The rise of Qatarphobia

I’m fed up with the reaction to Fifa’s decision to award the 2022 World Cup to the tiny Gulf emirate

I was reviewing the paper's on Stephen Nolan's BBC Radio 5 Live show last night, and I was astounded at the number of callers and texters who were outraged over the decision by Fifa to award the 2022 World Cup to the emirate of Qatar. Even liberal bloggers on Twitter joined in on Thursday, after the announcement was made.

Can we all calm down, please? Yes, Qatar will be boiling hot in the summer of 2022 and, no, it doesn't have a big footballing pedigree. But, I would argue, both points also apply to the United States and yet I don't remember there being a big hoo-ha over the Yanks hosting the World Cup in 1994. (Remember the then Irish coach, Jack Charlton, losing it over the heat and lack of water bottles?)

In fact, as CNN has reported, Qatar plans to use state-of-the-art technology, involving solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic panels, to keep pitch temperatures below 27°C. And, as for "pedigree", Qatar is undoubtedly a footballing minnow, but it has won the Gulf Cup twice, in 1992 and 2004, both times as host, and will be hosting the Asian Cup next year. Young Qataris are as passionate about the global game as their neighbours.

The Guardian's in-house Middle East expert Brian Whitaker has an excellent piece on Comment Is Free debunking some of the other myths about Qatar and the World Cup. He makes four key points:

  1. "Qatar is ludicrously wealthy . . . Since money is no problem, one thing we can be reasonably sure of is that when 2022 arrives, Qatar's World Cup infrastructure will meet the highest standards and there won't be a last-minute cliffhanger over facilities as happened with the Commonwealth Games in India."
  2. "Alcohol is not actually illegal in Qatar, though it's an offence to drink or be drunk in public. The bigger hotels sell alcohol and foreigners living in Qatar can buy it under a permit system. I'm baffled as to why some people think this should disqualify Qatar from hosting the World Cup. Considering the problems that can arise with drunken fans, Qatar's restrictions don't seem unreasonable."
  3. "Gay sex is illegal in Qatar, though the authorities don't normally go out of their way to track gay people down . . . very few gay-related cases have been reported in Qatar."
  4. "Compared with some parts of the Middle East, the country has had very little trouble with jihadist militants."

He's right on all four points. I've been to Qatar, and Saudi Arabia it ain't. Don't get me wrong: like every other Gulf nation, Qatar has an autocratic and reactionary regime and is far from liberal or democratic. But let's not pretend the objections to the emirate hosting the 2022 World Cup revolve around human rights. I mean, China – China! – just hosted the Olympics. And Russia was awarded the 2018 World Cup on the same day as Qatar got 2022's. Russia, described in the leaked US diplomatic cables as a "virtual mafia state", has been involved in wars with its neighbours (Georgia) and with its own people (Chechnya) and has a much worse human-rights record than Qatar. For example, I can't remember the last time Qatar launched a bombing raid on a crowded city centre.

So, can we please just lose the Qatarphobia and get a grip?

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

Don't blame Brexit on working-class anger - it's more worrying than that

White voters who identified as "English not British" backed Brexit.

For those of us who believe that the referendum result in favour of Brexit is an unmitigated disaster, the nominations for culprits are open. Former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg made a compelling argument in the Financial Times that the blame lies squarely with Cameron and Osborne.

Clegg, who has first-hand experience of Tory duplicity, is scarcely a neutral observer. But that does not make him wrong. No doubt the PM and the Chancellor are the proximate cause, and should be held accountable by their parliamentary constituents, their party, and by the country as a whole - or what’s left of it if Scotland goes its own way.

Yet journalists and historians alike would do well to probe deeper causes of the referendum result. One obvious culprit is the British press, who, at best, failed to scrutinise the Leave Campaign’s claims and at worst actively abetted them. The New York Times has suggested that using the EU as a punching bag has helped sell papers (or at least generate clicks) in what is probably the most challenging climate for traditional journalism in two centuries.  Boris Johnson, it seems, is irresistible clickbait for the fourth estate. And as Nick Cohen has observed on Saturday, Johnson and Gove, both politician-journalists, have elevated mendacity in politics from an occasional vice to a lifestyle choice.

The search for deeper causes of the Brexit vote, however, cannot end with the press. A different electorate could have taken a different view, as they did in Scotland, which voted 2-1 to Remain.  What was the magic sauce?

Too many commentators, especially those on the Left, have blamed working-class anger. It’s all about social class, apparently. Lisa Mckenzie nearly predicted the result on that basis. Others use it simply to criticise Tory austerity politics. Blaming class can be woven into another favourite narrative - this is about lack of educational attainment. Anyone who has lived in Britain for any period of time knows the class system, the town-and-country divide, and intergenerational wealth disparities as important features of British life. 

Another favourite culprit is racism, as the Washington Post wondered on SaturdayOthers had the same thought, and racist attacks are on the rise. Given Nigel Farage’s antics in the weeks before the election, none of this is surprising. Amidst such scary stuff, many have tried to emphasise that most Brexit voters are not racist, but rather disillusioned with the rule of metropolitan elites. Douglas Carswell is one proponent of this argument, but he’s not alone. The Economist, in an effort to avoid talking about race, asserts that this result was about age, region and class.

Still, this kind of analysis is at best naïve and at worst disingenuous. 

As Lord Ashcroft’s polls suggest, it is only the white working class (if by this we mean C2/DE, though many in DE are unemployed) who voted for Brexit. In fact, those describing themselves as "in employment" generally voted to Remain. Those describing themselves as Asian, black or Muslims overwhelmingly voted Remain. By contrast, nearly six in ten white Protestants voted to leave. 

Brexit was a rejection of British multiculturalism. That is the real take-home message of the Ashcroft polls. Of those who see themselves as "English not British", 80 per cent voted to Leave, irrespective of social class. Those who see themselves as "British not English" voted 60 per cent for Remain. Similar patterns (and similar press involvement) can be found in the Quebec referendum of 1995, which failed by a narrower margin than Brexit succeeded.

Of non-Francophone voters in Quebec, 95 per cent voted to remain in Canada. Those who voted to leave, on the other hand, were rejecting Canadian multiculturalism. Quebecois separatism was seen as part of a struggle for cultural survival.  

Whether or not you call those attitudes racist, the advent of white English (and Welsh) nationalism is, for those of us who have taught modern European history, the truly ominous consequence of Brexit. Do not be fooled by the alternatives.

Dr D’Maris Coffman is a Senior Lecturer in Economics of the Built Environment at UCL Bartlett. Before coming to UCL in 2014, she was a Fellow and Director of Studies in History at Newnham College and a holder of a Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship in the Cambridge History Faculty.