Letter to FIFA Regarding Zimbabwe

Below is the letter I sent to FIFA. I will keep you posted on their response.

August 4, 2008

Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20,
P.O. Box 8044 Zurich, Switzerland

Dear Mr. President, Mr. General Secretary and Members of the FIFA Congress:

The evolution of FIFA over the last century has been remarkable. FIFA has astonished and eclipsed all expectations, growing from a small organization dedicated to the development of football into a socially responsible, international body committed to reaching out and touching the world. Your history is truly a history to be proud of. And we can only wish the high moral standards and practices evident in your past are emulated by people and organizations around the world in the future.

Now, however, as much as ever, FIFA faces a challenge and a chance. And the truth is, today, FIFA is failing. The organization is failing to back its words, its mission and its responsibility in Africa with action.

Hosting the 2010 World Cup in South Africa brought a pledge from FIFA -- a commitment -- to assist the African continent above and beyond the realm of sport with its ‘Win in Africa with Africa’ project. This is not merely my interpretive perception, but rather those are your words and your promise. And yet as the time for the games draws near, FIFA neglects to address one of the largest crises facing the African continent – the failed democratic elections and repressive regime of Mr. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Mugabe has violated the core values upon which FIFA stands for – the leader of Zimbabwe has violated the authenticity, unity, performance and integrity of his country and his people.

The government of South Africa insists the crisis in Zimbabwe be handled diplomatically and that it be the mediator in the conflict. However, today, as in years past, the leadership of South Africa has failed to demonstrate any resolve in ending the blatant injustice and disregard for democracy and human rights occurring in Zimbabwe. While prominent South African icons such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu have spoken out for change in Zimbabwe, the current South African administration lead by President Thabo Mbeki has sat idly by offering no meaningful course of action to end the tragedy in Zimbabwe.

Obviously, FIFA cannot offer itself as a diplomatic mediator in the conflict, however, the organization is in a position of extraordinary leverage to pressure President Mbeki’s administration to take meaningful steps to help end the discord. If FIFA does nothing, I am afraid the crisis could escalate and leave a black mark on the 2010 World Cup, much as China’s poor human rights record has tarnished the image of the Olympic Games.
 
While the path of least resistance would be for FIFA to contend it does not maintain the role, nor the power to ameliorate the situation, the organization’s pride and legacy would not be justified in doing so. History will find it hard to believe that an organization holding a set of powerful cards relegated itself to the sidelines and did nothing when given the opportunity. We need not look very far back to the United Nations and the United States in Rwanda to see how unfavorably history looks upon inaction.

In keeping with the proud tradition of your heritage, I believe the necessary course of action FIFA must take is clear -- Touch Zimbabwe, Build A Better Future.

I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter, and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to change the world.

Reflections Upon the European Union

The European Union (EU) is having great difficulty in convincing individual European countries to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. In a nutshell, the Treaty of Lisbon seeks to enhance EU institutions, and thereby, offer further legitimacy and power to the EU as well as allowing the organization to take an enormous step in adopting a Constitution. The people of Ireland, the only country to put the treaty to referendum, rejected the treaty and both the German and Polish presidents are refraining from signing the treaty. In the past, the people of France and the Netherlands rejected similar treaties. I will allow you to perform your own due diligence regarding the specifics of the treaty and the issues surrounding its language and policy implementations.

As an outside observer, I would like to focus on the psychology and philosophy behind the European Union as I find it more interesting than its inner politics.

The unification of Europe politically, economically, socially, etc. under the EU is a profound concept considering Europe's divisive history and size. However, with Europe's history, diversity, and size, is the EU destined to fail? Despite the negotiations, stalemates, agreements, disagreements and nearly everything in between since the EU's inception 15 years ago, the EU remains a particularly weak organization that has yet to prove the solidarity of Europe.

History demonstrates that nations and their political institutions are more efficient when the body that comprises them is smaller and less diverse. For example, is Europe too large and diverse to organize around democratic principles and jointly create and ratify a Constitution? Despite numerous treaties and attempts including the Treaty of Lisbon, fifteen years later the member states of the EU have failed to ratify a Constitution.

In contrast, the Constitution of the United States of America was written in 1787 and ratified by all states three years later in 1790. However, if the United States of America had been comprised of the other 37 states in addition to the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution, would the United States have a Constitution today? Or, if the original 13 states were as diverse as the country is today, would the United States have a Constitution today?

Can an organization unable to convince its populace to agree upon a set of binding principles be said to be strong and united? Will an organization be able to unite a territory as expansive and a people as diverse as Europe and Europeans? Or is progress being made? Are the treaties that have already been ratified and the influx of new member states an indication that the EU, if slowly, is progressing towards its goal of a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe? And most importantly, what does a study of the EU suggest regarding the feasibility of a peaceful, united and prosperous world? What will the process be and how long will it take, if ever?