The Politics of the World Cup

Yesterday I walked into the locker-room of my gym in Park Slope, Brooklyn and immediately looked for an update on the NBA finals -which I expected to be displayed on the off-color TV. Instead, I was greeted with the image of a bunch of hazy figures running up and down a massive field accompanied by a cacophony of otherworldly sounds.

Why, I thought, was this and not the sports I grew up with, basketball, playing?

With all due respect to my many foreign friends and my fellow -however recent- citizens, I just don't get all the hype.
So the whole world is going berserk. So South African merchants ran out of ear-plugs- and not jerseys or other sports apparel. So vuvuzelas, the noise-making horns, were actually going to be banned because their use was being abused. So?

Yes, some in and outside America would like us Americans to be more like the rest of world. But I don't want America to be like the rest of the world. That doesn't mean we should automatically oppose the world. Neither should we ban the viewing of the world cup by once a year fans who are just looking for an excuse to get wasted at the recently bedecked -with an array of national flags- soccer showing pub on the corner. There are many other global trends, like Israel bashing, civil rights depriving, and populism that America should continue to avoid. If the world cup is forced down our throats what’s next? Just joking.

The point is that America has good reason to maintain its unique culture, whether it be NFL football or a pragmatic approach to international-affairs.

Domestic/nativist perspectives aside, I find the international politics of the world cup fascinating.


For example, most of the sane and free world was rooting for Brazil to defeat North Korea, even though historically, I am told, Brazil is one of the most successful teams. As if North Korea as a country, is defeated when its sports team is defeated. The reasons why most of the free world rooted against North Korea, probably has to do with North Korea's abysmal domestic and regional behavior. In other words politics trumped the fans desire to win!
Of Course there were over a thousand red-uniformed Chinese "volunteers" directed by an maestro (no I'm not joking, a maestro) at the game cheering on North Korea. When asked if they were following the game, they responded that they were not, just there to support their brothers (http://www.newser.com/story/92710/north-korean-fans-actually-chinese-actors.html). Talk about politics.

Let us hope that the despotic, Kim Jung-Il does not mimic deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was known to torture Iraqi Olympians and their families if they failed to win.

Then let us not forget the unusual brouhaha between America, under the left wing Obama administration, and Cameron’s, now conservative Britain. On the world-cup front it centers on the unexpected 1-1 tie. But the name-calling by fans was fanned by British Petroleum’s (BP) failures, and the Obama administration's ineptness. Why Obama, is Anglicizing BP's failures, and why the English are interpreting the predictable left-wing/environmentalist backlash (except, of course, for Al Gore’s conspicuous silence on the matter) as personal, probably has more to do with our stressed economies and scapegoat-hunting leaders, then anything else.

On to the usual and frustrating -to many live-and-let-live Muslims- Islamic component. Why, I ask, must Somalia execute two fans for the inexcusable sin of watching the world-cup? And why is the Muslim street, which of course jumped on the recent "flotilla provocation with a bad ending episode", not demanding justice for their entertainment-hungry brothers?


Soccer/football, holds no significance for me and many Americans. At the same time you simply can’t deny or be surprised that this international sports affair has an intriguing political side. It is interesting enough for me, and for many disinterested Americans, to know that the Anglo-American match resulted in a 1-1 tie.

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (2) A New World Order?

In part one of this series we looked at an example of the coldest cold war between America and China, as well as the economic reasons why this war is so much "colder" then the last cold war.

In part two I would like explore the question of why our society is hell bent on ignoring the realities of our relationship with China. As well as the question of which is the greater force in the China-West coldest cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in the world order.
Our close economic ties prevent out government from calling, for example, the North Korean provocation what it is –a proxy event. But the question still remains, why has our diverse, vaunted, and conspiracy-prone media ignored the realties?

One potential answer is that our media and even the public, have justifiably reconciled with the fact that China is now our partner in power. Thus China’s covert actions around the world are part of Chinas right as a super-power. Indeed, this theme is given sufficient if not obsessive coverage.

My question is not why hasn’t the media and larger society at acknowledged the ramifications of China as an emerging super-power. Rather why is there no discussion about the manner of how China is going about their war? Chinas anti-Democratic belief system, allows it to easily support North Korea, a county that literally starves and kills its own people by the 1000’s, and that habitually commits acts of war, but China supports is so long as it weakens American influence.

While we do not even acknowledge the link, China is challenging us in ways that we last saw during our cold war with Russia. We should be aware of the parallel, if only to apply the lessons of the past to the present, but we ignore them, why?

This may all boil to social-psychology; society is experiencing a form of collective Freudian defense mechanism -repression.

Just as the child who has a negative experience in the bathtub may have an aversion to all water as they mature so too the trauma of the last cold war has affected our collective psyche to the extent that we refuse to acknowledge the realities we face. This despite the fact that we "won" the last cold war -akin to the mature individual who "survived/won" their child-hood trauma, but still manifests, perhaps unknowingly, symptoms of that trauma.

Our analogy, like all analogies is imprecise. In this case, the ramifications of our self imposed ignorance are unlike the implications of the individual with an aversion to water. While the person who dislikes water, can choose to avoid his phobia, and if he/she were to encounter the water they could choose to disengage from it, we, America and the west, can ot simply disengage. This lack of choice may be at the heart of why we refuse to acknowledge and confront the issue in the first place.

Now on to the second question.

Will this remain a coldest cold war? Put otherwise will our economic marriage with China -and the ensuing superficial stability it produces- trump the struggle for global supremacy and the forces that seek a new world order.

But before we can answer this larger question let us establish that the nature of the coldest cold war centers on the establishment of a new world order. Currently this is less obvious because the the current benefits, to all sides, of our economic ties relegate the proxy aggressiveness e.g. North Korean actions to the back burner, i.e. The current economic benefits outweigh the push for a new world order. (You could even say that China sees the economic ties and the corollary buildup of its economic might as a necessary step in the push for its new world order).

Either way as the benefits diminish and/or the "new world order" gathers strength and coalesces the symptoms of the coldest cold war will become more pronounced and more cold war-like. In other words, the fact that the coldest cold war is so cold is because there are powerful mitigating factors. As those factors become weaker say as Americas economic might becomes mired in crushing debt, or becomes, relatively, less significant, say as Iran, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, and China coalesce into a potent economic/military force, then we can expect that the push to realign the world order to be more urgent and overt.

To the extent of direct war? Probably not. It is more likely that the degree that a cold war is evident would match the potential benefit of that change to those seeking the change.

From this perspective, the North Korean provocation, Iranian president Ahamdinejad call for a new world order before embarking to Turkey to meet with Erdogan of Turkey and Putin Of Russia (http://www.infowars.com/ahmadinejad-stresses-need-for-new-world-order/) , and Brazil and Turkeys failed attempt to broker a nuclear swap deal -to head off sanctions on Iran- are part of a larger and accelerating trend.

It is no coincidence, then, that this trend is becoming increasingly evident as the America and the West flounder economically, and militarily.

At the same time the fact that Brazil and Turkey failed, and that sanctions, however inane (and even insidious, please see post on http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html) passed against Iran are both indicators of a emerging and definable coalition opposing the old American dominated word, and that America is still the leader and a potent force. Which in turn explains why we are still involved in the coldest cold war, with China.


Taken as a whole it seems that we are in the midst of a calculated and predictable progression from coldest cold war to cold war; from covert war to thinly veiled overt war. This reflects an underlying consensus in both China and America, acknowledged or otherwise that should there be a shift in the world order it should unfold in a stable and progressive manner. Let us hope that it is China and not its less pragmatic partners that continues to guide and lead the coalition for a new world order.

For our part, we in America need to recognize the signs. We are in the midst of deeply veiled war, in the past we were victorious, we can be so again. For those that look forward to Americas down fall, remember that the now powerful nations of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union were once Americas defeated enemies. America is pragmatic not vengeful -it elevates those it defeats- can we be certain that China and its minority partners will do the same?

THE COLDEST COLD WAR (1) A Case Study: North Korea

China is a key player in the international arena, and has been for some time. This is not only because it one of five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has the second biggest economy on the planet, but also because it is the un-proclaimed leader of the “human-rights depriving world”. Pariah countries like North Korea and Myanmar (Burma) as well as noxious nations like Iran are all closely linked with China and like China have abysmal human rights record. Moreover, Chinas relationship with its other minor partners, the Western nations, led by America, is asymmetrical because they need China. For the very same reasons that make China a world power –its economy, its vote on the UNSC, and its considerable influence in the “human-rights depriving world”. One could argue that China is already the most influential nation in the world.

Regardless it is Chinas paradoxical relationship with the West and parts of the East, that are at the heart of the coldest of cold war’s.

The cold war that we are all familiar with was termed “cold” because it was fought by proxy, i.e. it was never hot between America and the Soviet Union. Instead a form of political passive aggressiveness prevailed, where both sides smiled at each other but attempted to undermine each other at every turn. At the same time there was no ambiguity about who (and why) was behind a given global event. For example, America covertly took the Afghan “freedom fighters” side in their “just” struggle against Soviet expansionism , yet no one doubted who was supplying advance stinger missiles or how mountain fighters knew where the next Soviet convoy was traveling.

The coldest cold war is very different for one simple reason –the passive aggressiveness is rooted in the subconscious. In other words, the two sides in this coldest of cold wars are actively undermining each other but are unwilling to acknowledge that they are in direct opposition.


Why is the reality being ignored?

Because of the paradoxical relationship between the West and China. Unlike the Soviets and the West, the former are economically intertwined -the implications of which are evident here.

In part one we will look at one example, of the coldest cold war. This example with illustrate that their is a "coldest cold war" but the fact that it is a war is being ignored becasue of the nature of the China-West relationship.

A team of civilian and military experts from South Korea, the U.S., Australia, Britain and Sweden, concluded that North Korea was responsible for sinking a South Korean Warship in the Yellow sea near the border between the two Koreas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during a visit to South Korea, declared that North Korea must pay for its offensive provocation. She also called for an international consensus to condemn and sanction North Korean in the UNSC. As expected, despite the overwhelming evidence, China shied away from openly condemning North Korea, its ally. Essentially shielding it from real international repercussions.

Yet without China's support for further sanctions of North Korea the international community’s efforts will not be enough to stop further provocations, which would likely lead to war. Thus without Chinas intervention war is more likely between the two Koreas.

I would be reticent not to ask why China refuses to act in a way that would prevent a war in its back yard?

To be fair, some China apologists explain that China does not want to back a volatile North Korea into a corner. Ok, but this answer also implies that China was unaware of North Koreas intentions prior to its decision to kill over 50 South Koreans in the worst Navel incident in the latter nations history. This conclusion may be a lot easier to digest then the alternative – China gave its tacit approval.

But are the apologists correct? Is Chinas support for North Korea going back to the Korean war of 1950, and its current economic (and military ?) aid with which North Korea could not survive, not mean that China has a say as to whether North Korea goes to war?! Alternatively, North Korea was sure that its blatant and unprovoked attack on South Korea would not force China to sanction and cut off its vital support for North Korea. How could North Korea have been so sure?

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that China approved North Koreas actions. Which goes back to our original question, why did China not stop North Korea, and why does it not now at least condemn them, so as to do all it can to prevent a war?

In the Soviet era, it would be clear who was behind such ostensibly irresponsible but in reality calculated actions, and America would respond accordingly, pointing publicly to the hidden hand of the Soviets. In this coldest cold war the passive aggressiveness is so deeply imbedded that it is not even acknowledged that this is in fact a passive aggressive event, with roots in China and America.

So why did China do what it did, and why hasn't the West called it as it is?

Put otherwise the reason China supported/supports North Korea is to degrade Americas foot-hold in its neighborhood. Thus South Koreas will feel like its distant ally is unreliable and weak pushing them into the hands of China -as they see that only China can control North Korea. Of course the willfully blind mainstream media will interpret Clintons desperate effort as simply another wordy reassurance that Americas is still a staunch and reliable ally. What they won’t report is that every escalating North Korean provocation is a proxy attempt by China to battle American influence in Asia. At the same time the economic marriage between the West and China prevents both sides from delving into the nature of the their political interactions.

To the extent that China is willing to allow a war? Yes, despite the frigid air, this is the coldest cold WAR. As long, as it the war is not labeled as a proxy battle.


In part two we will explore the question of which is the greater force in the China-West cold war, economy/stability or influence/change in world order?