Ramsey Khalifeh
*Opinions are my own
I feel as though something is off. I’ve scrolled through Twitter threads, Instagram infographics, and social media discussions surrounding the lead up to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar,which has been narrated and framed as the tournament’s first in the Middle East. What was most obvious to me was the insistence by Western (especially British) reporters on highlighting the many flaws of this year’s tournament. One British cable news show had opened the floor for callers to speak on Qatar, and one person dubbed the nation as “living in the middle ages.” I knew that part of me would not stay silent when hearing comments by American classmates who claimed they were going to boycott the World Cup as a response to Qatar’s track records regarding human and LGBTQ+ rights, not as opposition to that sentiment, but in the hopes of questioning why they thought this way, and what allowed them to lord above other nations for their wrongdoings.
This is not an analysis on FIFA as an organization, for that is its own pervasive issue that merits a separate work. Rather, this is a critique, a different perspective on cultural relativism and how it’s being applied to the biggest global event of the year.
(Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
A continual act of violence in the United States and Europe is what my American peers seem to choose to ignore, or moreover place as separate to, and far removed from, “others.” A track record seemingly unrecognized and maybe even unrepresentative of their individual being. Yet I’ve never heard anyone choose so willingly to boycott an entire nation such as their own, similarly to the unofficial banner of “Boycott Qatar 2022.” One student in particular said this just a month ago when the tournament began, and I chose not to press them on what they meant by it. This person rightfully cited Qatar’s record as a nation that has been behind on many progressive issues and felt they should be subject to scrutiny. However, how many nations can we say this about? This menial reduction of a slogan to make ourselves feel “greater than” on certain issues isn’t helpful, and it certainly, in this instance, has become an easy way for the West to create racist narratives that they themselves think are not racist at all. To add even further, the thought of racism may not have even been acknowledged, for many Europeans (for example) cannot even recognize that a joke, or even an extension to that, a commentary, could be anything more than an opinion on cultural differences. I don’t want this to be a game of “whataboutisms.” I’ll call a spade a spade. But what I’ll call more importantly are the claims of moral superiority from the morally abhorrent.
It seems like media conglomerates and individual spokespersons from the United Kingdom had a lot to say regarding this year’s tournament; providing takes on the type of people Qataris are, what their culture represents, and wrongs Brits believe the Qataris are perpetrating. This notion, that the knowledge the West has of a nation like Qatar is the true Qatar, rather than a perception of Qatar, is inherent to how the West believes and chooses to divide and Orientalize the East. The idea, coined and popularized by Edward Said, shows us that Orientalism, this idea of otherness, “not only creates but also maintains; it is, rather than expresses, a certain will or intention to understand, in some cases control, manipulate, even to incorporate, what is a manifestly different (or alternative and novel) world.” (page 14) The Brits’ statements, dubbing this year’s tournament as a disgrace to the sport of football is a manifestation of prior understandings of the West (Occident) creating two separate and unequal halves of the world (with the Orient as the other half). Statements that, whether true or untrue, are categorically placed as above others. These nations in the West (which historically have benefitted from the financial support of Middle Eastern countries like Qatar and the UAE — Doha-based Qatar Sports Investments purchased the French sports club Paris Saint-Germain in 2011 and Sheikh Mansour of the United Arab Emirates bought the Premier League club Manchester City in 2008) seem to go without major backlash after getting involved financially with Middle Eastern nations with “poor” track records on certain issues that they then go on to bash on their national outlets (notoriously the Guardian and the BBC). What they then go on to do, a practice seen throughout the tournament by many European outlets, is act reactionary to any minor news development both in and out of the football pitch.
(Max Pinckers for The New Yorker)
After the Moroccan men’s national team (the first African and first Arab team to make it to that level) advanced and lost in the semi-finals, popular Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant published a caricature of two Moroccan men snatching the World Cup trophy from FIFA President Gianni Infantino, an implied stereotype of Moroccans as thieves that didn’t deserve the position they reached in the tournament. In Morocco’s quarter-final win against Portugal, where Moroccan players were seen dancing and celebrating with their mothers after the game, Danish broadcast station TV 2 Danmark jokingly likened the men and their mothers to an image of a family of monkeys huddled together. You see, the point is not just to paint Arabs or Moroccans negatively, but to impose superiority and the othering of non-white players and host countries. At times this can perpetuate so blatantly that French commentators will even question their own team’s identity, players who are mostly non-white and immigrants of France.
So what issues have the West addressed? Being careful about selection, the few I’ve seen as the leading conversations held by Western commentators regarding the 2022 World Cup that can be identified clearly are: 1) Qatar’s views on gay rights and 2) the high death toll and unjust treatment of labor workers during the construction of the World Cup stadiums. These issues, both leading up to the tournament and as a consistent narrative throughout it, can be seen at the forefront of critique by the West, and I hope, without undermining the legitimacy of the issues themselves, that I can show not only Qatar’s issues, but also those of the West’s involvement and profited exploitation of a major global event.
After the United Kingdom began recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the UK Trade and Investment department urged British contractors to bid for projects in Qatar’s slated $200 billion infrastructure boom. Qatar’s largest arena, the Lusail Stadium (with an occupancy of over 80,000) enlisted subcontractors to employ much of the people who provided the labor for its construction. According to a BBC Newsnight investigation in 2014 looking into the development of various World Cup stadiums in Qatar, workers employed by Carillion subcontractors, a British multinational construction services company, were forced to “work in unsafe conditions and had wages withheld.” I ask, where is the scrutiny towards the British, German, and other European nations who have intentionally participated and committed the horrid acts we have attributed solely to the government of Qatar? Other subsidiaries involved in Lusail’s construction and worker mistreatment are Interserve, Laing O’Rourke, Multiplex, and Vinci, all of which are based in either the United Kingdom or France. Where is the condemnation of their involvement? Another subsidiary to Vinci was handed preliminary charges in November of 2022 for forced labor and other labor right violations in France. Where was the outrage towards Vinci then? My issue is not that the claims made against Qatar and the 2022 World Cup are wrong, it’s that they’re targeted and specific, and more importantly, those pointing fingers are oblivious to the reality that they are complicit too. Lusail Stadium is not the only example. Al-Bayt, Khalifa International, Al-Thumama, and other stadiums were all joint construction ventures between local Qatari firms, and usually, a Western or non-Qatari engineering and construction company. Tekfen Construction of Turkey, WeBuild S.p.A of Italy, Joannau & Paraskevaides of Cyprus and headquartered in Guernsey. The list goes on.
A historical analysis can quickly show that globally, almost every nation is guilty of the same crimes. The Suez Canal, constructed and formed under the authority of French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps, took the lives of 120,000 workers involved in its 11-year excavation. A 2015 Safer America report showed that the most dangerous category of construction are in-fact canals. New York State’s Erie Canal took the lives of over a thousand workers. Yes, in some sense this argument is flawed. Many of these canals were built in an era where worker safety was not as emphasized as it is today, and technological capabilities were starkly different. There is just an asymmetrical response that isn’t being discussed. When at all were we taught or informed of the atrocities committed by Western contractors and construction companies? Who chooses what is addressed and what isn’t? I understand, also, that the specific focus of Qatar is a result of how large an event the World Cup is. Everyone watches it and many have skin in the game. But yet again, World Cup coverage itself has shown an asymmetrical response.
Let’s bring it back four years. The 2018 World Cup hosted by Russia received widespread Western praise for the success of the tournament and lacked major controversy. Steve Rosenberg of the BBC concluded that the 2018 games were “a resounding public relations success” for Russian President Vladimir Putin and that “the stunning new stadiums, free train travel to venues and the absence of crowd violence has impressed the visiting supporters. Russia has come across as friendly and hospitable: a stark contrast to the country’s authoritarian image. All the foreign fans I have spoken to are pleasantly surprised.” What’s interesting is that none of these comments are given to Qatar, even when they are virtually the same comments that many non-Westerners have made on social media. Qatar produced brand new stadiums to the likings of many fans who visited that I spoke to; they offered free transit; there was virtually no violence reported in crowds (alcohol in stadiums was banned two days before the start of the tournament, and women reported safer environments as a result). Asymmetrical response. Sparse words were given on the similar success Qatar achieved.
Russia’s track record on LGBTQ+ rights is also lacking in progress: many Pride parades have faced local government resistance; sexuality and gender isn’t protected legally against discrimination; and a 2017 UN Human Rights Council report condemned the wave of torture and killings of gay men in Chechnya. Asymmetrical response. My plea is not to reject criticism towards Qatar’s wrongdoings, but to equally apply it everywhere. To acknowledge that progress takes time and to not give in to negative stereotypes of Middle Easterners and non-white people for their records and beliefs. The West has to look at itself as countries that were built on the exploitation of slave labor, and countries that have a deep record of hatred and violence towards the marginalized. Need I say more?
I think how we approach progress should change. We need to give younger nations time; to understand that progress is a relative process rather than a fixed state.