Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Violence in the Stadiums

Under the subtitle “The End of Civility,” yesterday’s (07/30/13) edition of the Brazilian newspaper Zero Hora1 featured an article about a recent decision to eliminate the divided stadium sections for rival teams’ fans. Traditionally, when the cross-town adversaries Grêmio Foot-Ball Porto Alegrense and Sport Club Internacional (frequently referred to as simply Grêmio and Inter) face off, officials segregate fans into clearly demarcated and fenced-off sectors of whichever stadium they are using. This segregation, which extends to entries and exits, is designed to avoid physical confrontations between rival fans. Similar measures exist at numerous professional sporting venues around the country. At first glance, the desegregation may appear to be a positive development towards a more amicable coexistence among all those in the stands. However, the case is exactly the opposite: local police have acknowledged their inability to guarantee the safety of the opposing team fans in and around the stadium for Sunday’s “Gre-Nal” between the two teams.

Violence in sports venues obviously is not limited to Brazilian soccer matches. The most notorious disaster in the soccer world took place during the Liverpool vs. Juventus match for the 1985 European Cup final at Heysel Stadiumin in Brussels. Thirty nine people died and over 600 were injured which led to the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) imposing a five-year ban on English teams participating in any of the three European competitions.2 Even with other sports in “fan friendly” venues, violence can erupt as it did on baseball’s opening day 2011 for San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow who just now in 2013 returned home after two years in treatment for massive injuries leading to brain damage sustained in a beating by locals at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles.3 Dodger Stadium had long been known as a family-friendly, sportsmanlike venue, and in the aftermath of the senseless beating police and stadium security presence has intensified visibly. Nevertheless, the persistent violence at Brazilian professional soccer stadiums is a growing concern, especially when the police “throw in the towel” (to mix sports metaphors).

The Zero Hora article cites Bernardo Buarque de Hollanda, professor of the School of Social Science at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, one of the most prestigious institutions in Brazil. He points out that while the police have become the sole arbiters of public safety, the violence associated with soccer matches is a much more complex phenomenon that includes other societal factors. Many of the contributing elements parallel the rise of gang violence and begin far from the stadiums and the matches. The incidents that are occurring within the walls of the stadiums demonstrate a breakdown of extramural civil society, ranging from impoverished home life through precarious education, and extending into the relationship between the general populace and governmental authority. In a “civilized” community, it is absurd that the violence inside a sporting location should be so great that police and stadium security cannot readily control it, given that it is not a one-time aberration but rather a constant.


There is no question that the vast majority of fans attending soccer games in Brazil are not participants in the turmoil. Almost everyone comes for the pleasure of watching a match and supporting their team. The few, however, who do engage in the attacks can be savage toward rival fans, and even toward other organized groups of fans for their own teams. It is imperative that Brazilian authorities find the means to restore peace to the soccer pitches prior to next year’s World Cup, and the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.




Friday, July 19, 2013

Snowden, Espionage, Human Rights, and U.S.-Latin American Relations

In the July 12 edition of the Los Angeles Times, Tracy Wilkinson begins with an extremely apropos reference to an iconographic scene from “Casablanca”: “Mexicans are shocked — shocked! — to learn that their American neighbors have been spying on them. What’s more, the Americans have been helping the Mexican government become better at spying!” (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-mexico-snowden-20130712,0,5645423.story).  Politicians from throughout the hemisphere are expressing outrage over the alleged infringement of their sovereign nations. From Mexico’s Enrique Peña Nieto to Argentina’s Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, heads of state are concerned, distressed, insulted and demanding clarification. Americans themselves are disturbed and irate over news of widespread interception of personal communications; in Latin America Snowden’s revelations are a black eye in the face of Barack Obama’s efforts in U.S.-Latin American relations, evoking regional criticisms that echo the strained times of purported CIA-supported dictatorships, coups and assassinations. Of course, just as Captain Renault was shocked to find gambling going on, no one is genuinely surprised by eavesdropping, surveillance and spying being carried out by Americans and numerous others. Every major country in the world maintains intelligence agencies and almost all embassies and consulates include an intelligence officer.  The tacit understanding is that you are not supposed to be too overt or too aggressive with your allies, and by all means you should avoid being discovered. Allies spying on their friends is an international embarrassment for all parties and creates significant political problems for the politicians of the countries being watched as much as for those who ordered the watching. Nobody wants such incidents to come to light. Just ask Peña Nieto whose predecessor and political ally Felipe Calderón cozied up U.S. intelligence services.

What Edward Snowden has done spits in the face of the diplomatic niceties of the various foreign services around the world. In The United States prior to the 1960s and in many countries to this day, Snowden’s actions would constitute high treason punishable by death. But every traitor is a valuable asset to another party, and right now Snowden represents enough potential information that any foreign government would willingly stick its neck out to reap the benefits.  Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Nicolás Madura would be overjoyed to parade Snowden down the streets of La Paz or Caracas as a massive black-eye in the face of their ideological enemy, the United States. For them the benefits would be both symbolic and real. Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff and even Argentina’s Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, on the other hand, would be equally pleased but significantly more wary of overt involvement with Snowden. While Snowden assuredly would like to escape from the transit area of Sheremetyevo International Airport and enjoy the hospitality of President Morales, for the time being he remains a man without a country in that he cannot return home, U.S. pressure prevents him from easily traveling to many countries, and many others cannot afford the consequences of aiding and abetting America’s de facto public enemy #1. This is the case for Rousseff who has pursued a global economic policy that can only benefit from positive relations with the United States. And while Morales might be preparing his guest suite, the Bolivian president himself could not fly home from a recent meeting in Russia without his plane being diverted to Vienna by countries not wanting to act against the interests of the United States. Léo Gerchmann of the Brazilian News agency RBS reports that Snowden acknowledged the current impossibility of traveling to Venezuela in a meeting with representatives from Human Rights Watch (http://www.clicrbs.com.br/anoticia/jsp/default2.jsp?uf=2&local=18&source=a4199059.xml&template=4187.dwt&edition=22344&section=1485).

Russia is attempting a delicate balancing act. Sergei Loiko of the Los Angeles Times reports, “The meeting with Snowden also put organizations that regularly accuse the Russian government of human rights abuses in the position of being asked to serve as intermediary to the Kremlin on his behalf.” At the same time, Putin understands the hand he has been dealt.  As Alexander Ryklin, editor of the online Daily Journal,Putin may dislike and even despise him for what he is, a traitor in his eyes, but he won't let Snowden out of his hands"
Denis Dyomkin and Alexei Anishchuk of Reuters state that “Putin has used the case of Snowden to accuse the United States of preaching to the world about rights and freedoms it does not uphold at home(http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE96F0I020130717). Nevertheless, for Putin as for any leader, assuming the role of human rights supporter for Snowden could appear hypocritical: How can a country embrace a fugitive as a human rights activist when their own record in the area is being called into question? Maduro, Morales and company should also take note.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Judiciary vs. Executive: Bureaucratic Legacy from the Boate Kiss Fire

The administrative offices for the state of Rio Grande do Sul were shut down yesterday (Tuesday, 07/09/13) by judicial decree issued by Justice Hilbert Maximiliano Akihito Obara (5ª Vara da Fazenda Pública do Foro Central). The interdiction of the Fernando Ferrari Administrative Center, in the capital city of Porto Alegre, resulted from a review of public safety documents required for occupation of and public access to the building. All such structures are required to maintain a current “Plan for Protection and Prevention Against Fires” (PPCI). In the aftermath of the horrific blaze at the Kiss nightclub that massacred 242 young patrons (see http://latamperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/05/boate-kiss-and-brazilian-public-policy.html), the governments of Brazil as a whole and of Rio Grande do Sul in particular have taken great pains to demonstrate their dedication to fire prevention and safety in public venues.

The reaction from the state house, Palácio Piratini, was to ignore the interdiction and open for business as usual today (Wednesday, 07/10/13). After all, how can the State conduct its business if its primary administrative offices are closed? How can the very PPCI documents required by Justice Obara be processed if the Judiciary effectively shut down the Executive branch’s daily operations? The Executive’s decision to ignore the court order and open the doors of the Administrative Center spurred major labor unions to organize a protest against allegedly unsafe working conditions in the building since the documents were not up to date. This led to confrontations between the union representatives and government workers who reported to duty only to find the doors blocked by union personnel. Tensions escalated when ordinary citizens began to arrive to conduct their business, including receipt of state-supported medications for needy individuals. Eventually the State rolled out the riot police, and the protesters declared that their planned time period was completed. Right when conditions appeared to be heading toward normalcy, a substantial group of university students arrived to co-opt the protest for purposes of the large-scale manifestations that have been disrupting the country in recent months (see http://latamperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/06/brazilian-protests-and-confederations.html). However, at the end of the day, Justice Obara’s decision was overturned by the State’s higher court, Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul (TJ-RS). This court ruled that content of the fire safety documents was complete, and that the State’s primary administrative office was in compliance.


This apparent antagonism between the Judiciary and the Executive branches of the Rio Grande do Sul government demonstrates the extent to which the tragedy has brought to light the failures in public safety and policy. All levels of government are scrambling to cover their political assets. All of this takes place against a backdrop of continuing, heterogeneous social unrest. The posturing and bickering of branches of the government would be comical if they did not have such an impact on the functioning of the State.