Africa's continuous burn - Cote D'Ivoire

The news has been jumping around the world over the past few weeks covering the major events unfolding diplomatically and politically. Much of the attention has been in North Africa and the chaos surrounding Colonel Gadaffi and his struggle to retain power in Libya. Little has made of the events that have unfolded in Ivory Coast and the Presidential stand-off between the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and the declared winner Alassane Ouatarra. Earlier today, Mr Gbagbo surrendered to troops that had been surrounding his bunker in Abidjan for the past few days. Reports have not confirmed how many people have been killed from the ensuing fighting, but it is safe to confirm that a region wide disaster has been avoided. The obvious question is could this have been avoided and is Africa still unable to learn lessons from its disastrous post-colonial past?

The election in Ivory Coast took place in November last year. Mr Gbagbo, who had been in charge for the last ten years, declared that his opponent had rigged the vote and that he would remain in power. Mr Ouattara, a Muslim from the north, had been confirmed by electoral watchers and the UN as the winner. The stalemate since then has slowly seen Mr Ouattara remain in his lavish hotel surrounded by government troops, whilst foreign powers decide who is in charge. The problem for Ivory Coast and for other countries in Africa, is that it is not an isolated example. As the two men fiddled, the economy burned, thousands fled to nearby Liberia and school children could not go to school for three months. The country suffered a horrendous civil war in the early part of this century, fuelled by political and ethnic tensions among Presidential hopefuls. Africa’s big men continue to play their tribal card to the detriment of the wider population.

In Kenya, six members of the Cabinet are currently under prosecution at the ICC in The Hague. All are believed to be behind the political fighting that saw over a 1,000 people die after the 2008 elections. In Zimbabwe, the current power share between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai appears to have fractured further as the two sides continue to isolate and ignore each other. The obvious answer comes down to power. In power, they are celebrated and admired; it only cultivates their thirst for more. Gbagbo is known as ‘la boulanger’ (the baker) because of his capability to knead opponents and dust them with favours, it may sound favourable but it highlights the long term trouble of autocrats. Africa’s endemic problem is down to corruption; leaders continually bribe fellow members of their tribe for their vote and give favours to political rivals. By all means, it is not isolated to Africa, but much of the trouble stems not from colonial mismanagement but from the ill-judged and short term policies of its leaders. The cost of civil wars is obvious at a human level, but the destruction of economic stability, infrastructure and confidence is ultimately undermined for decades. The slow cycle induces sides to continue their greed, and civil wars/coup d’états are more likely.

This does have a bearing on us all and the world we want to live in. Yet, we cannot continue to meddle in African politics. The role France played in both Ivory Coast and Tunisia recently shows that its interference only helps the tyrants.The continent needs a strategy to deal with tensions militarily and economically. The Africa Union’s presence in Libya is welcome, yet the unhealthy cult of personality and power in heads of government may render its long term wider plans to be futile. Short term stability breeds long term instability.

Swearing by it - Rooney style.

The bizarre circumstances surrounding Wayne Rooney’s hat-trick celebration last week have continued to make headlines a week later and will continue to plague the England man’s unrepentant and mercenary attitude. Rooney was subsequently given a two match ban from the FA for swearing into a pitch side camera after scoring his third goal of the game. Sportsmen and women have often used rage to propel them in athletic competitions and their effect has seen them come away with medals, Seb Coe in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and Sir Steve Redgrave in the 2000 Sydney games come to mind, but Rooney’s tirade seemed unprovoked and above all daft.

The FA’s decision bore critics who dispute that swearing is inevitably part of the game and the culture from players to fans is extremely difficult to change. Others suggest they should have gone further and used Rooney as an example to punish football’s acerbic attitude; and to try and incorporate a greater respect and professionalism from sports like Rugby. What perhaps is most noticeable is Rooney’s reaction midweek and performance in the Champions League. The argument that appears to have a definitive answer is that Man Utd will most likely capture their nineteenth championship. Sir Alex Ferguson’s calculating brilliance and continuous atmosphere of ‘them versus us’ attitude appears to have spurred United on to play their best football of the year so far.

I personally think swearing is something you cannot stop and is partly because of the people who play the game. It is corrosive, inarticulate and breeds aggression; but tempers will flare in competitive sport with the pressures and scrutiny upon everyone who plays it.

Despite all this, it will continues to defy the reputation of the FA and their impotence to control or regulate anything on or off the pitch.

A flat wicket - the trouble with cricket.

The busy sporting calendar hid the culmination of this year’s ICC Cricket World Cup final. For the last month, teams from around the world have played the now much maligned 50 over game on the subcontinent. In the end, it was the hosts, India, who managed to lift the trophy and send the world’s most cricket loving fans into a national party. Cricket has suffered a bad press over the past 18 months and administrators have struggled to cope with the changing face of modern sport and the pressures that surround the modern cricketer. From this month of cricket the ICC have some many difficulties to address.

The tournament shows that the 50-over game is not dead and managed to create some interesting results with tense endings, not to mention some brilliant individual displays. The problem for the ICC is purely the intensity of the cricketing calendar. For England it has been a non-stop cricketing show for the past six months, starting in Australia for the Ashes and then exiting the World Cup in the quarter finals. To a television audience the continuous schedules of international cricket may be a blessing, but it is evident that player burn out is compromising the elegance of the game. Despite some of England’s entertaining and yet miserable performances, the team were not low on morale, they were simply fatigued. The departure of Michael Yardy after the group stages through depression is a rare event but it highlights the stresses players have to go through playing professional cricket.

Critics will always flag the fact that these men are paid handsomely during their careers. They are fulfilling the dreams of many players and fans, this is true. I would point out the fact that it ultimately does not generate the best cricket. Cricket is a game played with both mind and body. The stresses of intense schedules have meant the likes of Andrew Flintoff and Brett Lee had to curtail their careers. The final was a battle of two exciting teams with two special geniuses. Both Muralitharan and Tendulkar have been destroying teams for years with their intensity and unique skills. Perhaps it was a fair result from the day’s cricket but one can’t help to think what a fit Murali may have come up with. The ICC have three popular formats but more cricket does not equal great cricket.

Guilt of the living.

“When evil-doing comes like falling rain, nobody calls out ‘stop’.
When crimes begin to pick up they become invisible.
When sufferings become unendurable, the cries are no longer heard.
The cries, too, fall like rain in summer.”

Bertolt Brecht

The world holds reverence to those who have died or suffered in wars of the past. Not just the soldiers, but those persecuted and murdered, the drowning victims in a sea of violence. We have seen from the aftermath of war the advent of peace and reconciliation. The leadership of Nelson Mandela was the light that lead South Africa out of the darkness of Apartheid. The military Junta in Argentina were tried and punished after their rule of force and abduction. From the outside declarations of peace and forgiveness hold dear the properties of human dignity and grace. But is it possible for a nation or a generation to be absolved of their guilt or to exorcise the demons of their past?

We do not comprehend the invisible paths of horror; we only read it second hand. In Germany, World War Two and the Holocaust continue to scar subsequent generations and often through choice. Relatives of Nazi architects including Katrin Himmler (great-niece of Heinrich) wrote a fierce and critical memoir of her uncle. Albert Göring, who helped save Jews from persecution, retained his name as an act of guilt. For a long time the people of post-war Germany were silent and avoided their murky past. Though Hitler was the leader, much of the hell was performed by ordinary citizens, something they were not willing to recall.

In France, we hear the patriotic stories of the Resistance, yet for a long time people neglected the truths of Vichy France and its acquiescence and collaboration. The horrors are all too evident in Rwanda where much of the pre-genocide population still reside in camps in Eastern Congo. Afraid to go home and afraid of reprisals. The silence harbours an innate guilt, but why did subsequent generations apologise for their parents or grandparents’ role in a previous conflict. Could it simply be an acceptance that in the same position these people believe it could have simply been them too? In Germany, schoolchildren are bussed to concentration camps to learn their history with their own eyes. Is it simply to reinforce their guilt. Kantian philosophies do not incriminate a child from its parent’s actions, yet Germany, in particular, still carries its cross.

Future generations are often better at re-examining past events and even putting them in a context. The ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ trials in South Africa and Liberia show the goodness of human nature and the journey a country has to take before it can rebuild. The horrors of Cambodia and the Marxist revolution by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge still linger. Cambodia is rebuilding itself after decades of economic hardship and developing itself into a tourist hotspot. Yet the wonders and attractions do not heal the fragments that hide the killers from the victim’s children. It is easy for nations and people to forgive but it we cannot detract from the invisible scars that will forever exist.

In the Police I trust.

The public sector and local government will be bracing itself for the forthcoming budget given by George Osborne. If the coalition government’s plans to wipe out the fiscal deficit within this Parliament are to materialise then savings bringing spending to around 40% of GDP will be the main target for Treasury officials. It is on these occasions that public services feel the pinch and try to demonstrate their worth and mitigate any government cuts. Perhaps the most difficult, particularly from the Conservative’s perspective, is a reduction to the policing budget. Tough crime and penal policies have always been part of a Tory’s diet and a cut in police numbers would appear to be contrary to party beliefs. Under Mrs Thatcher, police recruitment increased by around 30% and was vital in her battles against striking miners.

David Cameron met recently with the former Los Angeles Police Commissioner, William Bratton, to discuss crime and policing strategy. Bratton worked for the Boston Police Department (BPD), the New York Police Department (NYPD) and, until recently, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). In all three posts he has managed to reduce crime in cities notorious with high drug and violent crime rates. His experience and judgements are intelligible and his justifications would make any politician stupid to ignore him.

For many years New York was ravaged by violent organised crime syndicates that disrupted the lives of its population. Bratton’s ideas were based on a criminology paper by George Kelly and Ray Wilson called the ‘Broken Window Theory’. Kelly and Wilson placed a brand new car in a rough neighbourhood and left it for 24 hours, when they returned they found there had been no damage at all. The next time, they broke a window and again left it for 24 hours. When they returned they found the car had been vandalised to the extent that nothing was retrievable, even the tyres had been stolen. The theory was that if the Police were ignoring minor crimes, and targeting serious criminals, then these petty crooks will be undeterred by the law and eventually fall into a life of tougher crime.

The ‘Broken Window’ was evident in many cities across America in the 1970s. In New York police didn’t stop drinking on the streets, gambling, graffiti or the infamous squeegee men that cleaned car windows at traffic lights. Statistics found that of the three million people travelling on the subway each day, 200,000 people were evading the fare. Bratton set out his taskforce to root out such delinquency by finding the source and stopping it in its track. As he stated, by stopping people from drinking on the streets you are stopping a potential fight or stabbing later on in the evening.

People were very critical of this style of policing because evidence suggested that ‘zero-tolerance’ policing was pushing crime to outskirts of the city. It is also seen as very authoritarian and suspicious of human behaviour. As Bratton put it, this style of policing is in the wider interest of society. The Police did not have a good reputation within ethnic areas of cities, and the violence directed at people like Rodney King did not help ameliorate such relationships. He suggests that Police need to control the behaviour of society because crime itself is only caused by one thing; human nature. These are influenced by the economy, demographics and racism but it ultimately derives from the individual. By placing Police on the beat it was repairing relationships in places historically deemed as no-go areas. Cops on the dots not only created compassionate policing but it helped to stop the source of crime.

Ideological lines are always drawn involving crime and punishment. Liberals despise the thought of giving up certain liberties for the good of everyone, but these theories have shown that they have been effective in driving down all types of crime in cities with unhealthy pasts. Putting people in prison is in fact a good thing for society. It not only removes certain people from society but endorses a combination of policing and the criminal justice system i.e. juries.

This is the dilemma Mr Cameron has. Crime is known to rise during recessions, particularly low level, but by cutting Police numbers he could be doing more damage than he wishes. Policing has evolved immensely in terms of technology and statistics, but these alone will not see people stop their errant ways.

Football's red card.

Injustice is immeasurable, especially when you’re playing or watching football. There is incalculable suffering as a referee blithely waves on after a blatant foul or penalty. There is an innate acceptance and often schadenfreude when inexcusably bad decisions go your team’s way. Yet, the perceived visceral way we play the game is increasingly becoming more hostile and damaging. Football, particularly in the British Isles embraces the ruggedness and physicality of the sport with the civility of fair play and sportsmanship. Football has always received criticism through the ages of hooliganism, budget opulence and the continuous disappointment of our national side, yet the ungracious and sporting decadence is unfurling into an ugly and conscious stain across the tiers of our game.

Watching the Cricket World Cup on Sunday morning, the South African batsman Jacques Kallis asked England wicketkeeper Matt Prior if he had caught a ball he had edged behind. Prior acknowledged he had caught it and Kallis walked, a measure of trust and respect. Rugby Union and Rugby League are always highlighted as sports that aspire to a code of conduct through sport. The referee’s decision is final and players show reverence in every aspect of their performance.

Football headlines are driven by agendas like front page news, but some of the scenes we have seen of late portray a deeper vein of morose. Nick Hornby’s excellent Fever Pitch reflects on the additional passion injustice can bring, he also pointed out that 22-man brawls would be part of his ideal matches. This is the main argument that traditionalists use: if we interfere too much then the game loses that rawness that fans crave. It is true to an extent because what else would men have to talk about if things were more rigid. The problem is that such conservative dogmatism saw events like Heysel and Hillsborough unfold. News headlines and comment certainly give a platform for discussion but they are there to fill column inches, the same arguments arise every year.

We expect excitement at derby matches but the Old Firm game of last week showed the needless bellicosity. The problem with initiatives like the FA’s ‘Respect’ campaign is that there is so much money at stake that the FA cannot seek to uphold such programmes if the arbiters are unaccountable and problems themselves. Referees do not enamour themselves because of their turgid resolve but what are clubs and fans supposed to do if they keep on making mistakes? Technology is a potential game changer but there is again much debate on its induction and how pervasive its use will be.

Perhaps the main trouble we have in this country is the association with masculinity and war. Football is often characterised as a battle. British football as a culture on the terraces and on the pitch is entrenched with military fervour. Continentals deem our tactics as brave but stupid. Youngsters are taught from a young age the merits of winning not the art of playing. The statement a ‘man’s game’ holds resonance on British football pitches, but would mean nothing abroad. A change in this mentality would not turn us into a bunch of passive scarecrows; it would adjust the mindset to a degree of realism on the pitch and in the stands. Football does not necessarily need to convert to rugby and become gentrified, but it needs to recognise its fan base and duty to society. This culture of hostility and dishonesty is only polluting the beautiful game ugly.

Foreign principles.

Foreign politics and diplomacy does not normally take a front seat role in determining the news agenda. In fact, it does not really affect the great persuasions of the electorate when people come to vote. International events have caused politicians to resign and have certainly stained the careers of many in government; Eden over Suez and Chamberlain over Norway (though he is renowned for Munich). The Arab Spring, which may well define a new age of Middle Eastern politics, is posing many questions of our diplomats and the philosophy of international relations.

The main role of an Ambassador or anyone within the diplomatic corps based abroad is to be the eyes and ears for their government back home and to promote their country’s interests in their posting. The dilemma for any politician is that often these relationships and trades can come back to question their judgement and their own moral compass. A few weeks ago, when Egypt’s strongman, Hosni Mubarak, appeared determined to remain in the power, despite the widespread protests, the words from Western leaders’ evoked calmness and peaceful demonstrations; there were never forthright utterances to go. This is where the ambiguities lie; if bilateral relations are friendly and prosperous then it is not in a politician’s interest to clamour revolution or submission. It would appear spiteful and particularly short-sighted.

Many people have questioned British, American and Italian links to Libya but who was to know what was to happen? Colonel Gaddafi had been welcomed back into international theatre, and despite some odd cameos at the UN, he appeared happy to give up his nuclear/chemical weapon capability and reintegrate into the world of trade. The nature of these Arab revolutions was not expected thus it puts politicians in great difficulty. The obvious question is why did we trust them in the first place? The issue with dealing with any international statesman or woman is that they will always pursue their own interests, good or bad. It is inevitable that some countries do not endorse your views, but it is often in the ‘greater good’ (economically) to establish relations with such people. This is far removed from the ‘realpolitik’ of Cold War policy i.e. ‘my enemy’s enemy is my best friend’, where despots were tolerated because they weren’t communists, we have moved into a new era.

No longer do countries have to seek solace in wooing historical partners or America for favours, if they have minerals then they can turn to China. China’s foreign policy in the past ten years has been based on trade and investment only. No political meddling. The previous strings attached to aid and introduction of democracy are no longer binding. Africa and developing nations can establish growth via the Far East. The failed coup, involving Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher, in the tiny but oil wealthy nation of Equatorial Guinea highlighted the difficulties establishing long term and fruitful relations had changed. The contrived knowledge by Western governments was enough for the autocratic leader to turn to China; Western meddling was no longer an ultimatum. Even the tyrannical Robert Mugabe has held on in his economically dead Zimbabwe.

Values and principles are desirable in any circumstance when offering the hand of friendship, but often – and history reflects this – it is not the only way. In a rapidly changing and multi-polar world, British and Western politicians no longer hold the ace card. Often the undesirable can be an acceptable alternative.