• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Why the world should not be so quick to judge South Africa

Written by Ruth Collins
Wednesday, 20 January 2010 07:10

When it was originally announced that the FIFA World Cup 2010 was to be held in South Africa, the choice was met with some cynicism. Much of the doubts centred around the capacity of the country's infrastructure and transport system to cope with such a large-scale event― thoughts which, incidentally, are never too far away from Londoners' minds when contemplating the practicalities of hosting the 2012 Olympics.

For both sporting competitions, security was always going to be another taxing issue. However, when, just under two weeks ago, an attack against the Togolese football team tragically interrupted the Africa Nations Cup in Angola before the competition had even really begun, the international community immediately denounced the World Cup a failure five months before the event has even taken place.

It is bizarre to think that this incident, which saw three Togolese shot dead and several others injured, could cast a shadow over events in a completely different country thousands of miles away. Although South Africa is known to have a high violent crime record and, as with every country, has its own share of security issues, there is little that it and Angola have in common other than the fact that they reside on the same continent.  For one, South Africa is not home to rebel groups. Undoubtedly, Angola's decision to host a football match in Cabinda, a province where the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) continues to fight for independence, was far from a judicious one. However, the international press instantly associated the breach of security in one African country as emblematic of the state of security throughout the continent.

Of course, one could accept that worries over international security had just been rocked once again following the attempted bomb attack on a flight to Detroit on Christmas day. Such was the worry that several UK newspapers subsequently "revealed" that England's squad was considering pulling out of next year's Commonwealth Games to be held in India over fears that its athletes would be targets for terrorists. In what first appeared a gross overreaction may be somewhat more understandable when considered in light of the growing threat of international terrorism and terrorist attacks on sports teams in the recent past. After all, it was only in March last year that the Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked in Lahore, Pakistan, whilst travelling to Gaddafi Stadium. Five policemen were killed and seven cricketers and a member of the coaching team all suffered injuries in the incident.

Nonetheless, although arguably both the Angolan and the Togolese authorities overlooked the possibility of a terrorist attack, underestimated the threat of FLEC and failed to implement adequate security measures, there is no reason to think that South Africa will not already be immeasurably more prepared to host a much larger international event which, in turn, has much greater security issues at stake.

South Africa's ability to host such a sporting event cannot be measured against Angola's failure, no more than France's ability to host the FIFA World Cup 1998 could have been questioned in the context of the atrocities waging in Kosovo at the same time. As the country's chief tournament organiser Danny Jordaan stated recently, "We urge the world not to play double standards." Indeed, the media must remember that South Africa hosted a very successful Rugby World Cup in 1995 and even went on to win the competition. Just as South Africa proved in 1995 that it could move on from Apartheid, once again in 2010 it will demonstrate why the world must not be too quick to judge or make misguided and unfounded assumptions.