Is football coming home in South Africa?

With the FIFA World Cup fast approaching, Oliver Smith takes a look at the effects it could have on an unstable South Africa

Since FIFA allowed the new South African Football Association back into FIFA in 1992, following the collapse of apartheid, the day was bound to come when South Africa would host one of the greatest sporting events: the World Cup.

For a country blighted by the AIDS pandemic, high levels of crime and unemployment rates of 25%, the World Cup could offer a new opportunity to resolve its economic and social problems. Indeed, the former President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, has predicted that the event will be viewed as the moment that Africa “turned the tide on centuries of poverty and conflict”.

However, many are more sceptical: the economic success of a World Cup for the hosting nation is often only felt many years after the event, and the level of this economic success is often minimal when compared to the massive cost of hosting the Cup. These facts have led many to call the event an economic gamble, especially for poor nations who bank their future on its success. South Africa alone has invested around £3.5 billion in the various developments necessary for the Cup, such as building the stadiums, roads and transport links in preparation.

Politically, the World Cup will shine a bright light on South Africa’s post-apartheid system. Sporting events have often been the catalyst for highlighting continuing problems for the South African society; the 1995 Rugby World Cup, in particular, brought to light the racism which was still apparent in the sport. But the South African Government are hoping that this sporting occasion will be a show of solidarity rather than a revelation of any racial issues which might remain in South African society.

Fears are rife, however, that extremists from both sides of the apartheid debate might use the World Cup in South Africa as a platform to distract the world’s attention from what should be a monumental celebration of African diversity. Last month, the white supremacist leader, Eugene Terreblanche, was murdered and a noticeable sense of panic emerged from government officials in light of the imminent World Cup. A similar incident now would most certainly mark the event with the negative stigma reminiscent of apartheid South Africa – something that the government would definitely be keen to avoid.

The economic and political success of the South African World Cup is not certain. Indeed, in the current economic climate, the success of the event seems even more in doubt. Africa’s problems are deep rooted; the fear is that the billions of pounds of investment will leave Africa with little to show after the intense 30-day window of opportunity has passed.

For ordinary South Africans, the high levels of crime, the 25% unemployment and the AIDS pandemic will be around long after the World Cup has left, as will the social problems which have lingered since the 1990s. Even if the Cup can’t turn “the tide on centuries of poverty and conflict”, it will at least unite the South African people around the one thing that has been with them all the way along their painful journey through apartheid and poverty: their love of sport.

Gair Rhydd - Question Time

The government this week refused to put forward a cabinet minister to appear on question time this week.

Instead they issued an ultimatum to question time, demanding Alastair Campbell be replaced by a member of Labours shadow cabinet. The BBC has responded to this be declaring that "It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience."

In the week that the coalition government unveiled it's Queens Speech to the public, setting out their plans for the next year, it would have seemed an ideal week for the government to position a prominent MP on TV. Instead audiences were treated to Backbench Conservative MP John Redwood, who said that he was "very happy to defend the coalition government, to represent it", but left many wanting.

Alastair Campbell, a prominent Labour spin-doctor with a key importance in the 1997 general election as well as the recent TV debates, was quick to attack the government for what he described as a "decision to try to get me kicked off the panel...".

Beyond simple tit-for-tat disagreements between the parties, there is a larger debate here. In the increasingly tv-centric, PR-addicted political landscape (one which Alastair Campbell knows a lot about), there is a temptation for politicians to control their image and set the terms for their appearance. But the ability for question time to invite whoever they want to appear on the show is an essential aspect of our democracy.  

As the executive producer of question time, Gavin Allen stated "Parties are free to accept or reject those invitations but they do not have a right of veto over other panellists." If the BBC had bowed to the governments demands I believe that a dangerous precedent would have been set. We are lucky that the BBC operate openly and to the highest standards, and that people like Gavin Allen do not succumb to the wishes of politicians but instead look out for the public interest.

Some big trouble in little Thailand

As the crisis in Thailand draws to its close, Oliver Smith takes a look at how it started, and if a peaceful resolution was possible

Ten years ago Thailand stood as a democratic jewel in Southeast Asia, sandwiched between the military junta in Burma and the Communist state of Laos.

Thailand was more than a mere tourist’s hotspot; it enjoyed the second largest economy in Southeast Asia, and became romanticised through backpacker’s literature.

But ten years on, Thailand, last week, teetered on the brink of civil war; a country divided by a military coup d’état and radicalised into opposing factions.

The violence between the so-called ‘red shirts’ (the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship), supported by Thaksin Shinawatra, and the Thai national government, led by Abhisit Vejjajiva, stems back to 2006.

Shinawatra is a hero to many Thai citizens. Back in 2001, he led his political party (Thai Rak Thai) to a massive election victory, described as the most open, corruption-free election in Thailand’s history. Shinawatra championed radical policies for reducing rural poverty and introducing universal healthcare in Thailand. He was not an uncontroversial figure (allegedly involving himself in policy corruption), but he did appear to be taking Thailand in a new direction.

After completing his first full term in office (the first full term in Thailand’s history), Shinawatra faced an onslaught of corruption charges, as well as allegations over the sale of his family-owned business, Shin Corporation. This culminated in a military coup d’état in 2006 which saw Shinawatra removed from power and his political party was disbanded. A military junta ruled Thailand for the next year until the government called democratic elections.

Now Abhisit Vejjajiva and his Democrat Party govern Thailand, but many of Shinawatra’s old supporters do not recognise this new government and believe that Vejjajiva used the military junta to obtain an advantage in the elections. Because of this, they formed the ‘red shirt’ group in protest at his government and to demand that Shinawatra be reinstated as prime minister.

The ‘red shirts’ have been around since the 2006 coup, however it is only since March 2009 that they have become increasingly active in their protests. Fast-forward to April and the protests have escalated, as has the violence. The ‘red shirts’ occupied Bangkok’s shopping district and the government failed in its attempts to drive them out with the use of lethal force. Forty protesters were killed in the violence and the Thai government designated the shopping district as a ‘live fire’ zone, urging the protesters to leave the shopping district in fear of more bloodshed.

Then, last Wednesday, the government forces stormed the ‘red shirts’ camp, subsequently forcing their leaders to surrender for fear of mass loss of life.

Hopes of a peaceful resolution to the conflict always seemed far-fetched; indeed, one was never likely to come. In the end, the government’s attempts at peace talks failed long ago – a result that many believe was intended as a means to justify the ultimate crackdown.

Democracy in Thailand has always been a fleeting ideal – a once in a lifetime opportunity. Now it appears the chance has been lost once again.

Haven't you heard? Greece is the word

Oliver Smith has a look into the recent €750 billion Greek bailout, and what it means for the future of the European Union

*The EU has thrown Greece a 750 billion euro lifeline, and the message is clear: “hold on tight, we’ll get you out of there!” But is this really the right message to send to the rest of Europe? *

I’m not going to get into the complex financial issues surrounding how Greece got themselves into this mess; it suffices to say that they borrowed a lot of money, bought a new house and a shiny car, and then realised they couldn’t afford to pay the bank back.

Instead, I will look at how this affair has shown the future direction of the European Union and set a new precedent for EU economic policy.

A national bailout to rescue some national banks is one thing, an understandable move made by many countries (although not without its critics). But now the EU is doing the same, but on a much larger scale, bailing out an entire country’s financial system. Don’t be mistaken; nothing quite like this has ever been done before. This turn of events offers two revelations about the state of the EU.

Firstly, that the Eurozone has become much greater than the sum of its parts. It has become acutely apparent that these 16 countries will not only share success, but will also suffer each other’s financial difficulties as if they were their own. The European Central Bank along with the European Commission are now acting like the EU Treasury of the Eurozone, going far further than any treaty ever allowed. Many pundits claimed that only a “United States of Europe” would be able so save Greece and, subsequently, the euro. It appears that this is what has happened.

Secondly, because of the decision to bailout Greece, the Eurozone has seemingly abandoned the principles of the ‘free market’ on which it was based. Make no mistake, the choice for Europe was to either bailout Greece or scrap the single currency (a political non-option). Previously, if a country managed to bankrupt itself in the way that Greece has, the market would enact its punishment, and other high-deficit nations (Ireland, Spain and Italy, to name a few) would take drastic action to reign in their expenditure. In the way that the EU has rescued Greece, they have both failed to protect the principles of the Eurozone and, ultimately, set themselves up for future bailouts. Now, rather than engaging in the required austerity measures needed (cuts to public expenditure, cutting the budget deficit), those with deficits will be able to ignore the problem, safe in the knowledge that the EU is there to bail them out if they need it.

So these are the two revelations that we can take from the last week of events: the Eurozone has now gone far beyond a mere economic union, both in principle and in practice, and that this probably won’t be the last time a country in financial dire straits is going to be bailed out by EU money.

The underlying problem within the EU at the moment is that the principles that underline the Eurozone are contradictory. On one hand, there is the ideal of an elite Europe of strong, stable economies sharing a single currency to enable better trading opportunities between competitive markets. And on the other hand, there is the notion of a catch-all Europe: one in which everyone is welcome, even those who are not economically up to the challenge.

Greece, for all its attributes, fits into the latter of the two groups, and therein lies the real issue about the future of Europe. Can the European Central Bank bail out more Eurozone countries at the taxpayers expense? The answer is probably yes. Will the European Central Bank have to bail out more Eurozone countries? Again, the answer seems to be yes.