No fair-minded observer can deny that South Africa is qualified to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, has worked hard for the nomination, and is technically and organisationally competent. But there is one aspect about the selection of the host country that is worth considering: security. A few days before the voting took place, FIFA President Joseph Blatter said the hosting of the World Cup will go to the most secure country. His Qatari Deputy Mohamed Bin Hammam qualified this remark by saying that the security concept is relative and that the country that is the safest today may not be so in 2010. A large section of Egyptians took Blatter's comments as helpful to Egypt, the country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world -- lower than both Morocco and South Africa. While we were thinking of crime, the world football's governing body was thinking of regional stability. Both Egypt and Morocco belong to a region that is in turmoil, with bombings and terrorist cells rampaging in many capitals in the region. Having to consider the safety of a million people expected to attend the event in 2010, FIFA was worried. The Egyptian and Moroccan dossiers were not flawless. But it was the state of affairs in the region, the tensions caused by US and Israeli policies, which weighed in South Africa's favour. There is constant fighting in Rafah, on Egypt's border. Before that, some lunatics in the Israeli cabinet were threatening to bomb the Aswan High Dam. Islamist militants are active in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Morocco. Sudan is facing secessionist pressures. With such regional turmoil in mind, FIFA had to play it safe. The horror in Abu Ghraib, the fighting in Iraqi cities, the murder of women and children in Gazan streets, none of this is helping prospects of stability in the region. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, no amount of official reassurances could have put FIFA's mind at ease.
