Strife between Algeria and Egypt over football is but a surface manifestation of deeper tensions that could tear the Arab nation apart, writes Hassan Nafaa* How could it have happened that a World Cup qualifying football match between two great countries claiming to belong to the same Arab nation would turn into a furious explosion of rage and acrimony between the governments and people of these countries? It is a difficult question, but any answer, I believe, would require that we distinguish between two different contexts. The first is at the surface level of the events, the various bits and pieces of which we could gather and assemble in a way that makes sense. The second is that much bigger part of the iceberg that lies below the surface and which requires much greater effort to probe its depths, assess their dimensions and determine their significance. With regard to the first dimension, we could probably come up with the following sequence of images: The first was shaped by the tense psychological climate that prevailed in both Algeria and Egypt on the eve of the arrival of the Algerian team to Cairo. The huge numbers of football enthusiasts in both countries knew how important this match was for their teams. The Algerians believed that their team was about to cross the threshold into South Africa for the World Cup finals. They did not even have to win the match. Their dream would come true if the Cairo match ended in a tie or even if the Egyptian team beat them by a single goal. Their one fear was that the intensive and massive support for the Egyptian team playing on its home ground in Cairo Stadium would deprive their team of its rightful victory. The Egyptians, for their part, felt that their team, which they believed was technically superior to the Algerian but which at one point seemed fated for elimination, had a renewed hope of qualifying and they were determined not to let this opportunity slip out of their hands. They were therefore resolved to stand behind their team with all the power and passion they could muster. The second image was depicted by the official and popular responses in both countries to the incident in which the bus transporting the Algerian team was pelted with stones by fanatics against the backdrop of the intensely charged climate described above. The first reaction of the Egyptian media was to downplay the incident and even deny it had happened. Its second was to portray it as an Algerian fabrication with the purpose of sabotaging the match and having it rescheduled outside of Egypt. The Algerian media not only overreacted but also disseminated a similarly sensationalist take on the incident, which they portrayed as part of a deliberate Egyptian scheme to unnerve the Algerian team and rob it of its victory. Image three consists of the Egyptian-Algerian match in Cairo Stadium which was packed with 80,000 spectators, mostly Egyptian. The match was fraught from the first moments, during which the Egyptian team scored a goal that fired the hopes of the Egyptian fans as never before. It remained fraught to the very last moments and into overtime when the Egyptian team scored its second goal, which meant that the two teams would now have to play a final match in Sudan to break their tie in total points. While the Egyptian media naturally focussed on the jubilation that spread through Cairo as though the Egyptian team's ticket to South Africa was already in pocket, the Algerian media attributed the defeat of their team to the physical and moral terrorism that had assailed it in Cairo. Such was the media build-up on both sides that the Khartoum match seemed no longer an athletic event between two sister countries but an impending battle between enemies in which one side would campaign to crown its victory and the other side would fight to the bitter end to avenge its wounded dignity. The fourth image consists of the behaviour of official figures on both sides. Politicians, media figures, airline company executives and even some military leaders issued remarks and proclamations of such fiery passion that one might have thought that they were about to lock military horns with Israel. Thus the newsprint and airwaves rang with pledges to create an "air bridge" and to furnish "financial and administrative assistance" to facilitate the transport of spectators and promises of "huge financial rewards" for the players. Turning now to that large part that lies below the surface, I believe we can best reconstruct it in the following sequence of images: The first is shaped by the desperate need of two despotic regimes, neither of which enjoys any real popularity and both of which are under a heavy cloud of suspicion for corruption (international reports have ranked the two as among the most corrupt countries in the world), to regain their lost popularity. Both seized the opportunity of the Egyptian-Algerian match to ride the crest of the massive popular fervour for their respective national teams in the hope of scoring a vicarious victory on the football field, since victory eludes them in virtually every other arena. They would then turn this victory, which they hoped their publics would attribute to their leadership, to the promotion of political projects and manoeuvres that have no bearing on the real interests of their people. The attitudes and behaviour of official agencies in both countries form the second image. No longer concerned with major national or Arab causes, these agencies now wage their petty battles beneath meaningless chauvinistic rubric of the sort, "Egypt first", or "Algeria first". No mention is made of the Arab nationalist history that bound these two countries in the eras of Nasser and Ben Bella, which gives them even more leeway to exploit the seething mass fury that they helped build up to begin with in the hope of emerging as the champion of Egyptian or Algerian patriotism. As a consequence, these agencies showed not the slightest compunction as they hurled the crudest epithets and labels at the other country. Algerians, who had waged one of the most important national liberation movements in the world and the revolution of "a million martyrs" became, in the Egyptian press, "savage barbarians". Egyptians, who built one of the most splendid civilisations in history and who backed the Algerian revolution in the Nasser era, became in the Algerian press US and Israeli agents and killers of Palestinians. The foregoing phenomenon has given rise to the third image, which is the sudden chest bearing of the two sides at all levels. Governments are recalling ambassadors or imposing taxes on the other country's investments. Crowds are pouring into the street demanding that the other country's embassy be shut down and that the "enemies" be kicked out. The demonstrations even took an ominously dangerous turn as some football hooligans hurled stones, lashed out with chains and knives, and surrounded the homes of citizens of the other country, crying for revenge. These hateful images, both above and below the surface, have been interpreted by some as marking the end of Arab nationalism as both an idea and movement, as embodied in the Nasserist revolution in Egypt and the Algerian national liberation movement. However, this impression of the fragmentation of an overarching Arab nationalism is only one side of an equally disturbing process of fragmentation at the national level in many Arab countries. In Iraq, a major Arab country and society was pulled apart with the help of Arab governments and political forces on the pretext that Iraqis were ruled by a tyrannical regime that possessed weapons of mass destruction the existence of which had never been proven and now known to be lies. Lebanon, one of the most beautiful and vibrant countries of the world, was on the verge of destruction largely due to its system of denominational rule and sectarian strife often fed by other regional and international forces. Sudan is on the verge of fragmentation into several petty states as a consequence of complex ethnic and sectarian conflicts. And contemplate Yemen for a moment. There, too, internal political, social and -- perhaps -- sectarian tensions flared and erupted in a civil war that may soon escalate to regional proportions. So can we draw a line between what happened between Egypt and Algeria as the consequence of football fanaticism and the disturbing and distressful state that seems to prevail throughout the Arab world? In my opinion we cannot. This is not to suggest that I have become a believer in, or advocate of, conspiracy theories. Quite to the contrary, I am very cautious when it comes to dealing with easy answers and ready-made formulas. However, I am certain that Israel fits into the picture somehow, even if it did not actively trigger or affect the events. Perhaps the appeal that many are issuing to Mubarak and Bouteflika to contain the current crisis -- an appeal that I echo -- will restore an element of calm. However, this will not be enough. Sedatives are no longer sufficient to remedy the malignancy that has infected the Arab body; surgical intervention has become inevitable and this intervention must be carried out at both the official and popular levels. At the former level, we must urgently turn our attention to the Palestinian cause that has entered a critically dangerous phase. Israel and the US have virtually succeeded in their aim of imposing their conditions for a settlement on Arab countries. Rather than bringing stability to the Arabs, that solution will give the US and Israel even more ample opportunities for deepening the political and social contradictions in the Arab world and for escalating ethnic and sectarian divides into civil wars that will shatter our countries into pieces. No country, I believe, would be spared that fate, for Israel sees this process as the prime means for ensuring its security and absolute strategic superiority. If, however, the Arabs revived their concern for the Palestinian cause as their central cause they will be able to regain the initiative and accomplish many objectives, foremost amongst which is their internal security and cohesion. At the popular level, it is time that representatives of all shades of the political spectrum in Arab countries awaken to the fact that political despotism has become the foremost enemy of Arab societies. No single political force, especially those subscribing to Islamist views, can produce change on its own. All political forces must learn to cooperate, regardless of the ideological differences between them, if they are ever to break free from the cruel and vicious cycle of despotism that threatens not just Arab nationalism but also the internal cohesion of every individual Arab nation. Arab nationalism was not defeated in the Egyptian-Algerian football match. That match cast into relief the new types of tensions and, perhaps, wars that are looming over the Arab region. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
