Qatar World Cup


October 2022

The World Cup, soon to start in Qatar, brings together in one place, sports washing, corruption and human rights abuses in a kind of symbolic statement of how to understand the modern world. FIFA itself is in a league all of its own in terms of corruption. It is reported that 16 of its voting members have been implicated in corruption or bad practice since Qatar was awarded the tournament. The list of enquiries investigations, legal actions and the like would take thousands of words to describe.

States like Qatar, with its enormous wealth derived from its massive reserves of natural gas, can afford to spend huge sums on supporting or sponsoring sporting events to green wash their dubious political activities. They are safe in the knowledge that simply by waving large cheques at sporting entities, they can secure these events with no sign of sportsmen or women, their managers or coaches, showing the least concern about the activities going on in those countries.

To build the stadiums has caused a large number of deaths, either from safety failures or from heat exhaustion. The labourers, recruited under the infamous kafala system, are unable to change employers, are not allowed to join a trade union, and live in appalling squalor often sleeping in shifts in the same bed. Their wages are often stolen and despite investigations and promises, there seems no end to the abuses. Various statements have been made by FIFA representatives expressing concern at the deaths and Qatar has made promises to improve their practices. It seems however, that nothing was actually done.

Women are still second-class citizens suffering under a range of gender-based restrictions. They must seek permission from a male guardian to study or travel abroad, marry, or work in some government jobs. Some hotels will not allow single women under the age of 35 to stay.

Some of the footballers have expressed concern but seemed to say there was nothing they could do, and it was all too late anyway since the stadiums were built. A boycott would serve no purpose one England team person said.

So, a tournament takes place soon, in a country where an unknown number of workers – with few rights – have died building the stadiums, where corruption on a massive scale has taken place and where women enjoy few rights. Nothing political will be said because we depend on their gas following Russia cutting off their supplies. Our sports pages will be full of the results and eager reportage of England’s progress in the tournament and will show scant attention to events beyond the pitch. A neat encapsulation of where human rights are today perhaps.

Sources used in this post: HRW; al Jazeera, Amnesty; The Guardian

Readers may also like to link to FairSquare human rights organisation, based in London, which has published reports on abusive labour practices in Qatar.

Fascinating discussions at Lviv Book Forum


Several fascinating discussions at the Lviv Book Forum organised by the Hay Festival. Serious debate about the role of oligarchs in British cultural and political life

October 2022

If you missed the debates at the Lviv Book Forum you missed some of the best debates this year especially its focus on the role of Russian oligarchs and their dirty money in influencing British cultural and political life. Debates of this nature seldom make it into the open air in Britain, one reason being – as was explained – because of the effective lack of free speech in the UK arising from the punitive nature of our libel laws. Oligarchs and other wealthy individuals can launch what are termed SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) which effectively silence critics and frighten publishers and journalists. Costing millions to defend they exert a chilling effect in the UK and make Britain the libel capital of the world.

Why do Russians come to Britain and establish themselves here? This was a major part of the discussion because they are to be found in other parts of the world. There were a number of factors which made Britain particularly attractive it was explained. Firstly, English which was spoken internationally. Secondly, it was the no questions asked culture here: no one asked where the money came from and the agencies which were supposed to check on this kind of thing, looked the other way. Our private schools were another attraction as was easy access to and entry into, the political elite. Members of the Lords for example, were happy to sit on various boards of companies set up by the oligarchs. This easy access to the elite meant all sorts of powerful people were happy to attend parties where political influence took place. Fourthly, Oliver Bullough also spoke of the wide range of services offered in London for example, legal, financial and public relations. The ‘easy come, easy go’ culture combined to make London the key magnet for dirty money and illegal wealth.

One of the participants, Catherine Belton, spoke of the ease with which assets were acquired for example football clubs such as Chelsea. This provided further cultural power and how sports journalists were only too happy to criticise her work in return of favours and interviews with key players.

Misha Glenny explained the origins of the whole process which (as ever) started during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership although he said it carried on under Major, Blair and Brown and is well and truly alive today. Mrs Thatcher’s central plank was to reduce subsidies for the arts and encourage private patronage. This opened to door for wealthy individuals to put money into galleries, museums and orchestras and other cultural institutions. It also gave them influence over the sort of things which are put on.

But more importantly, it gave them a philanthropic reputation which brings us back to the libel issue because, to pursue a libel claim, you had to establish a reputation to defend here. Their philanthropy did this even though the sums involved were peanuts in terms of the wealth extracted from Russia.

The Independent (?) online newspaper, owned by an oligarch was give as an example with a piece it published regretting the non-invitation to Vladimir Putin to the Queen’s funeral.

In the following day’s session, Phillippe Sands spoke of the huge sums given to the Conservative party. He also spoke of the somewhat different opinion in the UK of Boris Johnson to that which he enjoys in Ukraine. The view in the UK was more ambiguous and even sinister. The point being that when Russia first started on its activities in that country, there were many in the UK who were able to downplay its importance and many happy to claim that ‘Ukraine was always part of Russia’.

The combination of these forces, the highly successful political and cultural influence the oligarchs had acquired, the ‘no questions asked’ financial milieu and the ease with which money could be siphoned off to network of tax havens centred on London, combined with massively expensive and oppressive libel laws, meant the UK’s political process has been compromised.

The implication for human rights is clear. Wealth and influence buys silence and complicity.

Matters changed with the invasion in February. Oligarch’s assets were frozen and the plight of Ukrainians could no longer be brushed away. Film of Russia’s activities, the massive number of human rights abuses and evidence of torture together with bombing civilian targets, became obvious to all. Suddenly, things Ukrainian were everywhere, with a concert at the Albert Hall for example and Ukrainian food being more visible. However, the speakers were not convinced this would be permanent. The scale of their financial power and the likelihood of compassion fatigue would probably mean over time, their steady return and influence.


If you missed it then you can access it via this link. Books referred to:

Moneyland, Oliver Bullough,

McMafia, Misha Glenny

Putin’s People, Catherine Belton

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: