Tuesday 28 December 2010

Andre Agassi: Sport in print.

Over the past few years the internet and increasingly tablets/kindles are revolutionising the way we read books and the choice on the market. The sports book genre has expanded hugely. Twenty years ago, one could only find annuals like Match or the Wisden Almanack, but now it can dominate a whole section. There are books on sporting philosophy, history, theory and of course the autobiography.

Sporting books have launched the literary careers of authors like Nick Hornby, whilstothers have sprawled massive charitable campaigns. Anyone who has read Lance Armstrong’s It’s not about the bike’ would find it hard not to commend the inexorable determination of the man and his route to success.

The genre's evolution over the past twenty years even saw a dedicated prize established. So why else would be people want to read their stories and prose? There is a stereotype to suggest that sportsmen and women aren’t intellectual and therefore, why would we want to read their musings? The drivel delivered during press conferences or post-match interviews would highlight such drollness. Some athletes have signed multi-book deals worth millions of pound, even though they are still in their early twenties! Yet people still buy them.

Perhaps it is the fact that sport is about real life, the highs and lows. The lives of actors is purely fictional and doesn’t have the human drama that we can associate in sporting events. Athletes are mortals. They can tell their stories about overcoming failures.How triumph and defeat become blurred.

Reading the autobiography of Andre Agassi, it is surreal to see the life of a high profile name in such perspective. The pressure from parents and school, the fear of losing and the inability to succeed. The honesty and realities is often lost on the spectator and we only learn of the inner most thoughts after such battles have been fought. Life could be compared to a tennis match or an athletics race. It is often only through these athletes, who have dedicated their lives to one dream or target, that their outlook can teach us what events mean and we can take from them. The best books tell us about life itself.

Sunday 19 December 2010

Sudan: Snow or blood in Africa?

Time is a healer, but in history and diplomacy it is more subjective. In 2011 it is likely that Africa will have another country: South Sudan. Up until 2005, the country had suffered almost six continuous decades of civil war and now with the prospect of secession in the South, the future is blurred. Could it lead to more bloodshed within Africa’s biggest country.

Historically, the conflict existed between the mainly black African Christians in the south, who felt subjugated by the Arab Muslim in the north. Since the beginning of the civil wars, over two million people have died and over four million people have become displaced.

The peace process began in 1993, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This officially ended the conflict and gave the South a future referendum on independence. In January 2011, the people of South Sudan will determine their future.

Over the past ten years, the west of the country has made all the international headlines. Violent ambushes in the Darfur region has created another humanitarian crisis, spilling across the region. The US has labelled these crimes as genocide .

Many of today’s problems could have been resolved by Britain in two earlier historical incidents. In 1898, the Fashoda incident nearly led to a war between Britain and France. It could have separated Muslim North from Christian African immediately, rather than retain the lines on the colonial map drawing.

When independence came in the early 1950s, the British who handed over the administration to the northerners in Khartoum. The British Empire favoured indirect rule from London and left power with local chiefs. The experience of British India saw power fall into the hands local Muslim Emirs.The self-interest of the northerners and neglect of the south became the tinder for war that destroyed the lives of millions for decades to come.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but it can also be short-sighted. When the Baltic and Balkan states broke up in the 1990s, there was a degree of stability and an infrastructure of support to ensure their institutions flourished.

Perhaps the problem for a newly formed South Sudan is that it creates more questions that are unanticipated. What about the oil wealth? What role will the diaspora play? Many countries including the US and Britain back statehood, but is this a ploy to punish the current Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir. Al-Bashir is accused of arming the genocide in Darfur and wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. He is also alleged to have supported the Lord’s Resistance Army, a mercenary organisation in Central Africa that has displaced and murdered thousands in the last twenty years.

South Sudan’s economy relies heavily on agriculture and the land. Yet oil could be the biggest problem if independence goes ahead. The oil fields are in the south, but the pipelines run through the north. As one of the Chinese biggest clients, how is this to be resolved.

Questions must also be asked of the leadership. It seems certain that the whole administration will be full of former rebels from the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA). Sudan has an Arab majority in the north and black Christians in the south, but it also has the hundreds of tribes embroiled in the fighting. Many questions are being asked of what will happen to those on the border and the migrant population in the north. After so many years of hardship, it is not a question of whether they are ready to govern – because clearly they are – it is more whether they have the experience to do so. For so long these people have been fighting, but are there plans to ensure everything is taken into perspective.

The countries surrounding Sudan endured their own struggles: Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia and Uganda’s bloody dictatorships and the Rwandan genocide. These states are not flagships of good governance, but perhaps the lessons of Africa’s recent past has shown that to develop the economies and increase trade, then it is essential to have stability. Maybe Africa is waking up to the fact that continuous war doesn’t gain anything. 

Friday 10 December 2010

Tuition Fees: This is Government

So the vote for tuition fees went the way of the Coalition Government. From 2013, students in England could potentially be paying up to £9,000 per year. Ignoring the anger on the streets and the mindless acts of violence by the protesters, the political games were extremely engaging and provoking. The Liberal Democrats, the junior partner within the coalition, abandoned their election pledge not to increase tuition fees.

Many will argue that free higher education should be a right and that society gains as a whole from having highly-skilled graduates. Yet, it is unaffordable and by having more and more students entering further education, it is causing a greater strain for the state to burden.

Perhaps this is what the Liberal Democrats have come to realise. From a party that within the past twenty years has been well-liked and input many policy pledges, it is learning that Government is far from comfortable and idealistic. Yes, it is difficult not to sympathise with the MPs who abstained or voted against the legislation, but we must commend the members that voted with the Government. Nick Clegg, who is sure to face criticism from party members. He has shouldered a massive amount of pressure for the coalition and David Cameron should be acknowledging.

It is obvious the policy will not always please everyone, particularly if Welsh and Scottish students are unaffected. But perhaps the leadership shown by Mr Clegg will be a realisation to Liberal Democrat members what politics is about and that the next few years will be tough.

Monday 6 December 2010

Wikileaks: The medium is the message.

This week, most people are talking about FIFA and England's unsuccessful World Cup bid. Yet, the other story dominating the news are the leaked US Diplomatic cables published by the website Wikileaks and various news organisations throughout the world.

The story surrounds a member of the US security services who sent a file with over 250,000 documents containing confidential information relating to the State Department's view on foreign policy. The scope is enormous and potentially damaging; but it is interesting to read the thoughts of diplomats and US policy.

As well as the information, the nature of the journalism is interesting, and becoming more prevalent. Instead of Wikileaks just releasing the information straight on to the internet, it gave various news gathering organisations a chance to report on the leaks. The Guardian has apparently spent weeks using journalists and various experts to decipher the best news stories and the implications of various comments. It is similar to the Daily Telegraph's reportage on MPs’ Expenses scandal in 2009.

Many say that such leaks could have political and personal consequences to those involved. Though the newspapers will argue that much of it is in the public interest.

Some have also added that if the Americans are so hurt by the stories, then why was it accessible to thousands of security personnel. Many of the stories are not particularly sensationalist but purely uncloak the perspectives of mandarins and politicians. Perhaps we should be entitled hear them.

It could as a consequence lead to further so called 'post-it-note government', where civil servants prefer righting things down on disposable paper rather than send it by email.

It does ultimately show how powerful modern day communications are and how we no longer have to rely on journalists.

Tuesday 30 November 2010

FIFA: Back the bid?

Panorama and Andrew Jennings added another act to the joke that is FIFA yesterday. It is not the first time it has been smeared for corruption allegations.

We are indeed amidst the closing stages to see who will host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022, and if votes go our way it could possibly be in England. Anyone who ever reads Jennings’s excellent website Transparency in Sport will be aware of the activities behind the scenes at FIFA. The real question should be, would we really want to host it and really, who gains most?

The world of politics and diplomacy is always a bit shady (as we know from wikileaks) but why does no one ask any questions of FIFA? Sepp Blatter must be the only President of an organisation who does not declare his wage, yet politicians invite him to the corridors of power in an attempt to persuade him to consider their bid. A man who started as a lawyer working for Adidas, now holds the highest seat in international football, but opposes transparency or reform. The ‘beautiful’ game has become ‘tarnished’.

Blatter’s legacy is supposedly to help the expansion of the game throughout the world and use football as a tool to unite people. The South African World Cup was the first occasion to bring the ‘beautiful game’ to the African continent. No one questions the merits of the event, but why aren’t people a bit more sceptical of all things ‘unifying’ and ‘legacy’. No one questioned whether Africa could host a competition (IPL, the Rugby World Cup, the African Cup of Nations) but in meeting FIFA’s strict criteria, was it necessary to build new stadia and the infrastructure? The answers suggest no; since the tournament, several of the stadiums lay empty and recent matches have only filled tiny proportions of the ground. The improved transport links will lay foundations for future economic benefits, but it doesn’t fill the hotels built to cater for prospective tourists.

Since the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Olympic stadium and other supporting arenas have become wastelands. Since Euro 2004 in Portugal one of the stadiums was knocked down because of high maintenance costs. Both Spain and Portugal are the favourites for the upcoming bid, yet Spain too has dozens of stadium that are half built or under-prepared. These will be sorted out if the bid is won, but why should stadiums of such magnitude be built, under executive orders and government submission, only to be left redundant a month later? It is all put in perspective if both Iberian countries are apparently on the verge of collapse, this isn’t FIFA’s problem.

I understand the power of sport and the impact it can have on society. I do not buy this idea that through spending billions will you achieve this acclaimed legacy. It certainly makes a country feel better but it is not the only solution. If England wins the bid then it will continue to be no questions asked and will purely highlight this country’s great sporting tradition and capacity to hosting global events. FIFA and its bandwagon will be a part of this and no further questions will be asked.

Thursday 18 November 2010

AK47 is the tool.

No doubt the instability in our world breeds an air of fear and combativeness. Africa’s stagnation can be put down to the continuous volatility of regimes and the uncertainty it brings to neighbouring countries. In the past few days there was another coup in Madagascar, electoral violence in Guinea and the release of a British couple from Somalia. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Africa’s liberation legacy was the fact that many of these young emerging countries first gained independence during the Cold War. The ebullient and determined leaders that hoped to define a continent were mostly purged or assassinated and replaced with military ‘yes’ men. History depicts them as charismatic, yet on the verge of lunacy; destroying the economies and importing arms by the shipload. Africa is still left awash with guns; most notably the AK47: the Kalashnikov.

Invented just after the Second World War, it was a cheap, effective, standardised weapon. Its global ubiquity stems from the planned Soviet economy, not capital markets of supply and demand; it was manufactured and stockpiled into the tens of millions, perhaps more. Cold War politics saw it sent to the Eastern Bloc, China, Korea and Egypt.

Most importantly, it was effective. It did not require much maintenance; it was long lasting and could pretty much be put into the hands of anyone. There are stories of American soldiers during the Vietnam and Iraqi wars dumping their own weapons for the more effective weapon of choice.

The AK47 is now the standard issue for the world’s terrorists and its iconography places its legacy in the hands of freedom fighters and revolutionaries. The armed struggle of Mozambique from its colonial overlord, Portugal, saw the AK47 have pride of place on the nation’s flag. Haille Mengistu Mariam of Ethiopia’s Derg reportedly took one to a cabinet meeting before opening fire on some of his minister’s. These all seem quite anecdotal, but the price for Africa with its porous borders and terrible post-colonial record has blotted the world’s image of war. The Kalashnikov’s lightness and ease of use has driven it into the hands of children; a legacy that caused devastation in Sierra Leone, Liberia and DR Congo. The unfortunate thing is that as long as there are poorly-paid soldiers and instability across the continent, then the AK will pen another chapter in its worldwide autobiography.

Sunday 14 November 2010

Boxing: The Final Punch.

It was interesting to read and watch the hype surrounding the David Haye and Audley Harrison boxing fight, which ended in a third round victory for Haye. Boxing nowadays is a question of how it can adapt to a world that remembers its glorious and historical past. If we are being honest then the match last night was a contest between a second-rate champion and fourth-rate opponent. Long gone are the days of Ali vs. Liston or even of late, Tyson vs. Holyfield.

The attractions to the game are still part of modern-day boxing, the pugilism, the alpha male and survival instincts; this is why people still get excited over the big clashes and why people are willing to spend big money to watch. In terms of intensity, nothing can come close to the sheer athleticism and punishment the athletes go through to become fit. There are numerous examples of fighters who have suffered as a result of their fights; but this isn't why the sport has stagnated. There is an element of risk in all high-impact sports and the high-pressure of certain events can drive other competitors to the edge. Boxing has suffered because its original talent-pool now has different avenues to choose from. In America, there is basketball and for the rest of the world, football is king. Boxing matches used to define decades, yet we are now seeing fewer and fewer.

Boxing, most recently,has struggled to compete with the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), but I would argue there is no comparison as a spectacle both technically and athletically. Boxing has fallen behind in the marketing stakes and heavily relies on the big bouts, which are becoming thin on the ground; hence Haye versus Harrison. Boxing produced show men like Ali, Tyson and Sugar Ray, who all caught the gaze of the public; but for their athleticism and grace, not the hyperbole of weigh-ins and media chat. Boxing is not a dying sport and certainly fighters have defined it before and can define it again. I don’t think any sport could compete with the prospect of Haye vs. The Klitschko or Mayweather vs. Pacquiao. I would certainly pay to see it.

Monday 8 November 2010

Porridge

There was much focus on Government services over the past week and questions of how deep can budgets be cut before it affects the administering of a public service. Ideologically for Conservatives, locking up criminals is a staple of maintaining law and order on the streets and protecting ordinary citizens. Yet, The Times lead with the story that six prisons may need to be shut as the Department of Justice looks for budget reductions, something sure to unsettle most Tory voters. Also, an European ruling found that Britain was in breach of prisoners’ rights by not allowing them to vote in elections or referenda. The approach of how we deal with prisoners is bound to create discussion amongst politicians because it poses questions of finance, authority and the role of prison itself i.e. to punish or to rehabilitate. In America, there has been a growth recently in the use of ‘supermax’ prisons, intertwined with solitary confinement.

Both countries share the values of Common Law, yet our attitudes to law and order vary greatly; most notably through some States use of capital punishment. Yet, it is the use of measures like solitary confinement that show the gulfs in treatment. In practice it is remaining in one’s cell without interaction or stimulus, something outlawed in the American constitutuion. Studies show it can lead to mental illnesses and depression, yet the US State department deems this as a legitimate way of treating some felons; and many would agree. It appears hard to gauge how we could stand ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America, when our attitudes to treating prisoners are entirely different. The British did not have the best record during ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, however it didn’t affect the civil liberties of ordinary citizens nor prisoners.

The recent Freedom of Information releases in Poland indeed indict American agents in torture and that members of the British Security Services were aware of these occurrences (this has been denied by the British Government, but many leading figures believe that agents were complicit.) You could argue that torture is effective if it leads to information and that moral legitimacy can be shifted in the interests of national security. It does however weaken the often ‘megaphone diplomacy’ of human rights and democracy to countries like China and Turkey, if we meddle in such acts ourselves. France and Britain both have colonial memories of how ‘justice’ can swathe opinion against the so called good: Algeria and Ireland.

Prison should be a tool to punish the criminals of society and deter others from entering the world of crime. Solitary confinement and torture should be left to the annals of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Mao’s China and Apartheid South Africa, ugly and shocking aspects of history. I am unsure of the importance of the European ruling and question whether it would really have an impact. It is a case of whether you believe prisoners should have a say on society or should be observers away from the polling booths. 85,000 and counting.

Tuesday 2 November 2010

Sportsmen at war: The Killing Fields.

2010 will be the first time that all 20 Barclay’s Premiership clubs will bestow a place on their shirts for the British Legion’s poppy of remembrance. In the past few years, football crowds have become used to minutes of applause in respect to their fellow professionals and for other celebrated figures of the game that have died; though admittedly, applause appears to hide the otherwise boisterous minority observed during a minute’s silence. The Poppy Appeal has become more visible with Britain’s involvement in recent international conflicts and certainly sportsmen and women have contributed a great deal to help those affected by war injuries. Twickenham has held many events to raise money and create awareness for injured servicemen and women. Sport has a great history in war and in previous generations it was common to see sporting heroes of the day to enlist for frontline service, something unimaginable by today’s professionals.

World War One was the first time that British men enlisted en masse to fight for their country; something common on the continent but new to Britain, but this was a desperate occasion. One of the most popular ways of drumming up support was through the ‘pal’s battalion’. This simply was creating platoons of men from local industries or communities; it was literally fighting at the front with your next door neighbour and best school friend. As we know, the war wasn’t over before Christmas and many battalions were massacred. 584 out of the 720 men of the Accrington Pal’s were killed, missing or injured on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. Rows upon rows of houses, in the small Lancashire town, had their curtains drawn in their early days of July 1916. Communities were destroyed by the futile clamour over the top, over and over again.

Perhaps one of the most moving stories is that of the Hearts team. The squad of the 1914/15 side had won their first title since 1897 and had won eight games on the trot, including a game against the Danish national side. It was during this season that amateur sports like rugby, golf and hockey had stopped, as more men signed up to go to the front. In fact, the Glasgow Herald questioned after the November 1914 Old Firm clash how much the fates of Rangers and Celtic mattered when the ‘greatest of all internationals’ was being played in Europe. It was not until late November when the Royal Scots was formed and all of Hearts’ first XI and five reserves enlisted. Many of their fates were sealed along with many others on the first day of the Somme. Inside forward Henry Wattie and Duncan Currie both fell on the first day. Paddy Crossan was wounded by a shell and his lungs ruined by gas. He was so badly injured that his right leg was labelled for amputation, he begged the German surgeon not to amputate saying, ‘I need my legs, I’m a footballer.’ His leg was saved and he survived the war but died in 1933.

It wasn’t just football that suffered. World number one and New Zealand tennis player Tony Wilding was killed by shell fire. England’s rugby captain Ronnie Poulton-Palmer was killed at Ploegstreert Wood. Around 34 county cricketers were killed in combat, including the Warwickshire all-rounder Percy Jeeves. It is said that P.G. Wodehouse’s character Jeeves was named after him. Wodehouse had been a great fan.

The same thing happened during World War Two, though many sportsmen were not posted to frontline positions like their previous generation. High-profile footballers like Tom Finney served in Monty’s Eighth Army in North Africa and Stan Matthews served his time in the RAF. Not all were fortunate, Hedley Verity, the Yorkshire and English spin-bowler was killed in action at Monte Cassino and the Ajax footballer Eddy Hamel was murdered in Auschwitz in 1943.

War is no longer fought on such grand theatres and mass enlistment/national service no longer exists. It is no use to ask hypothetical questions of whether today’s professionals would do the same, it is best to reflect that these men represented their countries at the highest level in sport and delayed their careers for more purposeful causes, often with their lives’. Their stories paint ones of humility and heroism, Premiership footballers may play in hostile arenas in Europe; but ultimately it was nothing like Ypres, Passchendaele or the Somme.

Tuesday 26 October 2010

Foreign News: Where-istan?

Foreign news is a strange thing, particularly for a British audience. It is surprising the amount of news stories that go untraced as they are not deemed newsworthy. If there is no relationship or historical context, then it is unlikely to see the light of day. If it does not feature a protagonist who doesn’t mirror our perceived stereotypes, then it isn’t even worth covering. If it involves a country we’ve never knew existed, then it’s more than likely we don’t even care.

We are all guilty at jumping to conclusions, particularly when events strike. The protests that have paralysed much of France only assert our previous conclusions about our Gallic neighbours and what about Chile? If we ignore the miners and the earthquake earlier this year, we tend to think of General Pinochet and his odious regime. To an extent, the media is not entirely to blame, there are plenty of other resources dedicated to different regions in the world but ultimately we tend to ignore them. A news organisation cannot necessarily win because the expense of running such a bureau often means that in certain places several correspondents are forced to cover an entire continent on a shoestring budget; foreign news is a delicacy to any newshound.

Another problem is justification; we get a bigger share of foreign news from America because (if you ignore the obvious cultural ties) more things happen there. Yet, even despite this coverage it is perfectly reasonable to accept that most Brits, nor Europeans really understand what the average American citizen thinks. This is perhaps where cultural values can blur and national identities become prevalent. The paper press do this, but even the television media.

There are forthcoming elections in Burma this November, yet we will only hear observations on the absence of pro-democracy campaigner Aung Sang Sui Chi, not the splits in her party or the ethnic tensions surrounding it. Last year in Sri Lanka, the British media focussed purely on the fate of the Tamil people, it entirely neglected the years of suffering inflicted on the Sinhalese population. Why do we have a fondness to follow the devious and megalomaniac regime of Robert Mugabe, yet we ignored the bloody conflict that killed millions in the DR Congo. There is a case of subjectivism and some stories do not warrant nor require the gaze as others but it does put a question on news values as a whole. Unfortunately, humanitarian stories, particularly natural disasters, receive wider coverage and dedication than stories that have been progressing for years. We were all aware of the Haiti Earthquake, yet there is little to show on famine in the Central African Republic or even in Palestine? Yet, starving Africans or trouble in the Middle East is hardly anything new. They are stories that lack hope or renew interest from a day-to-day basis, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.

The internet and global communications have completely changed boundaries and increased the capacity to react to events in an age of 24 hour news. Yet, editorial judgement, public perceptions and short term analysis has created an environment where news operates to fill time space and any closer scrutiny serves to reiterate historical stereotypes and recover little further. Perhaps it’s a post-colonial come down or just the fact we’ve grown accustomed to being a top dog.

Thursday 21 October 2010

Greedy footballers: Wayne Rooney

One thing about being a football fan is the question of why do we put ourselves through it all? The pain and heartbreak of defeat, the uncertainty and speculation over the club and squad; it all puts it into perspective. Why don’t people choose hobbies that provide the relief and excitement without lamentation and soreness. The obvious answer that all football fans can give is besides the nadirs of following a club, nothing can replicate the euphoria of a victory or glory; it is the same as religious evangelism and creates a passion that is intangible to analyse.

Sport at an anthropological level is full of heroes and villains. The soap opera and pantomime stories that follow the professional game highlight the cult and age we live in. It is unfortunate that the denigration and naivety to idolise players has distorted their real characters and personalities. Sportsmen and women are rarely the amateur peoples’ champion that we all love; they are driven, single-minded athletes. They lead a live that is furious and demanding, yet they lead it for glory and to etch their name into history. To describe a sportsman or woman as selfish is not to defame their moral character but their persistence to perform and win. The professionalisation of sport created an industry that pushes athletes to new levels and creates spectacles we can only admire. It also creates a vanity and a spectrum for fame and wealth. Nobody should deny them the opportunity to earn, nor penalise their success; it just happens that most of the time it is not just their own lives’ they are changing.

The saga that has become Wayne Rooney’s future enhances the selfishness of the modern day player. The pronouncements from the Rooney camp are unequivocal in his desire to leave, but do not detract from the ambiguity of previous comments. Rooney left his first love, Everton Football Club, to join Alex Ferguson and Manchester United at the age of 18, so we should not be surprised. ‘The boy’ is ambitious and has already won a great deal for the club, but his ‘desire’ is being used to masquerade his greed. Rooney does not see himself as a Bryan Robson, playing at a club for a decade among inferior players, he feels he deserves he should be at the top club being paid top brass. His overtures to an extent have some truth and the Glazer tenure has made United’s future less secure financially and competitively, yet his arguments are as thin as his loyalty. Rooney is a financial mercenary like John Terry or Joleon Lescott, and the kissing of the club badge is about affectionate as treading in shit.

Superstars perform on the pitch and off the pitch to their club’s commercial arm, to an extent it can be deemed an insult to the intelligence of fans but shows their naivety to believe in this facade. Rooney probably has respect for his club's supporters but we have seen his spite when representing England. If and when he moves, fans will be bitterly disappointed but they will soon appoint a new poster boy. Rooney certainly did enough, particularly last season, to show how good a footballer he is but it goes to show it inevitably doesn’t matter what shirt you’re wearing, as long you’re being handsomely rewarded for it.

Wednesday 13 October 2010

The Cossacks: To Russia with love?

There is something warm about watching the reaction of soldiers returning from war. The lucid smiles and cries of happiness when families reunite after months of absence and separation. It is not cold turkey, besides the post, there is the internet to keep them updated with news from back home. It was not the same for the men of World War Two. The policy of enlistment meant that men could be called away for years and often leave was something of a dream, especially at the front. Those men interned in Prisoner of War (PoW) camps fared worse, despite the depictions of Hollywood, successful escapes rarely occurred and incarceration for some men lasted the whole duration of the war. The only lifeline was from mail back home to keep their morale high and mind occupied.

Towards the end of the war, when the future of the world was being decided, the Allies signed agreements that all liberated soldiers of PoW camps would be returned to their native armies and homeward bound. This  was a relief for men longing for ‘Blighty’ as they were returning to a Britain forged with the new welfare state. The Soviets believed they would return to the Mother Russia as heroes and be repaid after much bloodshed. How they were wrong.

Around two million men and women were sent back to Russia by the British and Americans. They were coaxed with propaganda like ‘The Motherland has forgiven you! The Motherland calls you!’ Many had fought to the brink and seen their comrades die surrounding them. Many had been forced to work under German supervision (The Germans of course saw the Bolsheviks/Slavs as a sub-race). However, Stalin saw this as treachery, surrendering or corroborating with the sworn enemy as a crime. To many, these Russians had been forsaken three times: being ill-equipped to fight initially, receiving no support once captured and then finally the contempt of arriving home and accused of being a traitor. Much is depicted of German soldiers being sent to the notorious Gulags, but many Russians faced a death sentence in the Siberian tundra.

As one prisoner put it:

“For not wanting to die from a German bullet, the prisoner had to die from a Soviet bullet for having been a prisoner of war! Some get theirs from the enemy; we get ours from our own! ... In general, this war revealed to us that the worse thing to be was to be a Russian.”

One aspect that is lamentable from a British aspect was the fate of the Cossacks. They had actively fought against Stalin and supported the Nazis throughout the war. Towards the end of the conflict, Cossack units surrendered to the British hoping for leniency, but this was not to happen. As part of the Allied agreement, the British sent back around 23,000 Cossack men, women and children to a bleak and hopeless future. Upon learning their fate many Cossack soldiers committed suicide and further resistance was restrained by force. The inevitable doom had arisen.

Russia’s legacy of World War 2 paints the brave mass of men and women, who fought and snared the beast of Nazism. It was bloody and probably the most nihilistic war we have ever seen. Figures estimate that 23 to 27 million Soviets died in their attempt to liberate the Motherland. The famous matchsticks that divided the continent for another 40 years, shackled another generation and killed the hope and efforts of the many millions who had fought for liberation.

Saturday 9 October 2010

Climbing the Eiger - Wall of Death

When people define what they have done in their lives, what accounts as impressive or a real achievement? Raising a successful family and being an active member of the community? How about being wealthy and making an impact in business? In an era of autobiography overload, what separates people from being interesting to having led interesting lives? No one gets to write their own epitaph but what makes people more memorable than others? The most tangible achievements are those painted across history, through books and the media: the breaking of the four-minute mile, the Apollo landings, the explosion of the Atomic bomb. All have harnessed the pursuit for man to progress and conquer milestones. Perhaps it is the British trait to succeed and place our flag on the unknown and the most remote. It is nearly sixty years since Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay first reached the summit of Everest, the Earth’s tallest peak, but is it the most impressive mountaineering feat? Why is it that the sullen, deadly cliff of the Northern face of the Eiger represents a bigger, more threatening challenge to mountaineers?

Not that I am any mountain expert, but the sheer scale and challenge of the North face is visible from the picture below. Sitting in the North-Western Alps of Switzerland, it nestles in perpetual darkness and often in the smoky mist of the Alpine bleakness. Concave cliffs that scale over 3000 metres that have lead to the deaths of dozens of climbers. An interesting aspect of the ascent is that if the clouds disperse then it can be viewed from the small skiing community below. When the competition to find a route up to the top became frantic, around the 1930s, it took a decade before a safe climb was finally documented. Yet, it still claimed the lives of many more men looking for another route to the top. Why would people push themselves to the edge of death?



The main challengers were from Europe and there may have been a political aspect to see who came first but there perhaps there is something more abstract to it. There is a preoccupation for men to challenge and conquer, particularly if the odds are set against them. There is a real quixotic sense to the story. It is not about the kudos of being first; it is the romance and adventure. For some of these men, there is a glory in succeeding and even dying. It is similar to Scott’s polar expedition in 1912, even though their return proved fatal. The poetic and almost evangelical hope and then decline in Scott’s diary will preserve the lives of him and his men forever.

Nowadays, even younger people are climbing Everest and sailing around the world. In 2009, Swiss climber Ueli Steck scaled the Northern face of the Eiger in just two hours and twenty-one minutes. He was assisted by greater technology from weather forecasting to climbing equipment, not to mention the knowledge of previous ascents. It is very impressive and laudable but does it besmirch those who died in their attempts? I think some of the raw beauty and danger can be lost when attempts are run at speed but it certainly does not deflect on how formidable it is. Even climbers today require the physical and mental toughness to make it to the top. The souls of those who fell to their deaths do not dissipate at increasing successes; modern technology does not create better climbers it is part of the human journey to move to the next challenge. The Eiger will still haunt those lingering below on their way up.

Tuesday 5 October 2010

The Victoria Cross: These are our heroes.

If one is to attend a job interview it seems quite likely that you may be asked who is your hero? Most people tend to stick to the obvious examples: Winston Churchill, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. We hold all these men with great reverence and most people would agree with their inclusion. Why though do we ever feel a need to apotheosise ‘great’ men and women and what is the opinion of those labelled or often burdened with the tag. I ask this question because the word hero has been used several times recently. David Cameron described his late disabled father as a ‘huge hero figure’ and last week the MoD released the names of the men and women awarded medals for recent military contributions in Afghanistan.

People have always looked for leaders and inspiration in society, particularly in difficult times. Thomas Carlyle's now obsolete ‘Great Man Theory’ was a practical belief that certain individuals dictated the course of history and changed the interactions of society forever. Yet often it is not these great men (and women) that we look up to. It is the ones that teach and motivate us. They are our guardians in time of need and solace. They are the ones that confounded the odds and changed history for the better.


If one is to attend a job interview it seems quite likely that you may be asked who is your hero? Most people tend to stick to the obvious examples: Winston Churchill, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. We hold all these men with great reverence and most people would agree with their inclusion. Why though do we ever feel a need to apotheosise ‘great’ men and women and what is the opinion of those labelled or often burdened with the tag. I ask this question because the word hero has been used several times recently. David Cameron described his late disabled father as a ‘huge hero figure’ and last week the MoD released the names of the men and women awarded medals for recent military contributions in Afghanistan.


Why though do people who are called heroes feel they need to disprove it? It is simply that these people were never looking for such titles or admiration. Their lives were never dictated for glory or decoration. The most venerated members of the British Army are those who have received the Victoria Cross, simply engraved with the words of ‘For Valour’, it is only awarded to those who perform the most brave of acts in the face of the enemy. Many say that when performing such acts, these soldiers face a 90% chance of dying; often with no regard for their own lives. Yet listening to their testimonies it is apparent that their ‘fame’ provides an unnecessary guilt. The medal becomes a chain around their own neck and hides the fate of their comrades. Perhaps it is just that without a medal you will remember all of them and not those who survived.

I remember watching the closing scenes of Clint Eastwood’s 2006 film Flags of Our Fathers and listening to the quote given by the veteran’s son. It seems very appropriate and is moving all the same:

I finally came to the conclusion that he maybe he was right. Maybe there's no such thing as heroes. Maybe there are just people like my Dad. I finally came to understand why they were so uncomfortable being called heroes. Heroes are something we create, something we need. It's a way for us to understand what's almost incomprehensible, how people could sacrifice so much for us, but for my dad and these men, the risks they took, the wounds they suffered, they did that for their buddies. They may have fought for their country but they died for their friends. For the man in front, for the man beside him, and if we wish to truly honour these men we should remember them the way they really were, the way my dad remembered them.”

Heroes are a palpable way for us to realise our dreams. They are the inspiration in our somewhat prosaic lives. They score the goal that we dream to score. They challenge the injustices with desire and pugnacity that we could only hope for. They represent our aspirations and hold our safety net at the same time. They provide an answer to the meaning of our lives and a platform to progress. As corny as it may sound we all need our hero at some time in our lives.

Thursday 30 September 2010

The Tea Party: A storm brewing?

Almost two years since President Barack Obama entered the White House, a new grip of political fever is sweeping across the States. The Tea Party are a political force, backed by Sarah Palin, with ambitions to reinvigorate and change the face of modern American politics. They want to see an end to big government and a return to the founding principles of the constitution. With the November mid-terms approaching, what is this movement? Is it a revolution or something purely futile? Will this transform the way Americans think about politicians? Is it a force for good?

The movement became prominent after President Obama’s bail-out bill that threw billions of dollars at troubled financial institutions and created the Troubled Asset Relief Protection scheme (TARP), in essence government intervention into ‘failing’ industries. This for many American conservatives was a step too far; this was the encroachment of big-government and the antinomy of federal autonomy. One surprising feature of this movement has been the proportion of women. Much of this has been put down to the amount of unemployed female population forced to manage the accounts of households. Why they ask do they have to tighten their belts, when the government is adding to the fiscal debt each day?

However, the party appears to be far from a group of fiscal conservatives concerned about the national balance sheet. It is an amorphous group of disillusioned citizens at society, immigration, politics and the essence of America. The recent march on Washington saw a call to return to fundamentals and the upholding of the constitution. Is this romanticism and the amelioration of an earlier era, a desire to return to ideals or does it possess racist undertones? The movement is full of poor, white families who feel ostracised from an America they once knew. The changing face of America and the failure to tackle immigration has only exacerbated the problem. It seems far from coincidental though that the election of a black President could push this into the mainstream.

I don’t think this is all aimed at Obama; this is an objection to all politicians and the way both main parties play ball. The fact that the Tea Party are placing candidates mainly in fringe Republican seats does not necessarily mean it is win-win for the Democrats, many people are disaffected with the change they thought this new era of politics would potentially bring. The biggest mistake would be for the Republicans to cater for this fringe. It is probably true to say that two years ago, these members could have been called extremists, though it was a collapse in the politics of centre that brought Hitler to power right?

I don’t know what everyday Americans think or whether Sarah Palin could possibly be made of substance (probably not). This is a challenge to the norm and certainly come mid-November politicians will sit a little uneasy when the polls are announced.

Monday 20 September 2010

I'm with the brand.

Sport is a funny old game and the traditional industries and loyalties that tie supporters to their local team have become blurred. It is unimaginable that in the 1960s and 1970s boys from Liverpool could ever grow up cheering on Man Utd or Chelsea. What then has changed socially or culturally that makes these conversions acceptable?

We must acknowledge that people have always had second teams, or certainly been fond of another. Many Londoners see Leyton Orient as their second side and people on Merseyside will see how Tranmere Rovers have done on a Saturday evening. In the footballing book, Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby, the Arsenal fanatic, supported Cambridge United at University as well as his beloved Gunners. Many people have affection for bigger teams like Liverpool and Manchester United because of past dynasties like Bill Shankly and Sir Matt Busby. A new generation has been raised up watching Sir Alex Ferguson’s sides in European competitions. Is there a reason though why children wear Chelsea shirts in Northern England?

Social mobility is a cause; people nowadays are far more likely to move away from the place they were born than they were say, 50 years ago. So the roots of both parents and children are far less embedded in the soul of that person. The other reason that seems far more pernicious and irrevocable is the soul of the club. Clubs originally evolved as a leisure activity from Victorian industry e.g. Arsenal was formed by workers from a munitions factory in Woolwich. The increased commercialisation of football clubs has developed them into companies. Some of the current chief executives of Premier League have a background in marketing or managing FTSE 100 corporations. The success of clubs has exponentially become a model of global imperialism. Money spinning tours and selling merchandise is the most effective way to maintain a healthy income stream and increase in global following. You could argue that the omnipotence of the Premier League and the revolution in television coverage means that clubs are no longer entrenched in the heart of certain regions. It is accepted, possibly for the better (?) that watching your local Premier League side you aren’t guaranteed to see any local boys or names on the back of the match programme. According to a statistic 99% of Man United fans have never been to Old Trafford, it’s probable that 98% of them don’t live in Manchester, or England either.

Amateurism died a long time ago, as did the Corinthian spirit. Can we say that clubs have sold out? Possibly, certainly their priorities have changed. Winning the Champions’ League is much more important than the FA Cup. Club emblems have dropped their traditional Latin mottoes for more friendly and modern logos. Owners aren’t local entrepreneurs, they are wealthy foreign businessmen. Football involves nostalgia and talking of golden eras, it is just that we are in an age where romance and glamour-killings happen less frequently.

Fathers will always take their sons to watch the match and people will always support their local sides. But the brand might take them elsewhere, we might even see Premier League games abroad...

Sunday 19 September 2010

A black boy got shot.

I heard an interesting interview this week that included England’s football captain Rio Ferdinand. However, it had nothing to do with football or his role in tackling racism. Last week, Rio MacFarlane, an 18-year old black teenager was murdered on the streets of Peckham. Rio was gunned down after a case of mistaken identity. Rio was not part of a gang, nor had he ever wanted to be. He was a promising young footballer who was studying sports science at college. Ferdinand, who grew up in Peckham and is a family friend, was doing his bit to ask for witnesses to come forward and find the culprit of this horrible act.

We need to remember that gun and knife crime is not defined as a crime linked to black people. We should understand though that carrying such weapons is becoming more common in such neighbourhoods and the assassins are becoming younger and younger. The thing that struck me, when I listened, was the flood of texts from the black community about the notion of being a grass. As you may know, I am not black, nor do I have any contact to these neighbourhoods; but I found some of the responses astonishing. The lack of respect and acceptance for the Police appears hollow. There is no reason to believe that impunity and murders should be accepted as the norm. After the surge of killings in 2008, the media lens highlighted the glamour and pervasive nature of gang culture. The language brazenly adopts a military intonation, but they aren’t fallen soldiers – they are sons, brothers, cousins and friends.

Hopefully Rio’s legacy will be lasting, not just another black boy who was shot.

Wednesday 15 September 2010

Bomber Command: Flying without fear.

Admiration and courage is what defined the men that flew in the Battle of Britain. ‘The Few' who seventy years ago fought off the German Luftwaffe and prevented a land invasion are still held in high esteem as part of the national identity and within popular culture. The depiction of Hurricane and Spitfires planes flying across the skies of southern Britain and the young, charismatic pilots who gave their lives speaks volumes of the magnanimity and congenial spirit of this special group. We correctly lionise the efforts of those young fighter pilots; yet so much recognition is neglected to those of Bomber Command. The toils and struggles of those in Lancaster bombers appear convoluted and depicted in fewer stories. The men of Bomber Command had the unenviable task of hitting German cities and military targets. The pilots, navigators, gunners became known as the ‘Men of Air’, not because of their long and perilous taxis, but because of the likelihood of dying in flight.

‘When we first arrived on 101 Sqn the intelligence officer told us: “You’re now on an operational squadron, your expectation of life is six weeks. Go back to your huts and make out your wills.” It was simply accepted that two out of three of us would be killed.’ Sgt Dennis Goodliffe.

The heroics in the Summer of 1940 lasted simply for several months, but the sorties of bombers hitting enemy targets continued throughout the war. The memorable story is of ‘The Dambusters’, hailed as a triumph by the ingenious Barnes Wallace and the daring Guy Gibson, yet much is neglected to the great loss of life in carrying out the raid. The bombing raids of the Second World War became notoriously horrific. The policy of ‘strategic bombing’ was in effect the targeting of major cities and civilians as well as war industries. The destruction in places like Rotterdam and Coventry by the Luftwaffe, and then Hamburg and Dresden by the Allies epitomise the death and colour of war. Air Chief Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris told Churchill that to destroy Hitler it may cost between 400-500 Lancasters. The consequences of WW1 ultimately meant that this time that Nazi Germany would be brought to its knees.

In total, Bomber Command lost 55,000 men during the war and a further 10,000 were taken prisoner. These men, at an average of 22, brought needed retribution within the borders of Germany, and hope to those incarcerated within it. Their bodies’ were scattered across Europe and yet they have no memorial or lasting tribute. In rural Holland, I remember seeing on the grave of a British Airman:

‘A good life often too short, but a good name endureth forever.’

There was ‘The Few’ but of course there were many more.

Thursday 9 September 2010

Balls to that: The other Ed.

It appears now that the leader of the Labour party will be a Miliband, David or Ed that is. It does also appear that since the general election and the departure of Gordon Brown, this story has been ongoing for an age. Do we ultimately know where they will want to take the Labour party? Will they move the party in a particular direction? Will they challenge the Coalition Government? It is lamentable from a news perspective that we have learnt nothing new about the two. We know that Ed wrote the recent Labour manifesto, David was the head of policy under Tony Blair and that their father was a Russo-Belgian Communist Jew who moved to Britain to escape persecution. That appears to be all. The candidate receiving the worst coverage is Ed Balls, not because his name is the same as Wayne Rooney’s profession; but because of his so-called insidious alliance with Gordon Brown throughout his time in the New Labour government.

Balls too is on the campaign trail and with his time and experience in the Treasury, he has made some important reflections on the Coalition’s attempts on the recovery. Balls is correct to question the severity in cuts and the possibility of a double-dip recession, as seen in Japan in the mid-nineties. He has also attacked the Education Secretary Michael Gove on his mishandling of the schools rebuilding scheme and his push to increase the number of academies and start-up schools (there is a bit of history between these two). The problem for Balls, that doesn’t seem to affect the Milibands, is that he is seen by voters as part of the old wallpaper within New Labour. He was Brown’s special advisor within the Treasury and implicated as part of the epoch of financial meltdown. Despite his obvious intelligence and perspective on economics, he doesn’t have the same amicability of Vince Cable or Ken Clarke that the public warm too. Despite making some salient points politically, he is tarred in the media as part of the New Labour coterie of using spin-based politics. On camera he seems quite friendly, yet spiteful from all accounts in the Westminster Village.

Inevitably, if the election goes to plan then he may become the next Shadow Chancellor and play an important part in recovering Labour’s record on the economy. However for Balls despite his penance, it seems distant for him to win anyone’s trust or support anytime soon.

Hackgate: Give me a story now!

The political story dominating the media this week is the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World (NOTW). The story first came out several months ago but has re-emerged after the republication in The New York Times. The main protagonist in this story is the former editor Andy Coulson, who now happens to be David Cameron's communication chief. However, also part of the unfolding drama includes the media mogul Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, owner of the NOTW.

The basic story is that several journalists at the newspaper hacked into the voicemails of allegedly hundreds of politicians, celebrities and public figures to find out stories about them. Mr Coulson, who left to eventually become Mr Cameron's press chief, denies any knowledge of such subordination at the time of his tenure. However, an investigation by The New York Times claims that many of the journalists, who worked at the paper, claim he was aware of the hacking and that he lied to officers investigating the claims. MPs are currently voting to see whether an inquiry should be held and figures put in front of a Commons Select Committee.

If you ignore the obvious breaches of privacy then what does this reflect? What if Coulson was lying? It probably does not affect Mr Cameron in anyway but it would probably cause some embarrassment for the PM into Coulson's original appointment. He was in charge when the Royal editor of the paper was jailed for breaching security procedures to get a staff member a job at Buckingham Palace, something he saw as rogue rather than inherent. People will also ask that if Coulson knew, then it was likely that others knew too: Rebekah Brooks (Head of BSkyB), James Murdoch (Chief Exec of News Corp) and then ultimately Rupert. This questions the whole validity of journalism and ethics of News Corporation as a whole and the potential damaging cover-up it undertook.

There is certainly a hidden interest from the New York Times because of Murdoch's acquistion of the Wall Street Journal and the combative tactics used against its rivals, but what about the wider public? I honestly don't think too many people are interested in the essence of the story. It is reported seriously by the BBC, Guardian, Channel 4, but not many more. The nature of celebrity culture and gossip driven scandal sells newspapers and magazines; not to mention gives everyone something to talk about at the water cooler. It may be that the NOTW are being implicated but if the story evolves it may become likely that other newspapers were doing the same thing. Expect this story to evolve.

Monday 6 September 2010

The Mosque in Manhattan

There are two events within my generation that everyone is aware of where they were at the time. The death of Diana Princess of Wales and the devastation in New York on September 11th 2001. The 9/11 attacks created  fear, loathing and also questions of why? America perceived itself as the global good guy, why would someone want to attack the heart of something so benevolent and fruitful?

Approaching the ninth anniversary of the attacks and the occasion seems to have generated another portrait of America within itself and not particularly flattering. Terry Jones, (not of Monty Python fame) an evangelical preacher from Florida, has decided that on September 11th he will burn a copy of the Koran in his front garden. Mr Jones, who leads a congregation of around 50, will create a bonfire burning t-shirts with the slogan ‘Islam is the Devil’. Rightly, it has been condemned by senior figures including General David Petraeus; but ultimately it highlights America’s insularity and fringes. America has its own history of burning crosses, most notably the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan’s motives were through the literal interpretation of Genesis and that black people were born with the mark of Cain. It is not black and white; but it seems so easy to compare these literal interpretations to that of say, Islamic fundamentalism.

If the burnings go ahead, then there will be a backlash and we will see comparisons to the cartoon drawings of the prophet Mohammed. It could also create casualties in current American war zones or add further tinder to an already huge fire. America has a tough relationship with the Muslim world and the Islamic religion, look at the hype around a proposed Islamic centre near Ground Zero. The difference with this building is that it is not looking for publicity and its purpose seems to be creating greater harmony. America’s image was tarnished in the aftermath of 9/11 and its belligerent wars did little to win it further friends abroad. The one thing that I hope people remember was that in the following weeks after 9/11 was the surge on Amazon in American’s buying copies of the Koran to try and understand what type of people could have caused the attacks. Unfortunately, it appears the unextinguished fires of hate appear prevalent of both sides of the argument and these hot heads will grab the headlines.

Thursday 2 September 2010

Family Annihilation

Listening to the news this afternoon, I was confronted by a word that I have never heard before and provokes an eerie sense of curiosity: ‘Family Annihilation’. There is no dichotomy from case to case, but the vast majority seem to be split down the middle. Let me provide you with the first kind, there are occasions when angry or jealous husbands feel that the best way to punish a cheating or estranged wife/partner is to murder the children. As I quote a psychologist:

“No thought for the children as humans is given whatsoever — they are mere instrumentalities in a bigger scheme to extract revenge.”

These horrendous actions, with many examples, appear to have the marks of a psychopath. The husband’s hate and victimhood causes him to go beyond what any loving father would think of doing and murder his own, all to punish their partner. A horrendous tragedy to any community.

The other side is perhaps more complex. The scenario when a husband kills his whole family to protect themselves. There are several stories in recent years to highlight such cases. Firstly, Chris Foster, a wealthy self-made millionaire who shot his wife and daughter, before killing himself and setting fire to his house. Also today, a coroner published the results for the death of 48 year-old Hugh Mc Fall, who killed his wife and daughter before taking his own life. Both these high-profile cases involved men, who were in financial trouble yet loving husbands and fathers. Their crimes were not through anger or revenge; but to prevent their families from being stigmatised by their shame, to protect them from their own suffering. Something they weren’t willing to accept.

These deaths aren’t romantic and ultimately there are many innocent victims. We just have to think, particularly in the second cases, can we call these men mad or evil? If they had robbed banks instead would we have accepted it? Or was their crime that they loved too much? Trauma and desperation are things right-thinking people cannot fathom, we can only conclude that desperate men can do desperate things.

Wednesday 1 September 2010

Tony Blair: Loathed but listened to

The circus that follows Tony Blair graces us yet again with the release of his memoirs. Blair is no longer a central figure in public life but whenever he makes an appearance, the media gaze immediately pours its coverage and on to his latest outing. As the former Labour spin doctor Lance Price said this morning, Blair will have Iraq etched on his grave. Yet the country, despite its condemnation over the Iraq War, seems to have a healthy respect for Blair’s opinion on a range of topics like British politics and Middle Eastern diplomacy. It seems like a pure antinomy to want to hear from a man who once told us obscene lies.

It is hard to imagine for some people but Blair is still held in high esteem in America and seen as global leader in the pursuit for World Peace. Both Kosovo and Sierra Leone still revere the man who led the world for calls on 'liberal intervention' to avoid genocide. Apparently after the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the name Tony became extremely popular within a mainly Muslim country.

We should always remember that Blair won the biggest landslide in British General Electoral history and although he divided opinion with his policies, he changed the political landscape across the Union, continent and world. History can often have a benign view on yesterday's leaders, we seem to become more open to listening to fallen rogues: think Richard Nixon, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Aitken even Peter Mandelson. Blair will never be forgiven for his previous decisions but we will always acknowledge his talent to talk, to woo and create opinion.

Sunday 29 August 2010

Football: Money = Success? I debt it?

Listening to a debate this morning about football, what is it that ultimately motivates owners of football clubs to pump money into clubs? The argument has arisen after the recent departure of Martin O’Neill from Aston Villa and the supposed demands he made to owner Randy Lerner. Previously, Villa were an inconsistent mid-ranked team, but under O’Neill’s management with Lerner’s investment, they have become one of a handful of clubs pushing for a place in the Champions League. The issue for Villa and for many teams in this region is that by consistently finish in third or fourth spot, it requires the necessary investment: 50 million to 100 million pounds, something Lerner, we understand, was not willing to do.

What is an owner to do because the financial model would not make sense in any other business sector that they have worked in. Football teams nowadays are judged by silverware and their competitiveness to sign 'top' talent. In business, research and probing investment is fastidiously raked over to ensure a healthy return on investment over a long term plan, in football spending £25 million on a striker may not lead to instant success. Lerner is generous with his wealth and O’Neill spent millions on a large squad with a large wage bill, so why can’t he be happy with what he has? Let’s us not forget the competitors around them, Manchester City have an Arab billionaire, Tottenham will line their pockets in the Champions League this year and then we can’t forget the likes of Liverpool and Everton who always need to be watched. It’s a marketplace like no other.

Then there are the shareholders: the fans. Traditionally, a good cup-run and a higher than expected league finish would suffice.However, now there is an increasing desire to attract the top stars and their wages, this continuous investment can literally produce no palpable returns. The problem with many British clubs is that recruitment is purely done through the manager. The European model of ‘Directors of Football’, who oversee the talent search, are seen as undermining and meddling. It does sound like an alpha-male syndrome; but when the tenure of football manager on average is just over the year, it is daft to spend so much on players and staff when inevitably it tends to go wrong. There are so many precedents from recent years that show that demanding fans or managers does not necessarily lead to long term glory: Leeds and Portsmouth spring to mind.

No one would question the interests of Lerner and to add to that Bill Kenwright, but the increasing percentage of ‘owners’ (We never called them that 10 years ago) and the business of football makes that next step up impossible to call. I personally argue that green and gold protests at Old Trafford are very romantic; but would Man United fans’ accept the prospects of barren years and austerity? Quick answer yes, but when they think about it, probably no. Today, success is built on a mountain of debt or sugar daddy wealth.

The one hope we have is that football is potentially becoming more accountable, particularly to its fans and society. UEFA’s decision to tighten fiscal imprudence is a necessary step to quell the unharnessed spending of current times (as long as it is implemented sensibly). Success is the desire of all football clubs, yet amassing billions of pounds of debt is fruitless and reckless. How all owners would love a manager like Arsene Wenger. Wenger invented the term ‘financial doping’, he knows that short term interests serve no purpose in running a football club and though many draw to Arsenal’s naked trophy cabinet over the past few seasons, Arsenal fans know from other supporters and from their own experience that despite football being a billionaires’ playground, success is something to be built on, spraying cash at it doesn’t mean anything.

Monday 23 August 2010

Mikel Arteta - no senor.

England has historically been a melting pot for immigrants from around the world and many have contributed positively to the way we live and across all the counties. Indian doctors and African nurses in the NHS, Polish plumbers and Australian bar workers. Often the avenue that has brought cultures together has been through sport and it is obvious to see through diaspora of colours and names in the English national team. It is a tribute to their hard work and love for their new nation.

I remember listening to the English Cricket team reaching an all-time nadir, losing a home test-series against New Zealand in 1999. The answer seemed controversial at the time but the decision was to bring in a foreign coach, Duncan Fletcher from Zimbabwe. Results and consistency finally brought home the pinnacle of test glory, an Ashes victory after an eternity of defeats against the Aussies. England have built on these imports, another Zimbabwean, Andy Flower is the latest head coach along with some naturalised South Africans players and some Australian and Pakistani coaches. This is becoming standard form across the cricketing world, even the world HQ is now based in Dubai. Look at the likes of Rugby League, Super League is dotted with Australian coaches and in Athletics Team GB is headed up by a Dutchman. English sport is truly globalised.

The story that deflected a lot of attention was the potential recruitment of Mikel Arteta to the English football team, perhaps a step too far? Arteta, a Spaniard, who has played football in Britain for seven years has recently attained British citizenship and has yet to gain a cap in the Spanish national team. I personally agreed with the recruitment of a foreign coach and think the national side has improved from the coaching methods and knowledge from these foreigners. Is this potential call-up a reflection of Britain as a society or a desperate call after a miserable summer? He wouldn’t be the first player to change nationalities in footballing terms, think Deco, Podolski, Eduardo. Also the fact we have had two foreign coaches appears to make the so-called sacrosanct Three Lions appear futile. I like Arteta and I think he would be a good player but I just don’t think it is right for the England team. The other sports I named earlier are embedded with the moral codes of Empire, the subsequent legacy and competition of these games seems natural as they are only played by a small group of countries, technical coaches are therefore a sparse commodity. But then, you could argue that football is the ultimate global game, where globalisation has changed how we watch and play the sport, is this not the next obvious step? By all means yes, but it seems ignore all the inherent problems within our game at the highest and the lowest level, Arteta would be a short term solution for a long term problem. It wouldn’t surprise me if something like this happened in the future but now is not the time to be doing it.

Sunday 22 August 2010

Pakistan and the untruths.

It’s become almost acceptable to criticise Pakistan in any given context. The cricket team beat England yesterday in the test match, but there is always an underlying thought that some of the players may be taking bribes or taking performing enhancing drugs. How about British Pakistanis? They hate the indigenous British and promote a culture of radical Islam. There is no smoke without fire and some of these stories contain some truth, but issues become regurgitated every time Pakistan appears in the news.

The seasonal monsoons have devastated vast swathes of the Northern Pakistan and have continued to destroy the lives of up to 20 million people, but what line has the media taken in reporting this story? It is standard. In comparison to the devastating 2004 Asian Tsunami or the Haitian earthquake this year, donors are reluctant to part with their cash to help a huge number of helpless people, They are all living in poverty with no food for them or their children. Some fear corruption i.e. the Government’s back pocket (only 2% of the country’s budget is spent on education).

The media have led with stories of militant groups giving aid and the pictures show doctors with long beards helping the sick. The fact aid may not be coming through ordinary avenues does not mean that they will turn to the Taliban. As the excellent journalist Mohammed Hanif points out, the man filmed swimming across the river with a chicken tied to his head was not doing it so he could partake in a bloody fight in a country he knows nothing of, he was swimming across to save his chicken. These families only export food from the land they have farmed for centuries and nothing else. We may correctly assume in most circumstances the worse of the nation’s government and military but these innocent men, women and children only care for their next meal, not the Taliban.

Friday 20 August 2010

Iraq off our backs.

History came and went yesterday as US combat troops left Iraq seven years after they embarked on removing Saddam Hussein. After losing over 3000 men and women, many questions will be asked whether America, military, economically and psychologically has the appetite for intervening or fighting in foreign fields. The departure is part of a wider planned exit strategy to reduce America's footprint in the world, particularly the Middle East, and though admittedly hurried, Iraq has improved over the past few years from the democratic process seeing a decline in militia violence and economic boosts from the oil industry. Despite America's full withdrawal at the end of 2011, Iraq is still a violent place, where simmering religious and ethnic tensions could potentially destabilise future political progress. It is still too early from an American military perspective to conclude whether combat operations were successful or not but America and Barack Obama will need to continue the fight in Afghanistan.

The problem with exit strategies as General David Petraeus recently said is that they should be settled on military grounds, not by political decisions. NATO forces have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, yet strategists believe the country's future can only be resolved with the Taliban around the negotiating table; yet to what extent is this desirable? The historical precedents of Somalia, Sudan and Yemen must not lie comfortably with historians. Surely all that time invested would appear futile if Afghanistan descended into the midst of its recent history. What about all the soldiers who have died for a better place for young Afghanis, it would appear all in vain for a quick fix exit. Last week, nine aid workers (including several women) were murdered by the Taliban, as a new UN report illustrated that violence against woman and children has increased by 30 per cent; three quarters of these acts have been committed by the Taliban.

Political impetus seems to take precedence over these matters. Maintaining a fighting army costs billions of pounds and heavy casualties does not enhance the war's popularity. With an enemy that is increasingly using abhorrent tactics and a political situation that seems neither effective or evolving, a withdrawal seems hopeless when there is no plan in place which surely means Afghanistan will dot our futures' for some time to come.

Wednesday 18 August 2010

War in Poland and Czechoslaovakia: the legacy.

Consider a statistic from history. 1938 saw the annex of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, Britain and France left its Czech allies to the perils of Hitler and the SS.

In 1939, German tanks roll into the city of Danzig, Poland: France and Britain declare war on Germany.

World War Two death toll: Czechoslovakians: around 40 000. Polish around 5.7 million deaths.

Seems crazy on the balance of things.

Tuesday 17 August 2010

Andy Murray: Aulding it against him.

Andy Murray is Britain's best tennis player by a distance and one of our best prospects to win trophies in the future. The problem for Andy is that many English followers plain and simply don't like him. Despite him never overtly talking about Scotland, he is remembered for making a comment before the 2006 World Cup that he would be supporting "anyone other than England". It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, yet some newspapers labelled him anti-English. Others dislike his attitude and personality, something that also seems to be out of date. When the teenage Murray first played at Wimbledon, he was the opposite of Tim Henman, he appeared insolent and angry, compared to the measured and experienced Henman. Despite his improvement as a tennis player and maturity as a person, he is still pigeon-holed as a dour, awkward Scot; something he hasn't been now for 5 years.

Perhaps there is something else underlying the antipathy. Murray spent part of his childhood in a training camp in Barcelona and recently to train full time in Miami. From the a pithy teenager, he has become one of the fittest and strongest athletes on the tour. Murray doesn't conform to how we want our sportsmen and woman to be: he is reticent, he does not possess the traditional likeable character and nothing in his childhood endears us to his sporting spirit. Even the English have taken to his brother, Jamie, after his romantic coupling with Elena Jankovic (at Wimbledon of course).

If Murray wins a Grand Slam, an honour as elusive in British tennis it will be interesting to see whether he is finally accepted by the British public.

Sunday 15 August 2010

The FA: Coaches in the Crosshairs.

The soap opera within Soho Square continued this week with an hour long episode.  All eyes were on England and Fabio Capello, as they made their first appearance at Wembley since the disastrous World Cup campaign in South Africa. The game was not something to watch again and probably the result ( England 2-1 Hungary) represented a fair outcome, though it could have been different. The questions and headlines the next day were certainly not about the debutants and the questionable goal scored by Hungary, but what have we learnt since the World Cup and whether there is an answer to improve.

Many of England’s failed stars received a raucous of boos at the end of the game, Capello also confirmed that David Beckham will no longer be a part of competitive fixtures. It is probably the right decision that Beckham should not play, perhaps he shouldn’t have received any further caps after the 2006 World Cup, but the fact is that Capello completely misjudged the intense admiration for Beckham by England fans. Capello also seems uncertain on whether it is time to end the careers of other players who are now in their thirties. Experience counts for something, but it has never translated to success.

The game became a public relations exercise to reassure fans that the World Cup is now in the past and England can build for the next tournament with some new talented. Kieran Gibbs, Adam Johnson and Jack Wilshere possess the ability to become regulars in the future, but even Capello and his eventual successor are limited by what they can do in the future. It has been highlighted since the misery in Africa the abundance of youth coaches on the continent and the perpetual technical deficiencies at the lowest level of English football. England has 3000 coaches with an UEFA pro A licence, compared to the 30000 in Italy and 35000 in Germany. The difference between the two teams was highlighted in Bloemfontein.

Football's global popularity has made the talent pool so large that it has become impossible to shrink it and create talent academies similar to cycling and swimming. Despite the international talent dominating the Premier League, English players are still technically falling short against their continental rivals. Yet, the world loves the hard-tackling and fast-paced Premier League. English players have benefited by playing in the Champions League, but there are still far too few of them making an impact in Europe and for England.

Maybe David Beckham's biggest legacy could be his academies. At least he is doing something, I’m not quite sure what the FA are.

Thursday 12 August 2010

The Norwegian resistance of World War Two

It is interesting to read and hear how different nationalities coped during times of occupation and essentially how they dealt with it at the end. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the subsequent squabbling over South Ossetia has blazed a fever of patriotism in the small Caucus state. Compare that to the recent publications in France naming those who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War, some families are still burdened with belated guilt of what their families did in historical conflicts.

We need to identify that war is not black and white; there are a few heroes and villains. War forces ordinary people into impossible positions not of their making, forcing upon them choices or compromises they could never have anticipated. Generations in the future now venerate the work of resistance fighters in France and Holland but we cannot ultimately conceive an idea that if you weren’t part of the network you were on the other side. The German policy of ‘Schrecklichkeit’ which literally translates to ‘terror’ was a policy adopted in both WW1 and WW2 that was designed to inflict horrific repression on the civilian population so it would never resist. This is why we can never simply judge ‘sympathisers’ or people who told of where Jews lived because life in war goes day by day.

The silent resistance of the Norwegians is particularly notable in its stiff heroism and determination. Germany invaded Norway in 1940, despite its declaration of neutrality. There were acts of armed resistance, many people will have heard of the ‘Heroes of Telemark’ where trained Norwegian commandoes destroyed Hitler’s attempted to create an atomic bomb. Most Norwegians, aware of potential reprisals, resisted in an unorthodox, psychological way. They attached paperclips to their collars as an act of defiance; they crossed the road when a German approached, they only spoke Norwegian in public and would leave a bus if a German sat next to them. This approach eventually led German administrators forcing natives to stay in their seats.

War is callous and bloody, but it reflects well that countries with proud heritages like Norway acted with civilitly but with ultimate defiance.

Sunday 8 August 2010

By the time I get to Arizona... : USA and immigration

Dealing with illegal immigration has become a rallying-cry for right-wing political parties and the associated press. The plethora of headlines that appear in our newspapers and dominate during elections is all too frequent. In Britain, illegal immigrants conform not as asylum seekers fleeing war; but as lazy, defrauding, dirty and ungrateful scumbags who come to supple of the state and remain for an eternity. It is believed that there could be up to one million illegal immigrants in the UK.

In America, attempts to monitor and police immigration has become controversial over the past decade, particularly the border with Mexico. In recent weeks the state of Arizona has had a controversial new law struck down as 'unconstitutional' by law-makers. The proposal was that law-enforcing agencies would hereby be able to stop certain citizens if they suspected they were working illegally and ask them to provide legitimate paperwork or ID. The obvious analysis of the law would infer that any 'latino' could be stopped and asked to provide documents, purely because they aren't white.

One could compare this treatment to that of black people in America and even extend it to gypsies and Jews in Nazi Germany. From my perspective it does reflect an 'identity schizophrenia' and what America wants to be. The New World when it was discovered was an amalgamation of cultures, nationalities and religions, it defined itself through this new civilisation, and through history it has developed into the country that most of the world loves. (Think - "We hold these truths self-evident...") Spanish and Latino influence is not new to America, but it is the fast paced change and confliction to the established ideals and history that worries many. The people coming from Mexico and beyond aren't the criminals and gangsters as portrayed by the Tea Party, they are the same people who have come to work and adopt American values for generations. Immigration is a tough policy to formulate and eventually ratify, but Arizona's attempt appears to be a desperate roll to cling on to the status quo.

Gatlin

I have written about drugs in sport in previous blogs and wanted to reiterate something that has come to my attention this morning. Some of you will be aware of the return of Justin Gatlin to the 100 metres circuit this week, Gatlin who won the 2004 Olympic 100m gold and picked up bronze in the 200m. In 2006, Gatlin was banned from the sport for recording a high level of testosterone in his blood sample.

Gatlin was not stripped of any his medals from his previous achievements, but listening to an interview with him this morning he seemed completely unfazed and unaccountable to how he could have been banned from the sport and at what point he could have taken any drugs. (It is believed it was massaged into his thigh by a physio) Despite my dislike for cheats and the blame on others, it is meritable to point out that the likes of Dwain Chambers and Tim Montgomery have admitted their collusion and importantly their wrongs. Montgomery is currently serving time in prison under a four-year sentence and Chambers of course is racing again after several years out but will never compete in the Olympics. It will a disgrace to see someone like Gatlin racing in London at the 2012 games.

Tuesday 3 August 2010

Rwanda and Kenya: all Eyes On East.

The British press tends to have a pejorative, backward view of Africa and have artificially portrayed it as a wasteland since the winds of change brought decolonisation over 50 years ago. The view of South Africa before the World Cup was that it was a country overrun by AIDS orphans, poverty and inequality. Now there are facts and stories to prove these correct but it is examined through a form of myopia that seems unlikely to change for the foreseeable.

As the tourists and the media have left South Africa back to their own territory, it has been shaping up in East Africa, Africa’s potential Euro-zone style economic area. It does not warrant a ‘make or break’ style headline, but concurrent events across the region will have significance on the short and long term goals of the region.

This month will see elections in Rwanda as Paul Kagame continues to keep a tight grip on power. Rwanda will always be associated with the Genocide of 1994, where 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus were slaughtered in one hundred days. Yet, since the genocide, Rwanda has become an economic tiger since its rebirth; Kagame created a hub for economic investment, free from corruption with broadband speeds quicker than rural England. Diplomatically, Kagame has become a darling of the West, transforming the former Belgian colony into a member of the Commonwealth and attracting millions of dollars in aid money each year - including £50 million from the British Government. In fact, tensions led him to cut all diplomatic ties with the French Government and saw Rwanda, a  country with no British heritage, adopt English as its national language.

His strong-willed approach has brought him criticism from many internally and internationally. Former political allies have been shot, a national newspaper editor was murdered, opposition politicians have been gagged or placed in jail and Rwanda’s internet has been heavily censored, all have murders are suspected to be linked to his regime. Many have drawn similarities to his autocratic style to that of Mugabe and Israel’s Ben Gurion and that despite his prominence as a progressive leader, he is still a soldier at heart. Many argue that because of his armed interventions and Nyere-style reforms that he is a real African hero and deserves a final seven-year tenure will serve the Rwandan people well.

Across the border in Kenya, a proposed referendum will decide an overhaul of the country’s archaic and top-down political system. The shocking and violent election of 2007 nearly brought the West’s economic hub to the verge of civil war. Michela Wrong’s controversial book ‘It’s Our Turn to Eat’ uncovered the endemic corruption and revealed how tribal politics ravaged the country’s treasury and ultimately forced the UN and the West to prevent further bloodshed. The referendum hopes to address the constitutional powers of the executive, judiciary and enhance the role of the county system; not to mention the blurry seams of accountability. Not only does Kenya serve as a stable economic and political hub for the region but it is important for the rest of the world as many of Somalia’s pirates are being tried in Kenya’s courts.

Both of these events will help give purpose to further political enrichment and quell or enhance any fears in the West. Regional stability is essential in breaking down trade barriers between neighbouring Uganda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. It is next year before we will have to wait to for another contentious poll, not in Somalia but a potential South Sudan. We will have to wait to see what happens.

Thursday 29 July 2010

Dwain Chambers: Hollow Victory

I am one of those people who distrust those who question the value of sport or scorn any passing fixture in the sporting calendar. There is something illogical of people who give equivocal answers to their dislike and refuse to admire any form of athletic achievement. Doubting Thomas’s will certainly have to agree the power sport can possess in uniting countries, cultures and societies after years of civil unrest, war or hardship. Sport is an omnipresent good-will vehicle and forceful in breaking down barriers. After years of civil war in Cote D’Ivoire, it was the voice of their superstar striker Didier Drogba who called for an end to arms and a future of peace. How foreign diplomats would love that power. There are countless other examples.

Sport sells a dream and despite the commercialism and universal professionalism over the past half century, no one can deny the vivid aspirations of youngsters and that realisation when they fulfil those dreams; I bet everyone wishes they could hear their national anthem at an Olympic Games.

Watching the European Championships earlier tonight, there is one thing I cannot do and that is cheer on a cheat. The British sprinter Dwain Chambers is no doubt a real talent; however, whatever he does in the next few years his athletics' epitaph will be tarnished by his drug use. The competition in single-competitor sports is fierce and success is laden with financial and heroic plaudits, think of the Team GB’s cycling team in the last Olympics. In his autobiography Chambers claims that being placed outside the world’s top three would mean a substantial drop in pay from his paymaster’s Adidas. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of pressure at the top of sport and certainly in events where history is dictated in less than 10 seconds, a lifetime of practice can be extinguished or rewarded by the starter gun. Why then should someone morally corrupt their career and selfishly cheat those around him in the pursuit of success. Michael Johnson, the superb athlete and equally good pundit, explains that it took him four years to wipe less than a second of his 400m lap time and perfect his running style. That is an answer from an honest athlete, not someone looking for narcissistic admiration and hollow success. Chambers may be a reformed character and one of Britain’s finest athletes but ultimately his testimony of victimhood and desire to steal success is the nadir of sporting competition.

Saturday 24 July 2010

Foreign relations: placing Britain on the map.

Looking at Britain's place in the world, it is easy to think pie in the sky amidst International Relations theory and group our interests as an integral part of Europe, mixed with a 'Special Relationship' with America, not to mention the lasting historical and cultural ties with the Commonwealth. Britain is a nuclear power (albeit under the US's defensive wing), it is the seventh richest country in the world and its soft power is vast in terms of language, law and culture.

Since the Coalition Government came to power there is a renewed sense of soul-searching in terms of the British footprint across the world, through its Foreign Policy and Armed Forces. In times of economic hardship it is becomes apparent that a hefty defence budget is an easy target to slice, particularly when the public are more concerned about health, education and the economy. What can Britain effectively do when it is fighting an isolated and expensive war in Afghanistan and expect major cuts at the MOD?

Britain has Trident, a weapons system that is more appropriate to the Cold War than the modern mobile insurgency that we see today. Yet, if the country were to dispose of this costly yet 'necessary' weapon (figures range between 20 to 130 billion sterling) would we lose our top seat at the UN? Certainly, you could take Tony Blair and New Labour’s opinion that they are needed in an ‘uncertain world’ or the opposite gambit that the money could be spent on more effective defensive equipment like cruise missiles, helicopters or investment in special forces. Ballistic missiles and particularly submarinal warfare is only likely to take place against a superpower, but how likely is that? Would Britain’s voice still continue to be heard if it is willing to send thousands of its troops abroad, even if it doesn’t have tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact the coalition government has decided to ring fence Trident suggests that it is to maintain Britain’s continuing defensive force. This seems utterly stupid when it will have to mothball two Royal Navy aircraft carriers, retain and probably store needless amounts of Typhoon Jets that are too expensive to operate and maintain a combat force of 10 000 fighting a thankless war in Afghanistan. If Trident is necessary then have a debate in Parliament, the Government will win if its case is overriding of any moral or budgetary opposition. The politics of defence procurement is that military contracts and defence budgets can show real muscle flexing but ultimately they are expensive and can be out-dated once contracts are fulfilled. The British tanks in Iraq seem superfluous to today's combat missions.

Defensive reviews and cuts of all natures lead to the same thing: hurting people on the frontline, something very costly to all those men dug-in in Afghanistan. One telling statistic this week was that the U.S. spends £75 billion a year on military intelligence, that’s more than the entire UK defence budget. Spending reviews give no long term answers and only an decision by the government can ultimately decide Britain's future. The Foreign Secretary William Hague is fully aware of the great statesman of the nineteenth century and their policies, maybe it is time for some Disraeli-style pragmatism.
Share

Widgets