April 26, 2012
SANTIAGO – A bullet in the head. That was the fate a Brazilian fan met prior to a March 25 match between the Brazilian soccer teams Corinthians and Palmeiras. Another fan ended up brain dead from the same Sao Paulo melee, in which supporters of the respective teams attacked each other with firearms, homemade grenades and metal bars. All that just two years before the World Cup comes to town.
If you have ever gone to a stadium (or even if you have just watched a match on television), you have seen the associated violence on more than one occasion. The violence hits close to home for me. Twenty years ago a friend of mine was stabbed by supporters of the Universidad de Chile team in Santiago. I was with him and was hit a couple of times, but I managed to escape. He didn't.
The last time I went to a stadium, around five years ago, the scene hadn't changed much. Rival groups of fans from the Chilean teams Universidad Catolica and Everton were throwing rocks at each other in the middle of the game, over the spectators' heads. Everton is from Viña del Mar, a relatively small city. Ten or 15 years ago no one would ever have imagined it would ever have hooligan fans. And there was one other important element: the game was never even close to being suspended because of the violence.
As the years go by, the situation is just getting worse – throughout South America. Within just days of the deadly Sao Paulo incident, a soccer fan was killed in a brawl in Argentina as well. Colombia, Peru and Ecuador have had their share of soccer violence too.
Dictatorships cast long shadows
The phenomenon is unfortunate and recurring, and yet not much is being done to stop it. Why? The situation is too complex for a simple explanation. Are the soccer clubs themselves complacent with the violence? Are there not enough resources to combat the violence? Are people just angrier these days, especially the poor? Or is this just a matter of political irresponsibility in Latin America, where the powers that be encourage this kind of sports fanaticism without properly measuring the consequences?
To some degree or another, probably all of those factors play a role. But there's another element here as well: a lack of decisiveness on the part of the authorities to crack down once and for all on the people carrying out these acts of violence. What's stopping our leaders from going after these people? In my opinion it's fear: fear of using force that will be perceived as excessive by the rest of society; fear of being labeled repressive and of losing, as a result, both popularity and legitimacy.
In many Latin American societies, the ghosts of the military dictators of the 1970s and 1980s are still very much alive. Twenty or 30 years is the blink of an eye in the history of a country. The dread that those military regimes inspired is still fresh.
Chile is a good example. Following the massive earthquake that struck the country in February, 2010, then-President Michelle Bachelet was initially hesitant to declare martial law in the areas hardest hit – despite reports of widespread looting. Bachelet's reluctance no doubt had much to do with the fact that she, along with her mother, was herself tortured and exiled during the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship 1973-1990. Pinochet kept Chile under martial law during much of his reign. Although Bachelet did eventually dispatch the military to control the post-quake lawlessness, it's easy to see why she was originally loath to become the first leader since Chile's return to democracy to do so.
Treating the issue with kid gloves
How does this example relate to the world of violent soccer fans? Because it shows how constantly afraid authorities are of using force against sectors of society that refuse to follow the rules. Take the case of Argentina. Since its brutal dictatorships finally came to an end, soccer stadium deaths have risen sharply – and are happening with ever more frequency as the decades pass. In total, some 250 fans have been killed there in the past 60 years.
There is no logical reason why Latin American governments haven't followed the lead of countries like England, for example, where since the early 90s authorities have tackled soccer hooliganism head on. How did England manage to get the soccer-related violence under control? With different means, not all of them repressive, of course, but with determination and decision. Latin American authorities, in contrast, have a habit of issuing periodic insinuations about new initiatives that are ultimately more theatrical than effective.
We need an urgent end to these outrageous situations, where even the stars themselves are targeted. Brazilian superstar Ronaldinho had to be escorted out of a stadium recently by his bodyguards, pistols in the air, to intimidate his own team's thuggish fans. The violent Flamengo supporters were angry with Ronaldinho for the team's early elimination from the Copa Libertadores. More recently, in Chile, soccer player Carloz Muñoz broke an unspoken taboo by going public with threats he'd received from fans. His teammates eventually offered Muñoz their support. Initially, however, many were bothered or frightened (or both) by his decision to report the threats.
There is no sense in waiting until another tragedy, like the ones that already hit Argentina and Brazil, takes an even greater toll on Latin America's most popular sport.
Read the original story in Spanish
Photo - Rafael Martins/AGECOM
America Economia is Latin America's leading business magazine, founded in 1986 by Elias Selman and Nils Strandberg. Headquartered in Santiago, Chile, it features a region-wide monthly edition and regularly updated articles online, as well as country-specific editions in Chile, Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico.
Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Russia has decided to cut off relations with the Western military alliance. But Moscow says it was NATO who really wanted the break based on its own internal rationale.
Pavel Tarasenko and Sergei Strokan
October 20, 2021
MOSCOW — The Russian Foreign Ministry's announcement that the country's permanent representation to NATO would be shut down for an indefinite period is a major development. But from Moscow's viewpoint, there was little alternative.
These measures were taken in response to the decision of NATO on Oct. 6 to cut the number of personnel allowed in the Russian mission to the Western alliance by half. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the removal of accreditations was from eight employees of the Russian mission to NATO who were identified as undeclared employees of Russian intelligence." We have seen an increase in Russian malicious activity for some time now," Stoltenberg said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry called NATO's expulsion of Russian personnel a "ridiculous stunt," and Stoltenberg's words "the truest hypocrisy."
In announcing the complete shutdown in diplomacy between Moscow and NATO, the Russian Foreign Ministry added: "The 'Russian threat' is being hyped in strengthen the alliance's internal unity and create the appearance of its 'relevance' in modern geopolitical conditions."
The number of Russian diplomatic missions in Brussels has been reduced twice unilaterally by NATO in 2015 and 2018 - after the alliance's decision of April 1, 2014 to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between Russia and NATO in the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Diplomats' access to the alliance headquarters and communications with its international secretariat was restricted, military contacts have frozen.
Yet the new closure of all diplomatic contacts is a perilous new low. Kommersant sources said that the changes will affect the military liaison mission of the North Atlantic alliance in Moscow, aimed at promoting the expansion of the dialogue between Russia and NATO. However, in recent years there has been no de facto cooperation. And now, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has announced, the activities of the military liaison mission will be suspended. The accreditation of its personnel will be canceled on November 1.
NATO told RIA Novosti news service on Monday that it regretted Moscow's move. Meanwhile, among Western countries, Germany was the first to respond. "It would complicate the already difficult situation in which we are now and prolong the "ice age," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told reporters.
"Lavrov said on Monday, commenting on the present and future of relations between Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance, "If this is the case, then we see no great need to continue pretending that any changes will be possible in the foreseeable future because NATO has already announced that such changes are impossible.
The suspension of activities of the Russian Permanent Mission to NATO, as well as the military liaison and information mission in Russia, means that Moscow and Brussels have decided to "draw a final line under the partnership relations of previous decades," explained Andrei Kortunov, director-general of the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs, "These relations began to form in the 1990s, opening channels for cooperation between the sides … but they have continued to steadily deteriorate over recent years."
Kortunov believes the current rupture was promoted by Brussels. "A new strategy for NATO is being prepared, which will be adopted at the next summit of the alliance, and the previous partnership with Russia does not fit into its concept anymore."
The existence and expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War was the main reason for the destruction of the whole complex of relations between Russia and the West. Today, Russia is paying particular attention to marking red lines related to the further steps of Ukraine's integration into NATO. Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov previously stated this, warning that in response to the alliance's activity in the Ukrainian direction, Moscow would take "active steps" to ensure its security.
From Your Site Articles
- Moscow Loses Control Over Its Post-Soviet Backyard - Worldcrunch ›
- Russia And Ukraine, The Meaning Of A Bad Status Quo ›
- The Siberian Fasting Cleanse For Body And Mind - Worldcrunch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Kommersant ("The Businessman") was founded in 1989 as the first business newspaper in the Russia. Originally a weekly, Kommersant is now a daily newspaper with strong political and business coverage. It has been owned since 2006 by Alisher Usmanov, the director of a subsidiary of Gazprom.
Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!