2014 FIFA World Cup: The Demise of National Identity on the Pitch

Soccer – futebol, fútbol – is unquestionably a significant part of Latin American culture, with the notable exception of some Caribbean nations.  It is almost impossible to imagine modern Mexican, Brazilian, or Argentinian cultural identity without soccer, and nothing brings this to the forefront more than the FIFA World Cup, the phenomenon that develops into a nationalistic frenzy every four years. By the time Brazil won the first of its five (to date) World Cup titles in 1958, it had become clear that game as played by the various national teams had evolved into distinct styles easily contrasting the methodical Swedish journeyman play from Brazilian showmanship, for example.

Many scholars have debated how realistic such an assertion could be, given that FIFA’s Laws of the Games apply equally to all competitions. These students of the game claimed that international football was an English invention and had not substantively changed from its origins. Everybody played the same game by the same rules. Scholars with an opposing view pointed out the differences in tactics and ball control styles that were relatively consistent within countries’ national squads but varied greatly from one nation to the next. While large regional distinctions were evident – e.g. the northern European approach in contrast with the Latin approach – even within a given geographical area, teams could be identified by their style of play: Brazilians favored complicated footwork and individualism, Argentinians played with closer marking and more physical contact, Uruguayans used tightly structured defense and counter-attacks.

As recently as the 2006 World Cup, I argued in favor of the national identities of soccer. I based my assertions not only on the actual way in which teams played but also on the approaches to the game most highly favored in the national media and general populace. In Brazil, looking at the teams that put together three World Cup titles in the course of four tournaments (1958, 1962, 1970), a popular distinction was evident in the way Brazilians viewed Pelé (Édson Arantes do Nascimento) and Garrincha (Manuel Francisco dos Santos). The two were teammates in three World Cups: 1958, 1962, and 1966. While Brazilians recognize Pelé as “the greatest footballer ever” (most career professional goals, only person to win three World Cup titles, etc.), they tended to embrace Garrincha’s flashy, playful style and off-the-pitch partying more than Pelé’s professional athleticism. Observing the teams fielded by Brazil in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, and 1994, the least favorite leading into the World Cup was the less arty and more defensive ’94 squad. Brazilian futebol, it was said, should be the epitome of the “jogo bonito,” the beautiful, stylized way of playing. Prior to the ’94 finals, many Brazilians felt that the more pedestrian group led by team captain Dunga (Carlos Caetano Bledorn Verri) would fail miserably. Instead, they capture the title in the final against Italy, and blazed the trail for Brazilian teams that went to the World Cup final in 1998 (lost to France) and 2002 (beat Germany). Four years later in 2006, the Brazilian superstars seemed to approach the tournament as one giant Nike commercial featuring their amazing ball control talent and trick passes. While they did advance as far as the quarter finals, their game-winning abilities were precarious throughout the tournament, their focus apparently more on style than points. Still, they embodied the jogo bonito of Brazilian soccer and, until their elimination, were much more heartily received than the ’94 squad.

By 2010, things had changed. The best players from around the world were now playing with and against each other in Europe. English, German, Italian, and Spanish leagues surged with foreign players from Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Americas. No longer isolated geographically between World Cups and occasional friendlies or qualifiers, these players now shared their day-to-day experiences and learned from one another. During the 2010 competition, nowhere was this more evident than in the Argentina x Germany match. Traditionally, German success on the pitch relied upon overwhelming athleticism. In the 1974 Cup, the amazing Dutch carousel – the “Clock-Work Orange” as they were called popularly – dominated opponents through their innovative “total football.” In the finals, however, the sheer physicality of the West German athletes ended the Netherlands’ dream. The German style of play depended to a great extent on being bigger, stronger and faster than their opponents. They could boot the ball downfield and out run the other team, leading to strong, accurate shots on goal. In the 2010 face-off with Argentina, the South American squad expected to dissect the Germans relying greatly on Lionel Messi’s incredible dribbling and passing abilities. Messi had spent the years leading up to 2010 demonstrating on Barcelona just how to cut apart opposing defenses in precisely such a manner, and garnishing for himself the title of greatest soccer player in the world. The Germans who defeated the Argentinians were a surprise. They exhibited ball control and passing techniques similar to the traditional Latin American style of play. They still dominated the long ball and fast break, but now had the flashy footwork and intricate passing supposedly of another cultural identity.

This week, the 2014 FIFA World Cup enters the semi-final stage. Few observers of the game would be surprised to know that Brazil, Germany, Argentina, and the Netherlands are the final four participants, three multiple champions and the historically best team never to have won. What has been surprising are the upsets during the group stage and the teams that qualified for the round of 16. Some European powerhouses went home early, while “lesser” teams from African and the Americas demonstrated a level of play equal and even superior to the favorites. Going nose to nose with the soccer strongholds, the second stage included such teams as Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, USA and Uruguay, as well as Nigeria, Algeria, and Greece. Even more surprising, Colombia and Costa Rica both progressed to the quarter finals. The two teams had won their groups, Costa Rica besting three previous World Cup champions: Italy, Uruguay and England.

What is most significant about this is not merely how less traditional teams have surfaced to such a high level of competition, but rather what it means in terms of national styles of play. The leading players of the world have been blending their styles in European leagues in growing numbers over the past 15 years or so. For example, of the 23 players that Mexico took to this year’s World Cup, in their final game against the Netherlands six (if you count Ochoa who just finished his contract with AC Ajaccio) of the starting 11 and all three substitutes play in Europe. In contrast, on the team that Mexico took to the ’94 Cup, only star forwards Hugo Sánchez and Luis García played in Europe. Another way to look at the question of nation-specific styles of play is in the current embodiment of Argentine soccer, Lionel Messi. He developed his skills since youth playing for Barcelona in Spain, starting in their farm system at age 13. While his unquestionably natural ability factors immensely in his success on the pitch, the coaching and environment in which he has honed his craft are Spanish. When Messi first gained international media attention, some observers suggested that his manner of play was that of a Spaniard rather than an Argentinian. Now in 2014, such comments have lost meaning. Messi is Messi. He plays for Barcelona regularly, and represents his country, Argentina, in the World Cup. In the same manner, Robin van Persie plays for Manchester United and represents the Netherlands in the quadriannual competition. At the highest level of the sport, no one plays “Argentinian soccer” or “Brazilian soccer” or “Chilean soccer.” They just play soccer.

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, points out, “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" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-snowden-asylum-20130713,0,6124806.story). As former head of the KGB, Putin knows as well as anyone the value of Snowden’s information, and he would know how to extract and use the intelligence. At the same time, he very publicly values strengthening U.S.-Russian bilateral relations and thus has stipulated that Snowden’s presence in Russia only can be granted if the former NSA contractor will guarantee no further leaks that could harm the United States. One assumes that Putin means no further public leaks, not that Russian intelligence agencies would not pick Snowden’s brains.

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.

Obama in Mexico: But what Mexico was he talking about?

Last Friday (05/03/13), U.S. President Barack Obama gave a speech at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City during which he highly praised the great socio-economic progress currently taking place in that country.  While much of Mexico’s mainstream press reported positively on the bilateral meetings between Obama and his counterpart, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and lauded Obama’s speech, the U.S. media took a different slant, fueled primarily by an article in the Los Angeles Times, “Obama sings Mexico's praises, but some Mexicans hear flat notes” (http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-mexico-obama-reaction-20130503,0,2714566.story). The Times story was picked up by wire services and became the dominant view of the speech in the U.S. media. It included numerous quotes, such as:

“‘[That was] a really good speech by President Obama, but what Mexico was he talking about?’ said Jose Carlos Cruz, 24, a graduate student in international relations.”

“Alberto Rios Lara, 26, who is studying to be an economist, said, ‘Obama is a great speaker; it's really impossible not to feel excited. However, the reality is different in Mexico. We need more action and fewer speeches.’"

The two major issues in U.S.-Mexico relations are drug trafficking and illegal immigration. Obama’s words can be interpreted as a call for Mexicans to stay at home in Mexico, a position that echoes the sentiments of Peña Nieto. The latter wants to showcase how the return to power of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI – Partido Revolucionario Institucional) has brought economic growth and stability to Mexico. At the same time, Peña Nieto has stepped back on cooperative ventures with U.S. law enforcement in the area of drug trafficking, trying to foster an image of self-sufficiency. Nevertheless, Peña Nieto has to worry about the collateral effects of any U.S. economic slowdown and how it could affect Mexico’s growth. As primary trading partners, both the U.S. and Mexico have vested interests in shoring up their mutual commerce. According to the Mexican newspaper El Universal, there’s cause for concern in Mexico that a slowing U.S. recovery will adversely impact Mexico (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/921054.html). The paper reported that in 2012, the U.S. economy grew by 2.2% annual rate, compared to 1.8% in 2011. Nevertheless, the last quarter showed signs of weakening, dropping from 3.1% in the third quarter to -0.1% in the fourth. The article claims that this slowing will hurt Mexico’s GDP, whose 3.9% growth in 2012 is projected to slow to 3.5% this year. This is why Peña Nieto’s government was so enthusiastic about Obama’s cheerleading, releasing a statement that “both governments are committed to working to make the North American region the most competitive and dynamic in the world,” according to a spokesperson for the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP - Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público). This is reflected in the opening address of the SHCP Minister, Luis Videgaray, at the G24 press conference in Washington, D.C. on April 18, 2013. Videgaray indicated emphasized, “This means that we still face very important challenges starting out with the crisis, financial imbalances, fiscal imbalances that create relevant risks for G24 countries. We need to, in parallel, push forward a pro-growth productivity-based agenda” (http://www.shcp.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/doc_discurso_funcionarios/secretarioSHCP/2013/lvc_conferencia_g24_ing.pdf).

In spite of Obama’s and Peña Nieto’s expressed optimism in Mexico’s social and economic outlook, the very real specter of violence, poverty and death haunts U.S.-Mexico relations. The drug cartel wars now stretch across the entire length of the shared border, leaving tens of thousands dead annually. This violence together with rampant poverty push thousands more to seek opportunities in the U.S. With post-9/11 tightened security, most people entering the U.S. illegally risk their lives crossing through extreme desert environments. The NGO Humane Borders has compiled a map of confirmed fatalities in southern New Mexico. It reports 2,269 deaths from 10/01/99-03/28/12 (http://www.humaneborders.net/warning-posters/).

 These are the realities that will require serious cooperation, and not just speeches, on both sides of the line in the sand.

2666

The most interesting book that I read in 2012 was 2666 published posthumously by the Chilean author Roberto Bolaño. Debuted in 2004 by Editorial Anagrama (Barcelona), this 1,000-page novel presents an intricate structure of numerous, seemingly unrelated narrative lines that eventually intersect in the Chihuahua desert of northern Mexico. In some ways reminiscent of Brazilian Ivan Ângelo’s A Festa that focuses on corruption and oppression in a “read-between-the-lines” narrative, 2666 is ultimately a denunciation not only of the violence against women occurring along the US-Mexican border, but also of the de facto governmental complicity in the crimes. The unstated perpetrators of the heinous violence are the savage drug cartels; the implicit target of Bolaño’s harshest criticism is the government that only pays lip service to enforcement and on many levels indirectly and directly abets the illicit cash flow with its ensuing atrocities. This view eventually emerges from a five-part structure that encompasses the arcane world of scholars of obscure European literature, a New York sportswriter, the German army at the Eastern front during World War II, and most importantly the fictitious town of Santa Teresa standing in for Ciudad Juárez. Although he wrote it as a single work, just before his death Bolaño instructed that 2666 be published as five separate novels in order to ensure the patrimony he left for his family. Indeed, each section could conceivably stand alone, while sharing some characters and themes with the others. However, Bolaño’s heirs decided to come out with the novel as a single tome, and the impact of the work gains from this integration. In the end, Roberto Bolaño constructed a narrative as disturbing and desolate as the countryside that he depicted.