GLOBAL COMMENTARY June 2010
EASTSIDE
Page 21
Too much soccer fanaticism ■ By Moriah Schervone (‘11) Eastside Global Commentary Editor
A handful of Americans mistakenly believe the World Cup is equivalent to the Super Bowl here in America. Ironically so, considering that most countries refer to “soccer” as “football.” Starting June 11, the rest of world will be engaged in the tournament, while Americans and Canadians are preparing for summer. South Africa will become the first African country to host the quadrennial event that is even more popular than the Olympics. The people and government of South Africa are going to make the most of the time when (almost) all eyes from around the world are focused on them. They see the World Cup as a business venture rather than
an entertaining competition. One of the problems South Africans will face, much like those cities hosting the Olympics, will be filling up all of the large renovated stadiums once the World Cup is over. Another may be the recent outbreak of Taft Valley Fever, which has infected and killed some tourists coming from South Africa. Yet soccer fans will not stop when they need to see how their country fares in the World Cup. Although the matches are quite interesting, the fans are even more intriguing. Like Miley Cyrus, they can’t be tamed. The only time Americans take to the streets in sports is when a team wins a national title. Yet around the world, the case can be a bit different. For instance, Egypt was
defeated by Algeria in Sudan in 2009. The loss caused riots in the streets, and according to the BBC, one businessman even went so far as to say on television, “When you insult my dignity... I will beat you on the head.” Riot police were called to handle the violent protestors that demonstrated near the Algerian Embassy in Cairo. Egyptians became even more enraged when it was reported that Algerian fans attacked Egyptian fans leaving the stadium. For the past two years, Egypt has threatened to leave the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the world football governing body, because of various incidents involving Algeria. The Olympics are like a mild substitute for war.
Instead of having armies kill each other on the battlefield, the countries’ best athletes compete under the Olympic torch, and whoever wins, wins. Yet the World Cup is something completely different, like a severe substitute for war. The battles extend far beyond the time when the game has ended. With riots like those in Egypt, winning the World Cup has become more a political statement than just a trophy. FIFA needs to be able to take control and end the political tensions over soccer. FIFA has a presence around the world and should prevent countries from rioting because of a FIFA event, such as the World Cup. The people participating in the World Cup should be only as sport “enemies,” not political ones.
South Africa World Cup 2010 logo courtesy of FIFA
World Cup 2010 Facts: • North Korea is participating for the first time since 1966. • Argentina is adjusting its school curriculum to be based on the World Cup during the month of games. • Somalian singer K’naan wrote the official theme song for the World Cup, “Waving Flag.” • Slovakia and Serbia will be competing as independent nations for the first time. • South Africa’s budget for the games makes up about 1.7% of its entire GDP, over $4 billion. • Of the 32 qualifying teams: Europe-13, Africa-6, S. America-5, Asia-3, N. and Central America-3, Oceania-2.
Done waiting for global action ■ By Autreen Rahbari (‘10) Eastside Radio Manager
Many people were happy when President Obama announced he was going to travel to Copenhagen to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC). After eight years of the incompetent Bush Administration, the U.S. government was showing interest in our planet – so it’s a shame that it was a waste of time. Nothing happened in Copenhagen. The resulting Copenhagen Accord offered only a vague agreement between nations that pollution, deforestation and the disruption of ecosystems are bad, working together is good and that they should meet again in Cancun, Mexico soon to talk more about why the climate is bad and working together is good. Sure, it’s nice that they finally recognized that if the world’s temperature increases two degrees Celsius, the effects of climate change could be irreversible, but to combat this threat, these leading governments agreed to recognize that they needed to combat this threat… Super. And yes, it’s all fine and proper that the Accord cites those most threatened by climate change need assistance from developed countries to support their green adaptation. It’s good to help those in need except that the
Accord offers no proposal regarding who specifically will provide assistance, how much money should be allocated or even where the funds and resources are going to come from! Even if these were well thought-out proposals, none of them would matter because this entire Accord is non-binding. In short, politics got in the way of the planet – again. The good news is
out another accord. Around 30,000 people from nearly 130 countries were represented, and instead of top diplomats and world leaders, a pallet of politicians, indigenous groups, scientists, activists, grassroots organizations and delegations from across the globe attended the Bolivian summit. The resulting “People’s Accord” includes, amongst other things, a project for a
Courtesy of The Democracy Center
Bolivian President Evo Morales and some silly string. that most of the people who attended the conference weren’t thrilled either – especially Bolivia President Evo Morales. In fact President Morales was so fed up with the way things bogged down in Copenhagen that he started his own conference – “The World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth” to hammer
fifty percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by developing countries for the 2010-2017 period, a declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, a proposal for a “global referendum” on climate change and the creation of an International Climate and Justice Tribunal. In short, the Accord offered the rudimentary dregs of an international
system to curve the threats of climate change that Copenhagen failed to even attempt to provide. More importantly, the summit was an indication that people all around the world were willing to push politics aside and chip in to rejuvenate the planet. So why is a proposal that offers more detail and focus than the Copenhagen Accord now being treated as a document of terror? Three million dollars of funding for Bolivia’s project has been frozen for opposing the Copenhagen agreement, so what is the value of negotiation when financial pressure is applied to those who disagree? Even if the U.S. and western states don’t treat these proposals seriously in Cancun, and even if the UNCCC was just a sort of “ice-breaker” to jumpstart the real environment discussion, the cold backlash for disagreeing with western policy is not the message that needs to be sent. If anything is clear from the huge response this summit has received, the people of the world do care about the environment. If President Obama claims to be available to sit down with other nations and negotiate constructive policy, then he needs to prove his metal now. Otherwise, any hope for establishing a global initiative to save this planet will be lost to the creeping forces of charged politics.
■ By Dan Perlman (‘10) Eastside Global Commentary Editor
The end of senior year is a time of reminiscence and speculation…so let’s talk about time travel. According to Stephen Hawking, the British celebrity-genius, time travel is possible—but only forward in time, never backwards. We know from Einstein’s work that (oversimplifying here) the faster an object moves in space, the slower it moves in time. Hawking cites the example of GPS satellites, which must adjust their internal clocks for the discrepancy in time between themselves and GPS units on the surface. I’m going to accept for the sake of this that Hawking is simply correct. The revelation raises dilemmas for the potential time-traveler. Would you want to travel into the future, knowing that you could never return? I would not. Thinking about time travel into the past, the desire to change things around in order to create a better present is always central. With all the advances made by humankind, a traveler could go back and create an ideal world, leading our relatively primitive ancestors into an alternate, much brighter future. The hard science may not support that possibility, but the fantasy is pleasing. It’s not really about the past; it’s about the potency of mental progress. Stephen Hawking has neutered that particular dream though. Now we are condemned only to become dumb objects for the humans of the future to study when a few of us shoot forward to meet them. In a way I’m glad. Now that we know for sure that we cannot go back and erase our mistakes, the desire to make reality better can only take root in our visions of the present and not get diverted to that particular kind of escapism. Shutting doors on escapism is an activity not undertaken enough in the Western world. However, proving that something physically can’t happen is never really an obstacle for fantasy; few people seriously believed in time travel in the first place. The desire is what’s important. There will still be dreams about traveling back in time. The discovery is for now simply disquieting. We are absolutely stuck here. Ultimately not so bad as far as big revelations go.