Why Is The 2022 World Cup So Controversial?

"We depend on misfortune to build up our force of migratory workers and when the supply is low because there is not enough misfortune at home, we rely on misfortune abroad to replenish the supply." -Harry S. Truman

The Living Quarters Of A Migrant Worker In Qatar

 Last week, several journalists were arrested in the small Middle East nation of Qatar while attempting to document the condition of the region's migrant worker population.  These journalists, working for the BBC, were touring one of the housing camps for these workers when they were detained and questioned by Qatari security forces.  Though the BBC journalists were released after several days, this isn't the first time such incidents have occurred surrounding the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The decision to hold the 2022 World Cup has already generated its share of controversies (enough that it actually has its own Wikipedia page).  So why is everyone so upset about a handful of soccer games in Qatar?

Qatar, In Case You Didn't Know

First of all, these controversies range from scandals about the selection process, to the logistical nightmare of trying to hold an international outdoor sporting event in temperatures which regularly exceed 120 degrees.  Though FIFA has recommended holding the cup in the winter to alleviate this, it hardly solves the other pressing issues surrounding the cup.  Both alcohol and homosexuality are illegal in Qatar, though government officials have stressed that nobody will be arrested unless they refuse to "refrain from homosexual activities."  However, probably the greatest controversy has surrounded the workers used to construct the massive (and expensive) facilities for this event.

To date, at least 1,500 migrant workers (predominantly from Nepal, India, and Bangladesh) have died while building the facilities for the World Cup.  These deaths often occur due to heat stroke and exhaustion brought on by the extreme desert conditions of Qatar and its capital Doha.  These are just a few of the estimated 23 million migrant workers who live and work in the wealthy Arabian Gulf nations of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.   These individuals come from all over Africa and Southeast Asia to work and send money back to their home countries. 

The Country Of Origin For Most Migrant Workers

Unfortunately, as is often the case with migrant workers around the world, these individuals are often exploited for their labor.  In addition to low wages and grueling working conditions, migrants in the Gulf are subject to what is known as the Kafala system.  This is a process by which migrants are allowed into the country only under the sponsorship of their employers.  Once they arrive, the employers often confiscate their passports and prohibit workers from leaving without consent (which obviously doesn't come easily).  Workers are also under contract during this time, so they have almost no legal standing to change their situation.  Essentially, once they arrive the country, they are the property of whichever person or company has contracted to hire them.

To make matters worse, these workers are usually housed in labor camps (which are also of very poor quality).  Most are paid very meager wages (much of which goes to their families anyway), while others have gone months without being paid.  This is extreme exploitation in a country which boasts the highest per capita standard of living in the world (a statistic which even includes the migrant populations!!).  Even modest attempts at reform have been met with criticism or painstakingly slow progress. 

Sepp Blatter: President Of FIFA

Not only is this a moral problem, it has the potential to create a significant security problem as well.  The populations of migrants make up a majority of the population in several of these counties. This can lead to instability if these populations mobilize and agitate for better working conditions.  Demonstrations like this have already occurred on several occasions, prompting some governments to react with minimal efforts to reform the system. To date, these efforts have produced few meaningful changes to migrant worker life in Qatar.

In the meantime, FIFA has been called upon by numerous organizations and players alike to relocate the World Cup to a more suitable location (the U.S. has volunteered as one such potential location).  This might help the immediate situation of these workers (though they also might just become unemployed), but it still doesn't solve the plight of the rest of the region's workers.  Of course, not every migrant worker is treated horribly in these countries.  But these measures are designed to keep a large socioeconomic disparity between the citizens and non-citizens of these countries, so the potential for abuse is often taken advantage of.  Other nations can only put so much pressure on these countries to improve the situation of their workers, but ultimately that change has to come from within each country.  Sadly, the people most able to bring about this change (the Gulf nation's citizens) have the least to gain from an overhaul of this system.

Syria's Refugees, Where Are They Now?

"We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict,"-  U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres

The Zaatari Refugee Camp In Jordan, Currently Housing Over 80,000 Syrians

Syria's refugee situation continues to go from bad to worse.  In neighboring Iraq, the radical group ISIS continues its brutal oppression of the civilians under its control (despite recent successes against the group in Tikrit).  Lebanon and Jordan (who have already had to contend with a very large Palestinian refugee population) are unable to keep up with the influx of people fleeing Syria's Civil War.  Even Turkey, one of the most developed and stable countries in the region, has started to limit the entry of refugees, citing a lack of necessary resources to care for them all.  Lastly, people looking for a safe haven in places like Europe often meet tragic ends.

First, let's make a few distinctions in the refugee discussion.  The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees classifies several different types of at-risk individuals.  First, there are those with full refugee status.  They are people who have fled to another country other than their home country due to violence or extreme economic hardship.  Then we have internally displaced people (same as refugees, only within their home country).  Finally, there are asylum seekers (those who have filled out applications to be classified as refugees, but whose status has not yet been determined). Worldwide, the UNHCR estimates that there were 51,200,000 refugees, displaced people, or asylum seekers in 2013 (16.7 million refugees, 33.3 million internally displaced, 1.2 million asylum seekers).  This is the highest number since the end of the Second World War and equates to roughly 1/7th of the entire U.S. population!! 

You Know The Situation Is Bad When People Flee To Iraq For Protection

So where does the Syrian refugee situation stand after over four years of devastating war?  By most estimates, there are over 9,000,000 refugees and internally displaced people from the Syrian Civil War (that's 9 million, but it looks more impressive when it's spelled out).  To put this in perspective, think of everyone in Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota being forced out of their homes and having to find any place they can to survive.  That's how bad things are.  The Syrian Civil War itself remains just as bleak.  The forces loyal to Syria's president Bashar al-Assad continue to battle a patchwork of militia units who remain embedded in strongholds and some cities throughout the country (including rival factions like the Free Syrian Army and ISIS).  Assad recently won re-election (which was conveniently only held in the places he controls) and is still firmly in power (though rebel groups have made some recent gains).  For the most part however, his regime has time on its side.  So long as the international community continues to allow him to use poison gas and indiscriminate weapons on his own people, the refugee count will continue to grow.  

How are Syria's neighbors handling the refugee situation?  In Jordan and Turkey, refugee camps have been set up to provide the basics of housing and food.  Though food assistance is often provided by organizations such as the UNHCR, these camps take on a life of their own as individual micro-economies spring up around them.  Lebanon, on the other hand, has refused to build camps while attempting to integrate the Syrians directly into the Lebanese population.  However, most refugees are denied the ability to apply for a business license or work permit, preventing them from securing the means to escape the camps and refugee life. 

António Guterres, The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

So things are just plain terrible.  What can anyone do to help?  Recently, the Middle East Policy Council hosted a Capitol Hill Conference where top U.S. policymaking officials and think tank leaders met to discuss Syria's refugee crisis.  One of the key points which came out of this discussion was the strong emphasis for donations of money to aid organizations.  However, just throwing money at the problem isn't enough.  These organizations need to send the money through the proper channels by investing in local communities and long-term institutional development.

Part of the reason this aid needs to be closely directed is to prevent "aid dependency."  This isn't the same poor-shaming argument people use about those on welfare (that welfare programs just make people lazy and not want to work).  This is where only food aid and shelter are offered, but no other useful services are provided such as education or job training.  Unless aid programs can provide those services as well, people often become trapped in a cycle of aid dependency simply because no other alternatives are provided to them.  One thing you learn pretty quickly about being on some form of assistance is that almost nobody likes taking it.  If one provides meaningful opportunities for people to improve their situation in life, they will often take them. 

The Painstakingly Slow Process Of Resettlement In Graph Form

We also cannot give up on a political solution.  It is clear that the U.S. has backed away significantly from its demand that Assad must go, but this doesn't mean the peace process should be abandoned entirely.  Anything which might help ease the fighting would go a long way towards slowing the long-term refugee problem.  While President Bush has been strongly criticized for intervening too much in the region, many have been critical of President Obama for not doing enough.  International refugee resettlement programs are the key to helping resolve this intractable (and likely decades long) problem. Still, there is some hope.  Since 2013, around 87,000 Syrian refugees have been resettled through the UNHCR.  This is a start, but only large increases in funding and international support can help the UNHCR come anywhere close to achieving its mission.

Ultimately, we need to look at this not as a regional problem, but an international crisis with global implications.  Today's Syrian youth are at risk of becoming a Lost Generation, one plagued by instability and enticed by radical ideologies.  Without considering the global implications of this, we risk marginalizing an entire generation through our inaction and apathy.  After the genocide in Rwanda, the international community looked back and wondered why nothing of substance was done to stop this crisis and relieve the suffering.  Let us not make the same mistake again.  In the end, it isn't so much the guns, bombs, and poison gas which does the most damage (though they certainly inflict a horrible toll).  The greatest danger is apathy.

TL;DR: Syria's nine million refugees are still in dire trouble.  You can help by raising awareness and donating to organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.

How Charlie Hebdo Got Satire All Wrong

This week's post comes to us from friend and colleague Kurt Guner.  Kurt is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah and specializes in Modern Turkish History and Middle East Studies.

The PEN America Awards Ceremony

The PEN America Gala was this past Tuesday evening. Tickets went for $1,250 a pop, and plenty of major literary figures were in attendance. A small group of writers publically decided not to attend, skipping the event in protest of an award given to Charlie Hebdo. The award seems innocuous enough, especially considering its goal: to award writers/publishers who defend free expression. For Hebdo, which continued to publish even after many of its cartoonists and editors were murdered by an Islamic Militant group, this award is just one of the many ways that Western governments have celebrated their dogged attempts to insult and annoy everyone equally. If you’re being charitable, you might use the word “satirize,” but I will not.

The writers who protested the gala, numbering around 200 in a written petition, and the writers who were scheduled to host tables at the ceremony (Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi) had thoughtful reasons for protest that were shouted down by many others in the media (including Salman Rushdie), but it is important to understand their protest and its importance. In order to do that, we have to understand what, exactly, satire is supposed to do.

Satire is complicated, just like humor is complicated, but it boils down to an attempt to exaggerate or ridicule in order to point out the fallacies or ignorance of a group of people. Jonathan Swift’s famous work “A Modest Proposal” does this by taking the callous disregard for the lives of the poor in England to its logical extreme, suggesting that the poor be used as a source of food. This really only works when it attacks or criticizes those in power. That’s where it draws its power and influence. By punching up instead of down, satire gives oppressed groups a venue to seek justice or at the very least have their voices heard. Satire, then, has basic limits and boundaries, and a purpose that drives it.  

By Jonathan Swift, not to be confused with his cousin Taylor

What was so stunning about the Charlie Hebdo incidents is the lack of context given to the magazine itself. It goes without saying that the horrific attacks that were carried out under the guise of Islamic purity should be condemned. However, the seemingly immediate attempt to glorify Charlie Hebdo was stunning, to say the least. This is a magazine that for the past several years has traded in targeted racist caricatures and cartoons mocking African immigrants, Muslims, and other minority groups, groups that had already experienced violence from their neighbors and oppressive legislation from their government. What was the purpose of these cartoons? If it was simply an attempt to be an equal opportunity jerk, well that’s fine I guess, but how is that different from hate speech? This sort of analysis was largely lost in the immediate rush following the attacks and the “Je suis Charlie” rallying cry spread across the continents via social media and sympathetic marches. 

Empathy with survivors of a horrible attack is understandable and to be encouraged, but it is telling that such a movement was able to spring up in the aftermath of the violence… France, and much of Western Europe, was already primed to march against their Muslim neighbors. Far-right political groups like UKIP in England or the National Front in France have pushed an Islamophobic narrative for years and ridden a wave of anti-foreign sentiment to a surprising amount of political power. It was easy for people to say “I am Charlie” because their political leaders have been telling them “you are not Ahmed” for some time now.

A rally by PEGIDA, which means "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West"

The context of Hebdo is important, and that context is not one that makes Hebdo out to be a free speech champion. Instead, the magazine simply bullied the oppressed religious minorities in their country in order to boost their circulation. They are not the first to do something like this and they won’t be the last, but it is important that we recognize Hebdo’s hate speech for the embarrassment that it was. It is possible to both empathize with a group that was attacked so viciously while still being critical of their actions. Without that balance, we risk lionizing a group whose only distinction is their ability to insult and degrade the weakest of their neighbors.  

The point here isn't that Charlie Hebdo is deserving of the tragedy brought upon it or that its right to free speech should be limited.  The point is that the publication is being praised for its bold use of satire to humiliate radical extremists.  In reality, its publications, rather than being satirical, use the same tired cliches and jokes about radical Muslims to paint a broad and somewhat hateful picture of anyone who is left feeling uncomfortable about its content.  Their displays of Muhammad serve as an indiscriminate attack, one which can offend the peaceful and the violent alike.  At its core, this is not satire, it is just hate speech.  Still worthy of protection under the auspices of freedom of speech, but hate speech nonetheless.