas socks and pushed them down to my ankle. Then the shoes, I looked them over, loosened the laces and put them on. The final touch is my black Nike sweat band.

2)music. I put on my Ipod and searched for music. Started off with some Immortal Technique, then moved on to the Prodigy. All aggressive stuff. It always is when I warm up.

3)Gym. I hit the gym for 30-45 minuets as a warm up. nothing to hard, just streatching, some upper body stuff and 15 minuets on the bike. But its always the same routine.

Then I am ready. Ipod goes back into the locker, and I head upstairs to the pitch. I feel like a soccer player now, I walk different, I feel different. This ritual of new skin, agressive music, and physical movement changes my mentality.

Now I can hold the mirror up to myself, how can I turn it on those fans going to Kosovo to have a tear up?

Multiculturalism, part II

Almost a year ago, while he was still just the lowly Exchequer, Gordo proposed all immigrants/migrants coming to the UK, seeking citizenship, be "obliged" to undertake community service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6399457.stm

According to the BBC article, this was meant to assist in the integration of these people in British life. But this really amounts to a sort of slave labour, which conjures up images of a colonial past that ought not be repeated, yet seems likely to be. This idea of earning citizenship through a series of tests and labour means British citizenship has more value than any other citizenship in the world, and thus is an exclusive club of individuals who conform to a certain standard. Of course every country has a system like this, and thus we are all guilty of perpetuating this mentality of national superiority.

If we really believe in equality of nations, cultures, ethnicities, etc., then why care where the individual comes from? Why make it a requirement that this person become someone different in order to join your team? What difference does it make if this individual lives in your community as a Nigerian, a German, a Russian, an Argentine, a Malay, or a Brit? Does the small book confirming your national identity really make you a different person?

The conservative and liberal multiculturalists would argue it does. For the conservative, this is a symbol of your inferiority to the hegemonic culture you are trying to join; for the liberal this is a symbol of how you are different, and though its ok to be different, you are only 'authentic' in your Nigerian/German/Argentine/Malay-ness if you have the papers to prove it.

The Resistance/Critical approach is to view these "common" identities as both artificial and racist. The borders put up and maintained by the conservative/liberal approach amount to a desire for ideological purity, and a belief that even though there are multiple identities out there, they can/should never mingle beyond basic recognition of the other.

The critical response is to break the border down entirely, not only through a rejection of borders, "common" identities, and purist immigration policies, but also by fostering an understanding of these "other" individuals as individuals (from their own perspective). Furthermore, a critical multiculturalist will try to see themselves from the perspective of the "immigrant," thereby deconstructing their own position vis-à-vis this individual.

So, for Gordo to suggest there need to be harsher tests and formal labour for those migrants looking for citizenship is a way of forcing a new identity upon them, stripping them of their native one. Of course, this is all presented in a positive light, as the pathway to all the resources and wealth of the West, which is why the individual has left their original home in the first place. So its not meant as a racist, mean, exploitative policy, yet that is what it becomes. What the Americans call "exceptionalism" suggests that because of the clear superiority of a capitalist, democratic, enlightenment based identity, forcing 'others' to adopt likewise, is actually a good thing for the world.

But really, it is both anti-democratic, and anti-diversity.

Thinking Matters Abstract

Title: Soccer in Politics: Identity, Power, and Nationalism

"The appeal of soccer to individuals of all cultures, genders, and ethnicities has made it the world sport. This popularity has not come without a price however, as most places with soccer cultures also see violence and discrimination.

Creating a theoretical framework based on theories of nationalism, power and identity will set the stage for this paper, after which a historical narrative of soccer focused on its colonial legacy will be constructed and analyzed. These two elements will provide a picture of a sport used to create myths of national superiority and to stir up tensions. Then, by studying cases of discrimination towards fans and players from “other” communities in Europe, the paper will place the modern game within the historical and theoretical narrative. Emerging from this is a sense of a society still repeating these racist and colonial narratives, through the import of foreign players under suffocating contracts, and the establishment of normative identities.

Left to consider are the questions of how so many international organizations can hold soccer up as panacea for social and economic problems and if the paradox of a sport that unites as it divides leaves the possibility of soccer as a performance of resistance?"

Nationality and the round ball ~ 1/23/2008

After the meeting I wrote about below and a subsequent email response from Dr. V, the issue of nationality and soccer has been on my mind. While this will not be the focus of the project, I think it is a question worthy of some discussion in the text. Europe in general is going through some serious redefinition of its idea of nationality and the meaning of national borders, and this effects the game equally.

As Dr. V put it, the "foreign" player may suddenly lose this identity when the EU expands its borders to include the "foreigners" home land. Essentially, his or her identity has become politically meaningless and is only a personal experience. The questions to ask are, how does this change a persons relationship to their home, to their new home, to the people in their new home? I could only speculate on this without actually gong out there, but worth noting no-the-less.

On a national level, more and more players with immigrant histories and parents are playing for the adopted home nation. With names like Castro and Gonzales in the German team this becomes apparent. Also the case of Ashkan Dejagah is case and point. He is Iranian by birth, but was raised in Germany and currently plays for VFB Wolfsburg. He caused controversy this past year when he refused to play against Israel. He was quickly accused of anti-semitism, to which he responded the decision was ment to protect his Iranian family in Tehran. But he also displays nationalist tendencies towards Iran, and has "Tehran" tattooed on his wrist.

So what does "nationalism" mean in this context? In Dejagah's case, he is playing for the German national team, and yet appears to be sympathetic towards Iran, identifying himself as such. Perhaps on this level of sports, nationalism is rather meaningless in the face of fame, success on the field, and a chance at winning a World Cup. It becomes a business decision for players. The young immigrant from a nation without much soccer power choses to play for the rich European state because they will potentially go farther (as a player).

On the other side, the European countries soccer associations (like the DFB, FA, etc) are simply taking the best players they can within the legal restrictions. Clearly they are not concerned with national identity as such; perhaps the assumption is that once a player puts on the national kit, they could be nothing but loyal. It is true that legally they will never be allowed to play for another country after their first national cap.

If soccer is really nothing more than a business, then there is nothing wrong with such arrangements. To suggest otherwise can also border on racism. How can you say England or Germany, Italy or Spain should have only ethnically "pure" nationals playing on the national side? Not only is that a very questionable statement, but also totally unrealistic in a multicultural society. The popularity of soccer, and the national teams place in the national psyche does however mean its evolution effects the popular view of national identity. When this is challenged (by having "foreigners" as part of a national symbol for example) there is often a negative backlash.