World
Cup boycott would fuel Moscow’s sense of conflict with the West/David Lewis is a Senior Lecturer, Politics at University of Exeter.
The
Conversation |
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and FIFA President Sepp Blatter (L) during the official ceremony of handing over the FIFA World Cup 2018 signed certificate to Russia, after the FIFA World Cup 2014 final between Germany and Argentina at the Estadio do Maracana in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13 July 2014. EPA/ALEXEY NIKOLSKY /RIA NOVOSTI / KREMLIN POOL MANDATORY CREDIT
While
Western politicians strongly supported the arrests of FIFA officials, in other
parts of the world the events in Zurich were immediately seen as just another
geopolitical play. In Russia, Vladimir Putin argued that the arrests amounted
to a case of over-reach by US law enforcement agencies. China also criticised
the arrests, with a Xinhua editorial complaining that it was “a bad example of
overrun of unilateral power”.
In
this polarising geopolitical discourse, calls by Western politicians for Russia
to lose the right to stage the 2018 World Cup are likely to do more harm than
good. Labour Party leadership contender Andy Burnham is the latest politician
to link the FIFA investigation to Russia’s role in the war in Ukraine, and to
press for a boycott of the 2018 competition. But making the campaign to clean
up FIFA a geopolitical contest between the West and Russia is unlikely to lead
to successful reform of the organisation.
To
develop an effective response, it is important to understand the Russian
narrative. From Moscow’s point of view, the FIFA investigation looks less like
a genuine anti-corruption campaign, and more like an attempt to undermine
Russian attempts to play a greater role on the international stage. Russian
leaders were already unhappy with the international media coverage of the Sochi
Winter Olympics, which focused on stories of widespread corruption in the
construction budget, rather than the actual games themselves. An attempt to
remove Russia as World Cup host for 2018 will only add to the narrative of
victimhood that often informs Russian political discourse.
But
Russian objections to the events in Zurich go much deeper. Moscow’s
over-arching concern is about the dominant role of the US in the international
system and what it sees as a geopolitical approach to international law
enforcement.
For
several years, Moscow has been increasingly concerned about the apparent
ability of the US to extend its arrest and prosecution powers beyond its
borders. After the FIFA arrests the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
We
would like to point out that this is clearly yet another example of arbitrary
exra-territorial enforcement of US law … Time and again, we call on Washington
to cease its attempts to initiate court proceedings far beyond its borders with
its own legal standards, and to follow universally accepted international legal
procedures.
Russia
claims that the US engineered the detention of ten Russian citizens in a
variety of countries in 2012-2013, of which at least seven were extradited to
the US. Not only are the extraditions unsound, argue Russian officials, but
trials of these individuals in the US have been unfair.
In
rather undiplomatic language, a 2014 ministry statement argued that US courts
were biased against Russian nationals, and complained that “judicial
proceedings for those who were in fact kidnapped and moved to the United
States, usually ends with guilty verdicts with long prison terms”. The ministry
even issued a travel warning to Russian citizens, suggesting that they might be
at risk of arrest by US law enforcement officials if they travelled abroad.
Building
consensus
The
US responded by saying that “law-abiding” individuals had nothing to fear.
Russian complaints usually concerned individuals accused of involvement in
drugs or cyber crime, such as Maxim Chukharev, who was extradited from Costa
Rica and sentenced to 36 months in prison in January 2015 for his role at
Liberty Reserve, a digital currency service that the US authorities labelled
“the bank of choice for the criminal underworld”. The most notorious of these extraditees
was Viktor Bout, the arms dealer extradited from Thailand to the US in November
2010, who was subsequently sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Given
the nature of these cases, Russia’s complaints about US overreach might seem
overwrought. Indeed, Russia has itself been accused of misusing Interpol and
extradition procedures to pursue political opponents and dissidents abroad. Yet
concern about the expansion of US law enforcement internationally is shared by
other non-Western states, worried about the blurring of sovereignty and legal
jurisdiction in international affairs. Hence some quiet support diplomatically
from non-Western states for Russian concerns about the US actions in Zurich.
Instead
of fuelling a Russian narrative that explains everything in terms of a
geopolitical conflict with the West, European politicians should focus on
building an international coalition to clean up football. A first step might be
for the UK and EU authorities to pursue their own corruption investigations
into FIFA, rather than relying so heavily on the US Justice Department to make
the running. Using the FIFA campaign as just another way to attack Russia, on
the other hand, is only likely to produce further international polarisation.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario