| |
How soccer became political
Osama Al Sharif Comment
WHEN it comes to soccer, the Arabs are probably as fanatical as say
the English, Brazilians or Koreans. Or maybe not! The sad events
surrounding the qualifying World Cup match between Egypt and
Algeria, which was held in Sudan, have soured the dignified
attributes that many nations attach to the game. A decisive match
involving two national teams was transformed into a bitter and
hateful feud between people and governments. Egypt lost the game and
its bid to qualify. Algeria will be the only Arab country to play in
South Africa next year. But what followed the match was both
shocking and disturbing. Demonstrators in Algiers attacked
Egyptian-owned interests, destroying and torching offices. In Cairo,
thousands of young and angry Egyptians attempted to march toward the
Algerian Embassy, but were prevented from doing so by riot police.
There were allegations that Egyptian fans were attacked and abused
by Algerians in Khartoum as they made their way to the airport.
Reports said that Egyptian-owned coffee shops were set on fire in
Marseille, France, where a large Algerian expat community lives.
The media in both countries mobilized the public. A sports
commentator on an Egyptian satellite channel made incendiary remarks
about Algeria, the country and the people. There were others who
called for total boycott and demanded that the government takes
action to avenge injured national pride. Cairo recalled its
ambassador in Algeria and relations between the two Arab countries
dipped to unprecedented levels. It was a bit surreal, especially
when Israel, of all countries, called on the two Arab nations to
exercise self-restraint! It was another low point in inter-Arab
relations. The media were not innocent in this case. It had
unnecessarily marshaled public opinion in a way that turned this
affair into a serious regional crisis. Geography was benevolent for
if the two countries shared land borders who knows what could have
happened.
When it comes to deep-seated ancient rivalries one could probably
understand the political connotations behind a soccer match that
features England and France, Iran and Iraq, or Turkey and Greece.
But it is ludicrous to give the same weight to a game, no matter how
critical, between Egypt and Algeria. The two Arab countries were
never at war; they were not even colonized by the same Western
power. On the contrary, when Algerians were struggling for
independence from France in the middle of last century, it was
Egypt, under Gamal Abdel Nasser, that rallied to support Algerian
nationalists. So much so that France joined the Tripartite
Aggression against Egypt after the latter’s decision to nationalize
the Suez Canal in 1956.
Looking back at the history of bilateral relations one hardly finds
points of contention that are serious enough to warrant mutual
hostility at public levels. If Algeria has problems with its
neighbors it is with Morocco, over the western desert, and with
Tunisia, to a lesser extent. The majority of Egyptian laborers are
based in the Gulf countries and Libya. Few headed to Algeria, whose
economic relations are mostly with Europe, especially France. How
then can one explain the recent flare-up of animosity between
Egyptians and Algerians? In soccer the two countries had met before
and in most cases it was unfortunate that these meetings were
critical to the chances of both teams as they attempted to qualify
for a major championship. But that alone is no reason to create such
psychological obsessions and mistrusts at national levels.
Soccer is supposed to bring nations together by focusing on good
play, fine sportsmanship and appreciation of competition. Cultural
and political differences aside, sports is one way to build bridges
not destroy them. But in the case of Egypt and Algeria it had driven
apart two “brotherly” Arab nations. The diatribe that I had
witnessed on some of Egypt’s TV channels was unprecedented. I am
sure that some Algerian commentators did not waste time waging
attack on Egypt. The two countries are different in many ways.
Algeria is still trying to find closure to years of civil war in
which tens of thousands were killed and injured. Because of its
colonial past, which lasted longer than most other Arab countries,
millions of Algerians were forced to emigrate to France and other
francophone countries. Egypt, on the other hand, has been relatively
stable for decades. Its political and economic attention has been
focused on its eastern and southern Arab neighbors.
Millions of Egyptians live and work in Gulf states. Egypt’s role in
the Middle East peace process has seen better days. Its relations
with Sudan, its southern neighbor, have been turbulent for years.
None of this explains the strange acrimony between Egypt and
Algeria. The latter has never competed with Cairo for pan-Arab
leadership, nor does it have the credentials for such role. Both
countries have enough internal problems, whether political, economic
or social. The only plausible explanation for the recent fracas
could be that at least one of the governments is seeking to export
its domestic difficulties and redirect public attention outward.
Soccer, the primary sporting activity in the Arab world, receives
official patronage and backing in an unusual manner. Royalty and
officialdom have adopted the sport in a way to demonstrate a narrow
sense of nationalism. Soccer is the alternative to politics, or
maybe an extension of it that is both benign and sterile. Creating
imaginary foreign enemies is one easy way to deflect attention from
local issues. It could be that the media were led, or misled, into
making the Egypt-Algeria affair an existential, even a chauvinist,
conflict. It could be that people, on both sides of the divide, were
juxtaposing their most inner frustrations about many things that had
gone wrong with their lives. A key soccer match was one way to let
these frustrations out, even against brethren!—Arab News |
