In 2010, the 22-member FIFA Executive Committee awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. These decisions stirred up major controversy among media commentators and government officials all over the world. As a result, allegations that the two countries bought their way into hosting the international soccer tournament during the 2009 bidding process began to spring up.

Though the accusations were serious, they were not exactly unfounded. Before the committee voted on which country to award the World Cups, two of its members were suspended due to allegations of vote corruption from their respective soccer confederation regions–Oceania and Nigeria. FIFA also branded Qatar as a “high operational risk” for hosting the tournament due to its average summer temperatures of 115 degrees Fahrenheit and challenges linked to stadium locations. Russia was the only other bid to not have a “low risk” rating.

The controversy has only grown since then. Since the 2010 vote, most members of the committee at the time have been banned for unethical conduct, indicted on corruption charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, or remain under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Switzerland–where FIFA headquarters are located–who have 25 ongoing investigations involving more than 170 bank transactions suspected as money laundering.

On Monday, a new development occurred. A German newspaper published a portion of a leaked 2014 report–which FIFA commissioned–once expected to be the explosive holy grail for FIFA critics who thought the votes that gave the World Cups to Russia and Qatar could be rerun.

According to the report in Bild, three FIFA executive members were flown to a party in Rio in a private jet belonging to the Qatari federation just before the vote for 2018 and 2022 hosting rights, and Aspire Academy–an independent Qatari government-funded agency that provides “sports training and education to students with sporting potential”–was implicated “in a decisive manner” in “the manipulation of FIFA members who had the right to vote.” It also mentioned a $2m sum allegedly paid to the 10-year-old daughter of another FIFA official just before the vote.

The report was supposed to be released in 2014 under the authorship of American lawyer Michael Garcia–known for prosecuting the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and investigating former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. FIFA hired Garcia in 2012 to investigate the World Cup bidding process. FIFA decided to release a 42-page summary that “cleared” Russia and Qatar of corruption. Garcia called the edited report “incomplete and erroneous” and subsequently resigned in protest citing “lack of leadership” at the organization, which led many to believe that the public would never see the full, unedited version.

Other critics of the redacted report include Simon Johnson, who led England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. “Now that I have seen Mr Garcia’s statement, I am absolutely convinced that the report is a politically motivated whitewash,” he told the BBC. While Qatar and Russia were vindicated by the report, England’s Football Association was accused of flouting bidding rules.

As a response to the initial leak, FIFA–in a rare sighting of transparency–released the full Garcia report on Tuesday. The message generally remained the same: there was no “evidence of any improper activity by [Qatar].” Peter Rossberg–the journalist who claims to have obtained the report–said in a Facebook post that the full report does not provide outright proof of corruption during 2018 and 2022 bidding, but more findings could arise when everything is put together “like a puzzle.”

The full report still brought other findings to light about the relationship between FIFA executives and entities connected to Qatar. South American FIFA voting member, Julio Grondona, failed to disclose meetings to the investigators as well as a discussion about Qatar potentially paying for flights before his death in 2014. An adviser to Thailand’s soccer federation, whose leader was a FIFA voter, was involved in talks between a Thai gas company and Qatar over an energy deal with Doha. Garcia referred to both of these incidents as troubling and suggested that further inquiry be made.

The report also found that the Qatari heat was never discussed in the executive committee meeting before the vote, not even by the voter who also served as FIFA medical chief, Michel D’Hooghe, who was “compromised by his actions” over Qatar, according to Garcia. D’Hooghe’s son was later employed by a Doha hospital linked to the Aspire sports academy  and the bid team was also arranging a business opportunity for a friend’s son ahead of the vote.

Whether or not this will actually result in any sort of sanctions levied against Qatar, or even an outright abdication of its position as World Cup hosts, remains to be seen. The only existing precedent of the tournament getting moved was when Colombia was supposed to host the 1986 World Cup. In that instance, a continent-wide economic collapse had inhibited the country’s ability to afford it. Colombia backed out in 1983, which gave the new host, Mexico, nearly three years to prepare.

As to what it would take for FIFA to remove Qatar as hosts, in 2015, then-FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that only an “earthquake, extremely important new elements,” could change the organization’s decision to hold the 2022 tournament in the Gulf state. At this point, any movement seems unlikely.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post German Newspaper Publishes “Suppressed” FIFA Corruption Report appeared first on Law Street.

As the civil war in Syria has escalated, American, Saudi Arabian, and Russian interests have played increasingly larger roles. The Obama Administration adopted the stance, shared by the majority of the U.N., that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was guilty of human rights violations and must be removed from power. Russia, on the other hand, has long been an ally of Syria, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has supported Assad throughout the conflict. This has led to what is in part a proxy war, with Syrian rebels that have been trained and armed by Saudi and American militaries fighting against Assad’s forces, which are armed with Russian weapons and drive Russian tanks. Amid this turmoil has been the growing power of ISIS, opposed in different ways by both the United States and Russia.

As the war has carried on, it has grown increasingly bloody. By the end of 2015, the war had claimed a staggering 470,000 Syrian lives, representing a loss of 11.5 percent of the nation’s population. Even among the survivors, the damage to Syrian national security has been extreme; over half of the nation’s population has been displaced by the war. The Syrian conflict is vast and extremely complicated and both Russia and the U.S. have numerous reasons for their involvement.

However, it’s imperative to analyze one important but under-emphasized element of the war: the role of energy. Both the U.S. and Russia stand to influence the future of the global energy market if their side comes out dominant in this conflict. If the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, it will likely push ahead with current plans to build a natural gas pipeline running from Iran through Syria. The pipeline would be built by the Iranian government in collaboration with Russia’s major gas corporations, and would allow both countries to profit off of the largest gas reserve on earth. On the other hand, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an active interest in preventing this from happening to protect its share in the energy market, as well as the strength of the petrodollar, against Russian and Iranian competition.

President Trump has long denounced America’s anti-Assad position and previously discussed working with Russia, and possibly Assad, against the common enemy of ISIS. However, following the Syrian Air force’s chemical attack in the Idlib Province, Trump at least temporarily reversed his public position on Assad and Russia. Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has grown increasingly closer to Saudi Arabia. Future negotiations will tell whether there is still a possibility for Russia and the U.S. to work together in Syria, and Trump’s ultimate stance on the Assad regime will heavily influence whether the Iranian pipeline is built. We are currently at a critical moment in the future of the Syrian conflict, and for the roles of Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in the global energy market. Read on to see what each side stands to gain and lose as we move forward.

Syria: The Energy Crossroads

The conflict in Syria is fueled by numerous religious and geopolitical divisions within the Middle Eastern Region and energy is far from the only relevant factor in American or Russian involvement. However, the importance of energy within the Middle East and its ever-present role in regional conflict is hard to overstate. Control of the global energy market means being able to exert huge influence on the international economy, and the Middle East’s vast fossil fuel reserves have always attracted the interest of international superpowers. The last two decades of constant regional conflict have been a consistently perilous struggle for power and market control, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two largest economies in the Middle East.

Syria has attracted international interest because its central location in the Middle East makes it a potential energy crossroads for pipelines that could transport natural gas across the region from the South Pars/North Dome gas field. Because of Syria’s critical position, the results of the war will likely determine who gains access to the gas field, and thus will greatly impact the future of energy sovereignty within the region. The oil and gas trade is very directly related to the strength of the American dollar and both the U.S. and longstanding ally Saudi Arabia are worried that Syria could become the construction site of a pipeline. A new major pipeline could upset the balance of the energy market, and subsequently the power of the dollar and the Saudi Riyal, which is pegged to the dollar.

Saudi Arabia, home to 16 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and the leader of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, has long used whatever means are necessary to ensure that its business never shrinks. Recently, as foreign dependence on petroleum in the last few years lessened due to a boost in gas production abroad, the Saudis chose to ignore their 2014 promise to reduce output and actually increased their production up until 2016. This caused international petroleum prices to drop, keeping Middle East petroleum competitive, despite the fact that the price gouge also sent many of the poorer OPEC countries near collapse.

In order to maintain its status as the largest energy producer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has also spent the last two decades attempting to block energy infrastructure proposals designed to access the South Pars/North Dome gas field. The South Pars/North Dome Gas Field lies beneath the Persian Gulf, with the northern end of the field in Iranian territory and the Southern edge in Qatari territory. It is the single largest gas reserve on earth, and a pipeline that allowed cross-regional transport of its resources could dramatically change the future of the energy market. The first pipeline was proposed in 2009 and would have carried gas from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, although both the late King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia and Assad in Syria rejected its construction in 2009. It is sometimes falsely claimed that Saudi Arabia supported this pipeline, but the Saudis also opposed its development because a pipeline would have given the E.U. direct access to cheap gas. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with its then ally Qatar had at the time also grown unstable, and the Saudis were skeptical about a large scale business collaboration.

However, in place of the Qatari project, an alternative pipeline was proposed, which would be built avoiding Saudi land and would replace Qatar with Iran as the central supplier of natural gas. Saudi Arabia views Shiite Iran as its primary enemy within the Middle East and is determined to keep it from growing in power in the energy market. However, Assad publicly supported this pipeline, which would give Russian and Iranian business interests primary access to the gas field’s massive resources. Saudi Arabia lacked the veto power it held with the first pipeline, which forced Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan to reach directly out to Putin, promising to ensure that the gas reserve would not be utilized in competition with Russia’s business if Putin abandoned his support of Assad’s regime. Putin refused and Saudi Arabia pushed forward with regime change in Syria by militarizing rebel Sunni groups, including the Free Syrian Army, the Al Nursa Front, and the organization that would become ISIS.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia

The U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia is a tense and complicated one. Saudi Arabia has come under international criticism for its human rights record and the Saudis have continuously funded extremist Sunni groups that threaten the Western world. However, the economies of the two nations are tied together through the petrodollar. Petroleum is the most commonly traded substance on earth by volume, and globally, petroleum has been traded almost exclusively in American dollars for the last 40 years. If a country wants to buy oil, it must first purchase U.S. dollars, which increases demand for the dollar and dollar denominated assets. Because of this, the success of the oil industry and cooperation with Saudi Arabia very directly affects our domestic economy. The United States and Saudi Arabia have worked together in coordination for almost three-quarters of a century to influence Middle Eastern geopolitics, from the establishment of the petrodollar system to the Persian Gulf War to both Yemen Civil Wars and the battle against Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia has also been a central customer of the U.S. defense industry for decades, although Obama ordered a weapons sales freeze following large-scale civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes in Yemen. Some have accused this freeze of being largely political theater, since overall the Obama Administration sold over $46 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any president in the 71-year alliance. The State Department also went on to grant a pre-planned $3.51 billion initiative to arm and train the Saudi army to defend the Saudi-Yemen border, claiming none of this money would go the actual war it supposedly condemned. While the Obama Administration has been critical of Saudi Arabia, it also continued to support the country and many of its conflicts throughout Obama’s presidency.

While Assad is certainly guilty of human rights violations, the U.S. also has a critical interest in coordinated regime change because the current pipeline proposal would give unfriendly Iran dominant control of the largest source of energy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Russia’s three largest gas companies will play a large part in the development of the pipeline, meaning Russian interests stand to profit directly off the reserve. Russia and Iran are two of the few countries worldwide that refuse to use the petrodollar, so not only does control of the gas field give them a huge business advantage, the greater their share in the market the weaker the U.S. dollar and Saudi Riyal will become. While the United States and Saudi Arabia disagree on many things, the two nations are united geopolitically in their desire to prevent Russia and Iran from gaining greater regional power and control over the energy market through a coordinated business venture.

In 2014, following a meeting between John Kerry and King Abdullah of Jordan, the United States agreed to work with Saudi Arabia on a military offensive in Syria through Operation Timber Sycamore, with Saudi Arabia funding and arming the Free Syrian Army and the CIA training them in preparation for the war. While the stated purpose of U.S. involvement was to counter ISIS, the choice to fund the rebel group looking to overthrow the ruling Baath party reflects the Obama Administration’s consistent desire for regime change.

“Obama/Saudi Ties” courtesy of Tribes of the World; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Russian Involvement

Currently, Syria is Russia’s oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East, although Iran and Russia have grown increasingly closer throughout the last decade. Aside from representing Russia’s foothold in the region, Syria is also the location of Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base. In exchange for this critical regional access, Syria has the support of one of the world’s largest superpowers. The long-standing connection between these countries makes it no surprise that Russia is willing to give political and military support to Assad.

However, Russia also stands to gain significantly moving forward if Assad can suppress the rebel forces. As long as the Assad regime maintains control of Syria, then construction of the Iranian pipeline should move forward as planned. Russia is the second largest producer of fossil fuels globally and recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s top crude oil producer. Together oil and gas exports account for 70 percent of Russia’s $550 billion annual exports. European natural gas imports from Russia dramatically increased from 48 percent in 2010 to 64 percent in 2014, and Putin’s long-term plan is to become an even larger energy superpower, spiking production and exports by 2020 by increasing sales in Europe and expanding into the Asia-Pacific region. It is no secret that the E.U. dreads increasing its dependence upon Russia’s major gas giants. Because of heavy resistance to the Russian energy business in the West, Putin has been continuously looking for new projects in the East, notably in China and the Middle East. Iran has long been looking for international investors in its shale business, and in 2013, the Russian state-controlled gas corporation Gazprom signed a deal with the Iranian government to cooperate in ongoing energy infrastructure development. The infrastructure agreement makes Gazprom the third major Russian corporation to be heavily invested in Iranian energy, following Lukoil and Zarubezneft. The construction of the Iranian pipeline would give these corporations new ability to profit off of huge quantities of natural gas. By ensuring that the field is developed and utilized first by friendly Iran, along with Russian gas corporations, Putin can avoid dangerous new competition in the European energy market as was planned in the original Qatari pipeline, thus maintaining Russia’s position of market dominance.

Fear of Saudi Arabia and increased U.S. support for the Syrian insurgency pushed Assad to request greater assistance from Putin, which resulted in Russia joining the conflict in September 2015, mounting a series of airstrikes both against the Free Syrian Army and ISIS. What followed became an increasingly serious proxy war between the Syrian rebels, backed by the United States, and the Syrian military, backed by Russia. The bloodiest of these conflicts has centered around the City of Aleppo, where over 400,000 have died thus far. The FSA has suffered both massive causalities and the loss of members who have defected to join the more radicalized Al-Nursa Front and Jaysh Army. The Syrian Air Force’s chemical attack on Idlib came shockingly during negotiations that were expected to come out in Assad’s favor. President Trump sided initially with the majority of the Western world and voted in favor of a U.N. resolution to launch an investigation into the attack. The resolution was blocked by Russia and we are currently in a pause, waiting to find out how the conflict will move forward.

“Aleppo, Syria” courtesy of yeowatzup;  License: (CC BY 2.0)

Conclusion: What does the Future Look Like?

While Trump has criticized Saudi Arabia in the past for its own role in funding radical Islam, he seems to have recently made a complete reversal on this stance and has even sided with Saudi Arabia in its dispute with U.S. ally Qatar. The Trump Administration and Saudi Arabia have also recently entered into a $110 billion dollar weapons deal, the largest in U.S.-Saudi history. Following the attack on Idlib, it seemed possible that Trump might decide to align with the anti-Assad stances held by the Obama Administration and the Saudi government. However, since the U.S. airstrike and the failed U.N. Security Resolution, the Trump Administration has not publicly emphasized Assad’s removal.

Currently, it’s uncertain whether Trump will side with reestablished ally Saudi Arabia or if his administration still plans to find a way to work together with Russia in Syria. The U.S. warned the Russians prior to the airstrike on the Shayrat base, allowing them to evacuate without casualty. There have also been accusations that the airstrike was essentially political theater to dispel the notion that Trump is compromised by Russian interests, given the fact that Russia chose not to deploy its anti-missile systems, effectively allowing an attack it knew was coming to take place.

While the future of the South Pars/North Dome gas reserve isn’t certain, at this point Assad has successfully dominated the majority of rebel forces in Syria. As long as the Assad regime is still in place, any major cross-regional energy infrastructure utilizing Syrian land will most likely be to the advantage of Assad and his ally Putin. If the Iranian pipeline does end up being built, the reverberations will be felt throughout the global energy market. Saudi Arabia may lose the upper hand in several markets where it competes with Iran and Russia, especially in East Asia where Saudi Arabia has struggled to maintain active business in the face of Russian competition. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that Europe will ever be able to utilize the gas field as a cheap alternative to lessen its dependence on Russia.

If Iran and Russia become larger figures in the energy market, the petrodollar will weaken as less U.S. dollars are needed for oil transactions, which would affect the economies of both America and Saudi Arabia. How dramatic these effects will be is impossible to say. Saudi Arabia still has massive hydrocarbon reserves and is in no danger of being pushed out of the global fossil fuel trade. While the petrodollar has played a large part in the strength of the American dollar since the end of the Gold Standard, it is only one of many factors that contribute to and decide the strength and stability of the U.S. economy. We will have to wait and see what direction the Trump Administration takes American foreign policy in the Middle East to learn the answers to these questions.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Tale of Two Pipelines: The Influence of the Energy War in the Middle East appeared first on Law Street.

On June 5, several Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia announced they were cutting off all relations with Qatar. Although terrorism was used as the main rationale for the fallout, alternative claims abound. Whatever the exact reason, this dissension in the ranks comes at a difficult time in the fight against terror, a fight in which Qatar is a maddeningly prominent player on both sides. It also creates an awkward position for the United States which has an important base in Qatar as well as one in Bahrain–one of the nations that severed ties. Most significantly though, this move may just be one more development in the ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose differing viewpoints of Islam are grappling for preeminence in the Muslim world. Read on further to learn more about the fallout and its various impact on Qatar, the United States, and the region at large.

Why the Split?

In total, nine countries have announced that they would cut ties with Qatar, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, the Maldives, Yemen, Libya, Mauritius, and Mauritania. According to these countries, the split is over Qatar’s support for terrorist groups and its close relationship with Iran. Specifically, these countries claimed that Qatar has either supported or protected members of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. In response, Qatar has said that these claims have “no basis in fact.” Another related issue that may have sparked the fallout is a massive ransom payment that Qatar reportedly paid to recover a member of the royal family. The payment is rumored to be as high as $1 billion and Qatar’s neighbors fear that the money amounts to direct funding for terrorist organizations. Finally, the decision also comes shortly after the Qatari News Agency reported on comments allegedly made by the Qatari leader in support of Iran. The report prompted backlash from neighboring countries, but Qatar said that the news outlet was hacked and the report was fabricated.

There is some irony to the split, as Qatar is a Sunni-led, Sunni-majority nation, while Bahrain–one of the countries that cut ties–is actually majority Shia, the Muslim sect championed by Iran. As a result of the decision, Qatari citizens and diplomats will be required to leave many of these countries on very short notice.

The video below describes how the recent dispute unfolded:

Impact on Qatar

The Al Thani family has ruled Qatar from the mid-1800s onward. For most of that time, the country was relatively poor and undeveloped. However, with the development of the country’s vast natural gas reserves beginning a little more than half a century ago, the nation was transformed and attained the world’s highest per capita income in 2007. Despite accruing vast wealth, Qatar has had issues in the past due to its support for revolutionary movements and terrorist organizations, which has caused rifts with many of the countries it is currently clashing with in the past, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. (This support may also explain why Qatar was immune from many of the Arab Spring protests experienced by a number of countries in the Middle East.) At one point in 2014, those countries even recalled their ambassadors, but in that case, the differences were ultimately resolved.

In the most recent case, Qatar would benefit from a similarly quick return to good relations. This is true for several reasons. First, because Qatari flights are banned from these countries’ airspace, flight paths to and from Qatar need to be modified to take longer routes, which raises costs and could spell trouble for its airlines. Secondly, Qatar is a peninsula with only one land border, which is with Saudi Arabia. By closing this border, Qatar will have to funnel all food and other supply shipments in by air or sea. This is particularly a problem for Qatar because its climate prevents most domestic food production.

In addition, this move could also hamper Qatar’s construction industry. Qatar was chosen to host the 2022 Soccer World Cup, but many of the materials needed to build the facilities for the stadium and other projects pass through Saudi Arabia, which will now also need to be transported on a less direct route. This will also have consequences on both Qataris living abroad and citizens of other Gulf nations currently living in Qatar, many of whom have been ordered to return home. The impact of these concerns was felt immediately as Qatar’s stock market dropped 7 percent the day after the announcement.

These effects would only pile on the issues Qatar has had to deal with since the price of oil plunged in 2015. Specifically, the country already ran a $8 billion deficit, amounting to 5 percent of its GDP in 2016. To combat these changes, Qatar had already implemented austerity measures such as raising utility rates, levying fines, and scrapping programs, including a proposed national health care system. If this ban is long-lasting, it could have even more deleterious effects on Qatar.

Impact on the United States

As with so many other issues, the decision to ostracize Qatar has implications for the United States as well. One, potentially awkward connection between the recent fallout and the United States, is a speech recently given by President Trump in Saudi Arabia. In his speech, President Trump was very critical of Iran, which many feel emboldened Saudi Arabia to act decisively against Qatar, given its unorthodox relationship with Iran.

This also has a more practical impact on the United States. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Qatar and the United States reached an agreement that brought the countries closer militarily. This commitment was confirmed in 2003 when the United States moved its forward command base from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. That base, known as Al-Udeid, is home to more than 10,000 American troops and is the site of U.S. Central Command. Despite the recent diplomatic fallout, the U.S. has reaffirmed its commitment to the fight against terrorism and has pledged to maintain its regular activity at the base. Nevertheless, the dispute puts the United States in an awkward position of being allied with both parties and having a major base in a country that has been ostracized by its neighbors.

Impact on the Middle East

As with many issues concerning the Middle East, Qatar and the countries trying to isolate it are also interwoven. While this move is meant to single out Qatar, it will also affect the entire region. This begins with regional organizations. The largest is OPEC, or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. However, cutting ties with Qatar is less of an issue within this organization given its history of internal conflict. For example, Saudi Arabia’s antagonist, Iran, is also a member and the two have been able to coexist. And at certain points in OPEC’s history, members of the organization have actually fought wars against one another. The conflict does seem to be affecting the price of oil though, as crude oil prices fell the day after the announcement. Investors cited concerns over whether OPEC members could adhere to their pledge to reduce production to drive up prices.

Qatar is also a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait (Oman and Kuwait have maintained diplomatic relations with Qatar). While this alliance is not threatened, some members, namely Kuwait, are calling for a quick resolution to the problem. These sentiments have been echoed by other countries such as Turkey, Russia, and the United States. In fact, although Qatar is the main subject in this situation, the reality, and the likely biggest impact in the Middle East, is to be felt in the ongoing proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Specifically, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in an unofficial proxy war in countries across the Middle East akin to the Cold War. The two nations have taken opposite sides in a number of conflicts such as the ones in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. They each see themselves as representing the true nature of Islam–the Shiites in Iran and the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia. After the initial decision to cut diplomatic ties was made, Saudi Arabia cited Qatar’s support for “terrorist groups aiming to destabilize the region” as the justification. But at the same time, Qatar has also backed groups fighting against forces that are supported or tied to Iran in both Syria and Yemen.

Conclusion

As the longstanding proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia continues, there are a number of places where conflict has flared up. The most recent example is Qatar, which has complicated ties to both countries. While Qatar certainly seems caught in the middle of something larger than itself, it is not totally blameless. The world’s largest liquefied natural gas exporter has supported groups on both sides of the larger conflict.

The recent fallout will have implications for both the region and other prominent actors, notably the United States. Not only is its largest U.S. military base in the Middle East located in Qatar, some point to recent comments from the American president as a possible cause of the decision to shun Qatar. The complexities of the situation may explain why leaders from around the world are calling for a resolution as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Qatar is caught in a bind. While it attempts to resolve this dispute, it must also remain conscious of its image, especially as it prepares to host the next World Cup in 2022. With all this in mind, and Qatar’s proximity to Saudi Arabia, this conflict may need to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Qatar: How the Tiny Peninsula Became the Center of a Regional Proxy War appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer, according to FIFA, is a “beautiful game” meant to “inspire the world and increase international cooperation.” However, for Qatar–FIFA’s 2022 World Cup host country–it may actually be causing unrest in the Middle East.

Qatar is in jeopardy of having its World Cup plans derailed, after some of the most powerful nations in the Arab world broke diplomatic ties with the Gulf state Monday.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accused Qatar’s government of sponsoring terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, to provoke violence in the Middle East.

The diplomatic crisis may be the final straw in a flood of controversies plaguing the world’s richest country since it was formally elected by FIFA to host the World Cup soccer tournament back in 2010.

Qatari sports officials have been accused of giving bribes to members of FIFA in exchange for their vote for the World Cup, and there has been backlash over whether or not hosting a Winter World Cup will disrupt club soccer league seasons throughout the world.

It’s also unclear if Qatar will be open to the LGBTQ community–Qatar has strict laws against homosexuality (former FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s solution to this problem was for gays to simply not have sex while in Qatar).

Furthermore, there have been multiple news investigations into the alleged abuse of migrant workers from Nepal and India, who were brought in to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate millions traveling to Qatar for the World Cup. These workers are said to live in horrendous conditions, have slave-like wages, and have had their passports illegally taken from them.

But these are just a handful of the dozens of accusations against the Qatar government, and FIFA as well.

Qatar relies heavily on the use of its neighbors airspace; therefore, the end of diplomatic relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE will make travel in and out of the country extremely difficult. Qatar’s singular land border with Saudi Arabia will also hinder the country’s ability to bring in materials needed for major infrastructure projects.

No decisions have been made by FIFA, but officials are said to be “in regular contact” with Qatar’s government. But with Qatar spending an estimated $220 billion toward the soccer tournament (10 times what Brazil spent on the 2014 World Cup), don’t expect the country to fold easily on its investment.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Qatar at Risk of Losing 2022 World Cup Due to Gulf Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

A handful of Gulf Arab nations severed ties with Qatar on Monday, citing its support for terror groups and accusing the oil-rich nation of working behind the scenes with Iran, a regional rival. Some analysts see the abrupt diplomatic freeze as the result of President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of Saudi Arabia during his first overseas visit last month. The countries–Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Maldives–might have felt emboldened to spar with Qatar, some analysts said, because of Trump’s explicit support of Riyadh.

According to statements from Saudi and Egyptian officials, the coordinated split with Qatar is not related to a recent, isolated event, but rather what they see as a longstanding support of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which the current Egyptian leader ousted from power in 2013.

“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and al-Qaeda,” said a statement from a Saudi state news agency. An Egyptian official similarly said Qatar “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Qatar, for its part, denies the claims of the Gulf countries, saying: “The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications.”

Despite its neighbors’ claims that it is conspiring with Iran, Qatar, one of the region’s wealthiest oil producers, backs groups in Yemen and Syria that are battling Iranian-backed proxies. In Yemen, Qatar supports the Saudi-led (and U.S.-backed) coalition against the Houthi group, which Iran aids. In Syria, Qatar provides support to some of the rebel factions that are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who enjoys Iranian backing as well.

While Gulf Arab states have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in the past, most recently in 2014, they have not taken as drastic steps as they did Monday: land, air, and sea routes were blocked, and Qatari diplomats and citizens expelled. The unprecedented steps could create problems for the U.S. effort to eradicate ISIS–the U.S. military, which partners with Gulf nations to combat ISIS, uses an air base in Qatar.

Whatever the future implications, some Gulf experts see the coordinated stiff-arming of Qatar to be, at least in part, bolstered by Trump’s strong rebuke of Iran last month in a speech in Riyadh.

“You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran,” Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told Reuters. “He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implored the feuding nations to work out their differences, though he remains confident the spat will not affect the fight against terrorism. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” he said, adding that he does not foresee the disagreements having “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the Diplomatic Standoff Between Gulf Countries and Qatar Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

12 Arrested After London Terror Attack

On Saturday evening, Britain suffered its third terrorist attack in just a few months. This time, a van drove into a crowd of people on the London Bridge. Then, three men jumped out and started stabbing people at the nearby Borough Market. Seven people died and at least 50 were injured. Police shot and killed the three attackers. A day after the attack, Islamic State took responsibility. Yesterday, 12 people were arrested in connection with the attack and this morning, police raided two addresses in East London. Now a lot of people are questioning Britain’s counterterrorism capabilities, and many are criticizing Prime Minister Theresa May for not doing enough. The latest tragedy comes only a few days before Britain holds its general election on Thursday.

The President is taking the London Mayor’s comments out of context to attack him—just days after his city experienced a terror attack. https://t.co/IW2CHewKCz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 5, 2017

President Donald Trump condemned the attack on Twitter, but also mocked London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan, further straining the relationship between the two countries. He also pointed to Saturday’s attack as justification for his travel ban, which is currently held up in court. His attack on the mayor was internationally criticized, and several Democrats have slammed the idea of a travel ban in the wake of the attack.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A new report released last week found that the U.S. ranked first again in global arms sales, selling $40 billion worth of weapons in 2015–about half of all arms agreements worldwide.

With $15 billion worth of signed contracts, France was the second most lucrative seller. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, revealed its findings to Congress last week.

According to the author of the review, Catherine Theohary, the report is meant to “assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests.”

“Knowing the extent to which foreign government arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront,” wrote Theohary.

The U.S. and France both sold more weapons contracts than they did in 2014; the U.S. by about $4 billion  and France by more than $9 billion. Despite this, overall trade was down in 2015.

Total global arms trades dropped from $89 billion in 2014 to $79.9 billion in 2015. Russia was another big player on the production side, selling $11.1 billion worth of arms in 2015. 

So who is buying these weapons? Developing nations–Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia–are the primary consumers of weapons pouring out of places like the U.S., Europe, and China.

Last year, developing nations purchased roughly $65 billion in arms worldwide, with Qatar ($17 billion), Egypt ($12 billion), and Saudi Arabia (over $8 billion) as the largest customers. One of America’s biggest buyers, Saudi Arabia, is embroiled in a civil war in Yemen. Critics say it is using U.S.-supplied munitions to indiscriminately bomb cities and towns.

“The larger valued arms transfer agreements with the United States in 2015 with developing nations included multiple agreements with Saudi Arabia to provide, among other things, munitions and associated accessories and Patriot PAC-3 missiles for over $7 billion,” the report found.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government blocked defense contractor Raytheon from selling 16,000 munitions to Saudi Arabia. The contract was valued at $350 million. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at the time that the Obama administration “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” inflicted by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Topped 2015 Arms Market With $40 Billion in Weapons Deals appeared first on Law Street.

For Nepali men, going abroad to work is often the only option they have to support their family. But doing so can come with great risk. Lately, many Nepali men have died under mysterious circumstances while working in other countries, and it seems to be part of a larger trend that strikes every decade or so. Since Nepal’s government started promoting foreign labor, the number of Nepali men trying their luck in other countries has increased a lot.

In 2015, about 500,000 men went abroad to work, compared to about 220,000 in 2008. But the number of men who die while away has gone up disproportionately–in 2008 only one in 2,500 workers died. In 2015, the number was one in 500, according to the Associated Press.

In total, more than 5,000 workers from the small country situated in between India and China have died since 2008. About 10 percent of Nepal’s 28 million people are working abroad and the money they send back amounts to almost a third of the country’s annual revenues.

These statistics could be enough to intimidate most from endeavoring on a journey across borders. But as Nepal is one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, many have few alternatives to earn money. And because Nepali men are often willing to work hard under any circumstances, they are in high demand.

Qatar is preparing for the 2022 FIFA World Cup and has hired around 1.5 million immigrants from different countries. To make its citizens desirable for recruitment, the Nepali embassy in Doha even started advertising online, saying, “Nepalese workers are well known for their hard work, dedication, and loyalty.” The site goes on to say they are “comparatively cost effective and their hiring cost is lower as compared to other labour exporting countries,” and that they are “experienced in working in the extreme climatic conditions.”

Qatar has long promised to make conditions for migrant workers safer. But still, Nepali men working for the World Cup were dying at a rate of one man every two days in 2014. The government has been criticized for not doing enough to prevent this from happening. The men work long hours in temperatures that often reach 122 degrees Fahrenheit. “We know that people who work long hours in high temperatures are highly vulnerable to fatal heat strokes, so obviously these figures continue to cause alarm,” Nicholas McGeehan from Human Rights Watch told the Guardian.

Two Nepali workers die in Qatar every three days constructing for the 2022 FIFA WC, @Jomo1966 at #ThorolfRaftoChallenge @RaftoFoundation pic.twitter.com/ZlcrrrZM8o

— Solveig Moldrheim (@Solmol) October 5, 2016

Nepal only has one international airport, located in the capital, Kathmandu. About 1,500 workers fly out every day, and on average, three dead bodies come back. “The rate at which Nepali workers are dying abroad is alarming because they are too young to die,” said labor migration expert Ganesh Gurung to Nepali Times. Gurung added that it’s difficult to know the actual reason for the deaths, as autopsies are very rarely performed. Writing “natural causes” in the death certificate could be a way to cover up the real cause.

Many Nepali workers also end up taking on a lot of debt just to get a job abroad. Even though it’s illegal for employers to charge fees for work, both in Nepal and in Qatar, the costs can be high. The men need to get enough money to afford a plane ticket, pay a recruiter, and find a place to sleep. This means many work endless hours, live with a dozen or more men in one room, while also being the target of scammers. These brutal conditions might be a reason why otherwise healthy young men die. Nepal’s government even arranged for trucks to be retrofitted to carry coffins after deaths abroad increased.

Nepali migrant workers who return in coffins are too young and healthy to die https://t.co/kBjuq18Zkt @omastharai pic.twitter.com/fCLYMGDEws

— Nepali Times (@nepalitimes) January 8, 2016

Exactly how the young men die largely remains a mystery, as natural death, heart attack, or cardiac arrest are listed as the cause of death in about half of the cases. Many of them went to bed as usual, but never woke up in the morning. According to medical researchers, this is actually something that happens about every 10 years to healthy Asian men working away from their home countries. In the 1970’s, it was a problem in the U.S., in the 1980’s in Singapore, and later on in China. The phenomenon was named Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome and next year an international effort plans to take a closer look at the phenomenon.

Patrick Clarkin at the University of Massachusetts told the AP that he could see a pattern in the Nepali workers. “I suspect that there would be little harm in improving the diets and living conditions of these young men. Something as simple as a multivitamin could go a long way and with little risk.” The difference in diet when going to another country could be an explanation, but also because even though they are working in the desert they drink less water than usual because, as Hindus, they are not allowed to use Muslim restrooms.

Nepali authorities blame stress and even homesickness. “I’m not trying to be insensitive but we have sent millions of workers to more than 100 countries, and so yes, sometimes people will die,” the spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Employment, Rama Bhattarai, told the AP. “They die as foreign employees, they die here when a bus goes off a cliff.” The problem doesn’t seem to be taken as seriously as it should. But Krishna Dawadee, director of Kathmandu’s work permit center, wishes that it would. “These are our youth, draining out from our country. I am very much worried about these people,” she said. Hopefully, the international investigation will find out more about the cause in order to find a solution.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nepali Workers Abroad are Dying at an Alarming Rate appeared first on Law Street.

A 22-year-old Dutch woman who reported being drugged and raped during a holiday in Qatar ended up being jailed herself for “illicit consensual fornication” and being “drunk in a public place.” The woman, identified only as “Laura,” has been in jail since March 14, and on Monday was handed a one-year suspended sentence, three years of probation, and a fine of about $823.

Protestors feared Laura, 22, would get sentenced to years of prison in Qatar, but Monday’s ruling means she can finally go home as she will be deported back to the Netherlands as soon as possible. A court official told Al Jazeera that the sentence was lenient, adding: “Had she been a Muslim woman, she would have received at least five years in jail. No one can get out of such charges here in Qatar.”

The case has given rise to strong reactions on social media under the hashtag #freelaura:

Dutch woman faces prison after being raped in Qatar for having "extramarital sex" – this needs to be covered by int'l media asap #freelaura

— Manya Koetse (@manyapan) June 11, 2016

Really #Qatar?! And u wonder why I have NO interest in exploring parts abroad. This! When ur jailed 4 reporting ur own rape #FreeLaura Smdh

— Kween Ka$h (@Kweendom) June 13, 2016

The Syrian man accused of raping her, Omar Abdullah al-Hasan, was sentenced a punishment of 100 lashes for extramarital sexual acts, plus 40 lashes for drinking in public, a severe crime in Qatar and other Muslim countries. He admitted to having had sex with the woman but not that it was by force. He was not charged with rape, and the subject didn’t even come up during the court hearing.

Laura was reportedly out at a hotel bar with a friend when she had a drink that made her feel strange. She said she woke up the next morning in a room she didn’t know, realizing she had been raped and probably drugged. When she went to the police, they arrested her.

The Dutch Embassy was involved at an early stage and has been in close contact with Laura and her family. Yvette Burghgraef-van Eechoud, the Dutch ambassador in Doha, said to CNN: “We will do everything we can to get her out of the country as soon as possible to where she says she wants to go.”

Another reason why we shouldn't play football in #Qatar. It's not safe for women! #freelaura

— Devi Boerema (@DeviBoerema) June 11, 2016

Qatar is set to host the World Cup soccer tournament in 2022, something that has led to protests among human rights activists concerning the death of migrant workers, corruption, and more. It has also caused concerns about how the country will deal with beer-loving soccer fans–and how fans will deal with strict sharia laws.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dutch Woman Jailed In Qatar After Being Raped To Be Sent Home appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Platini, former UEFA president, and Sepp Blatter, former FIFA president, were denied appeals on their ban from all football activities this week. However, the FIFA appeals committee did decide to reduce the ban from eight years to six, based on the duo’s “service to the game.” Both Platini and Blatter claim they are innocent and plan to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to lift their ban, but with the election of Gianni Infantino as President of FIFA, it appears that the soccer world is moving on without them.

Infantino was previously an adviser to Platini, but when seven of FIFA’s highest ranking officials were arrested five months ago, he transitioned from UEFA secretary general to the race for the FIFA presidency–a far more contentious position. Infantino’s primary competitor was Sheikh Salman, who ran on a platform of transforming FIFA from a Euro-centric governing body to a truly international organization that would recognize the interests of soccer around the world. Despite this noble ideal of creating a more equitable soccer world, Sheik Salman did not build the solid constituency that Infantino managed to construct.  This could be attributed to Sheik Salman’s allegedly checkered past when it comes to human rights–he was connected with the jailing and torture of Bahraini athletes who peacefully protested against his family during the Arab Spring.

Infantino has multiple issues to tackle during his first several weeks in office. The most immediate concern regards Russia and Qatar’s respective bids for hosting World Cups. The circumstances by which those countries secured the bids are under investigation by Swiss law enforcement, but the chance of FIFA reneging on the bids is relatively slim. Construction has already begun on stadiums and tourist attractions in Qatar, and although the working conditions on these construction sites have caused outrage among human rights activists, there is no sign of development slowing down.

A troubling prospect for the 2022 Qatar World Cup is that Platini and Blatter might be able to return to football just in time to participate in the tournament. The shortening of their sentences leaves the door open for them to participate, either within FIFA or through smaller organizations that will be working on logistical issues in Qatar. Argentina’s legendary Diego Maradona recently stated that he feels Platini and Blatter should receive life in prison for their abuse of power, and while that seems like an extreme reaction, it is clear to many that their current sentence is not a sufficient punishment for their crime.

Missing the 2018 Russia World Cup may be a blow to the egos of Platini and Blatter but if the two men are allowed to participate in the Qatari World Cup, they could be able to step back into their old habits without missing a beat. By 2022, Infantino may enact broad reforms of FIFA activity during his tenure but the return of Platini and Blatter would automatically undermine any of those actions. If the Court of Arbitration for Sport moves to completely overturn the ban on football related activities that was upheld this week, then FIFA may never escape its reputation for corruption.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post FIFA 2016: Can Sepp Blatter and Michael Platini Get Back to Soccer’s Inner Circle? appeared first on Law Street.

Votes swinging based on bribes, secret deals made in backrooms, corruption at the highest levels. No, this is not about the next presidential election–not yet anyway. Instead this is how the last few World Cups have allegedly been awarded. To many jaded sports fans familiar with the International Olympic Committee or NCAA, this is not surprising. Even for the naïve, allegations of corruption in FIFA are not startling. What was unexpected though was that the powerful people at FIFA would actually be caught. With the recent arrests, the narrative of the story has shifted from if the tree is rotten to how far up that rot goes. Read on to learn about the scandal rocking FIFA and what it means for the future of the World Cup and its decisionmakers.

FIFA

To understand the FIFA scandal, it is first necessary to understand the organization itself, and its former leader, Sepp Blatter.

What is FIFA?

FIFA–the Federation Internationale de Football Association–was founded in May 1904 by the international football associations of seven countries. The organization continued to grow, but remained entirely European until 1909 when South Africa joined and the United States followed in 1912. FIFA went through hard times during WWI and nearly fell apart altogether, however it endured and began expanding anew.

In 1930, FIFA staged its first World Cup, an event it had been building up to ever since soccer was first played at the Olympics in 1908. In the ensuing years, the organization and its membership grew while also dealing with issues such as travel causing many of best teams to not participate in the first few World Cups. By the 1970s FIFA had really emerged on the world stage incorporating members from Europe and South America in growing numbers as well as many new members from former colonial holdings. Under the much-maligned supervision of Sepp Blatter, FIFA has grown into a powerful global entity with 209 members worldwide, divided into six regional confederations, and with unquestioned clout.

Who is Sepp Blatter?

Sepp Blatter first became part of FIFA in 1975, after leaving his job at a Swiss watchmaker. He spent the next 40 years serving in a variety of roles since his start, namely as secretary general for 17 years and then president of the organization since 1998. Under his leadership FIFA’s crowning tournament has been played on two new continents, Asia and Africa, and become a multi-billion dollar tournament.

Despite his role in dramatically growing the game’s presence worldwide, Blatter is known as much for controversy. In the past he has made numerous inappropriate comments and been repeatedly accused of corruption in the court of public opinion. The awarding of the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 contest to Qatar seemed to be the ultimate examples of his duplicitousness.

Still, even with this reputation and after the recent arrests of senior FIFA members, Blatter was able to avoid indictment and was actually elected to a fifth term as FIFA president. However, following persistent criticism of himself and FIFA as a whole, Blatter finally relented and resigned his post in 2015. Nonetheless, Blatter will remain in his position until a new election takes place either later this year or early next, meaning the reign of Sepp Blatter at FIFA is not over just yet.

A History of Bribery, Corruption, and Kickbacks

While allegations of corruption and bribery have long haunted Blatter and by extension FIFA, this has had little or no effect on the all-important bottom line. In the last four years alone, FIFA has generated $6 billion in revenue; however, how the money is used has come under greater question. While this money was earmarked for soccer development worldwide, it was instead used for FIFA’s leaders’ own ambitions.

Acting on all the rumor and speculation concerning FIFA’s backroom dealings, the U.S. Justice Department indicted nine of the organization’s leaders for bribery amounting to $150 million. The arrests were part of a larger joint raid made along with Swiss authorities that also saw five corporate executives arrested and charged with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption. The British are also considering filing their own charges.  The video below explains the FIFA scandal and arrests in detail.

Picking a World Cup

The World Cup is easily the most popular sporting event across the world. In 2010 for example, 200 million people tuned in for the draw or group selection process, not even an actual game. For comparison’s sake, the amount of people who watched the Super Bowl in 2015, a record for the event, maxed out at approximately 121 million people.

How the Process Works

Until 2002, every World Cup was played in either Europe, North America, or South America. However, this finally changed when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event. This also led to a major change in how the hosting country is selected. In 2006, FIFA instituted a system in which the tournament would be rotated among its six regional confederations.

While this was scrapped in 2007, a similar rule was put into place that same year stating that all countries in a particular regional confederation would be ineligible to host two World Cups following the event hosted by a neighboring country. In other words, if the U.S. hosted the 2018 World Cup, other countries in its region, such as Mexico, would not be eligible to host a World Cup until 2030 at the earliest.

The voting process itself is the responsibility of the executive committee, which is made up of 24 people. These include the president and vice president of FIFA, as well as seven other vice presidents representing each continental soccer federation and one from one of the home nations of the United Kingdom. To clarify, there are actually only six continental confederations–Antarctica is left out in the cold, thus the need for the seventh member. Lastly are 15 members elected from the 209 member countries, who are appointed to four-year terms.

These members are in charge of who gets the right to host the World Cup. The voting process involves each country interested in hosting the event giving a presentation on television before the committee. Once all the prospective hosts have presented their cases, the executive committee votes by secret ballot until a winner is declared. In the case of a tie, it is up to the president of FIFA to cast the deciding vote.

Corruption at Every Turn

As can be expected from a process of this nature, corruption is rampant. Of the many accusations, members selling votes is most common. In the most recent World Cup bid process, actual evidence of this phenomenon emerged. Two undercover British journalists were approached and offered votes in exchange for bribes. The notion of corruption however, should not be a surprise, in fact the way FIFA is constructed basically lends itself to this.

While not every country votes on who will host the World Cup, each has a say in another important way. Every member votes for the organization’s president. This is a system that can encourage small countries that are more dependent on FIFA stipends to be more likely to sell their vote in exchange for more support. This is the case because the amount of support each country receives has nothing to do with its size. Thus, for example, a massive country like China can receive less money from FIFA than a small country such as Bermuda.

In addition, aside from money, small countries can also expect other benefits for supporting certain people or countries’ bids. This comes in the form of recognition, namely FIFA along with having a poorly defined system for allocating funds also has an unclear definition of what makes a nation. For example Gibraltar, a small rock governed by the U.K. but claimed by Spain, nearly won recognition as its own nation despite only having a population of 29,000 people. The following video highlights the most recent FIFA presidential election.

Trouble With the Machine

The controversial decisions to award Russia the World Cup in 2018 and Qatar the event in 2022 are hardly the first incidents with picking a host country. In 2002 when Japan and South Korea co-hosted the event there were minor issues with the travel required between the venues causing the organizers to never again hold a multi-country event.

The controversy only ratcheted up for the next World Cup in 2006, when allegations concerning bribery surfaced when Germany won an upset bid for the tournament over supposedly favored South Africa. Recently, details have emerged of specifically what this bribery entailed; in this case it far exceeded the norm. In 2006 Germany is alleged to have temporarily lifted an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and to have shipped the country weapons in exchange for its vote. It is also accused of using the lure of investment from German companies such as Volkswagen, to get Thailand and South Korea to also support its candidacy.

Controversy continued when the tournament moved to Africa. In 2010 South Africa finally succeeded in its bid for the World Cup. According to a recent report, Morocco actually received more votes but, through a series of bribes, South Africa was declared the winner. At the center of this scandal was former FIFA Vice President Jack Warner, who reportedly took bribes from both countries for the votes he controlled, he may also have taken money from Egypt who was also bidding for the tournament that year.

Like a perpetual storm cloud, problems followed the World Cup when it arrived in soccer mecca Brazil. The issues evolved far beyond just bribery and affected society as whole. Just a few of the major problems included the forced eviction of thousands of poor residents, social unrest, police brutality, unfinished infrastructure projects, unused stadiums, worker deaths, and lasting social inequality that was actually exacerbated by the tournament.

Russia and Qatar

ll these issues bring us back around to the next two proposed hosts for the World Cup: Russia and Qatar. Russia was awarded the tournament despite continued human rights abuses as well as its flagrant invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. Additionally, like Brazil before it, while Russia agrees to host the lavish tournament, people at home will be feeling the cost. Russia plans to spend at least $20 billion–a new record–despite the Ruble losing half its value in the last year and U.S.-led sanctions taking their toll on the Russian economy, as well.

Then there is Qatar, whose selection to hold the 2022 tournament was so preposterous that it played a huge role in authorities finally stepping in to clean up FIFA’s corruption. Qatar plans to spend $220 billion on the tournament, which will make that record-breaking Russian figure look minuscule. Also, in an effort to avoid the average 106 degree temperature there, the World Cup in Qatar will be moved to winter. On a human level, most of the work is being done by migrants who are working in slave-like conditions and dying in droves. This does not even take into account the laws against things such as drinking alcohol or homosexuality.  The following video explains many of the negative issues as a result of the World Cup in Qatar.

With this as the backdrop and with the still-simmering scandal, it comes as little surprise then that bidding for the 2026 tournament has been put on hold. Additionally, despite FIFA saying there is no legal ground on which to take hosting duties for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups away from Russia and Qatar, many are eager to explore that option as well.

Conclusion

The FIFA scandal far exceeds the traditional borders of sport. The organization is so powerful that it has the ability, directly or indirectly, to boost an unpopular leader and even legitimize states. It also has sponsorships from some the world’s most powerful corporations and is the most popular sport globally. With this in mind then, the recent arrests of FIFA’s top leaders were surprising only in the fact that they actually happened. These men and this organization have been basically untouchable for decades.

Thus, while the U.S. and Swiss indict leaders and promise further action, it is hard to believe any of it will actually happen, or at the very least stick. Even the resignation of Sepp Blatter, despite the ardent support of Vladimir Putin, comes with a caveat. Blatter was elected in a landslide right before his resignation and was allowed to leave on his own terms instead of in hand cuffs, as many feel should be the case.

While its leaders fall like dominoes, FIFA will likely survive this scandal as it survived two world wars, membership issues, and a host of other problems along the way. The real question in the wake of this scandal is, will any of these arrests, indictments, or resignations make this seminal organization less corrupt and more honest? Based on the system in place and its recent elections the answer looks like no.

Resources

Top End Sports: Host Country Selection

MLS Soccer: What is FIFA, Who is Sepp Blatter, and What is All the Fuss About?

Goal: World Cup Bidding Process Explained

FIFA: History of FIFA

Time: These Are the Five Facts That Explain the FIFA Scandal

Five Thirty Eight: How FIFA’s Structure Lends Itself to Corruption

Reuters: Germany Sold Arms to Saudi Arabia to Secure Its Vote for 2006 World Cup

Sports Illustrated: Morocco Beat South Africa in Vote For 2010 World Cup

World.Mic: Seven Big Problems the World Cup Left Behind in Brazil

LA Times: So Many Things Wrong With Qatar World Cup 2022

CNN: FIFA to Suspend Bidding For 2026 World Cup Amid Corruption Scandal

BBC: Vladimir Putin Expresses Support for Blatter

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FIFA Scandal is No Surprise if You’ve Been Paying Attention appeared first on Law Street.

Qatar will be opening a brand-new law school this fall with the help of faculty members from Northwestern University’s law school. These faculty members will act as advisors to the development of this new law school, which will be a part of Hamad bin Khalifa University. It will be located in Education City, a 2,500 acre campus located in Doha.

The new law school will offer a three-year postgraduate degree similiar to what most law schools offer here in the United States. According to a statement, this law school will be the “first of its kind in the Middle East,” as most students who wish to study law in the region do so as undergraduates. The new law school will have a specific focus on international comparative law in order to target the specific and unique needs of Qatar and the gulf region.

Dr. Ahmad Hasnah, Executive Vice President and Provost of Hamad bin Khalifa University, has expressed his optimism and excitement about the new law school. He said:

By creating a Juris Doctor program, Hamad bin Khalifa University is demonstrating its commitment to help further raise the bar of intellectual inquiry in Qatar in an innovative way. We are very much looking forward to welcoming our first intake of JD students in fall 2015.

The university is part of the Qatar Foundation, which is focused on building human capacity and increasing education and research in Qatar. The aim of creating this law school is not only to benefit the individals seeking their JDs, but to benefit the country as a whole. According to Daniel Rodriguez, the dean of Northwestern Law:

Students in the program will benefit from developing key analytical skills necessary for attaining a very high level of understanding of complex legal concepts. In turn, Qatar’s society will benefit from having such a highly trained group of strategic thinkers within its workforce in the years to come.

Clinton Davis, a Northwestern Law professor, will act as the interim dean to the school. He, along with other Northwestern professors, will advise on issues such as curriculum development and hiring faculty and staff. Essentially, Northwesten Law is acting as a consultant.

This is not the first time that Northwestern has consulted on the development of international schools. According to Northwestern’s Vice President for University Relations, Al Cubbage, faculty from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management helped establish the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad. Additionally, Northwestern has been offering journalism and communications degrees in Qatar for a decade now.

However, the degrees offered by this new law school in Qatar will not be Northwestern Law degrees. Rather, students who graduate from this school will earn law degrees directly from Hamad bin Khalifa University.

Some believe that there is financial motivation to consult in Qatar, as Northwestern will recieve a conslting fee for as many years as they are working in the region. According to David Yellen, the dean of Loyola University Chicago’s School of Law, there might be a financial incentive because “gulf states have a lot of money.” However, while overall enrollment across the country is down and there has been an increase in the number of students seeking financial aid, Northwestern University as a whole is in an “unusually strong financial position.” According to Cubbage, this is not really a financially-motivated decision. Instead, it seems like an opportunity to expand global legal education in a ground-breaking way.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Northwestern Law to Consult on New Law School in Qatar appeared first on Law Street.

On August 21, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the stadium for the 2022 World Cup, sued the New York Review of Books and its critic, Martin Filler, for defamation. Hadid claimed that Filler defamed her in his June 5, 2014 article, “The Insolence of Architecture,” in which he reviewed non-party Rowan Moore’s book Why We Build: Desire and Power in Architecture. Hadid asserted that Filler’s following passage defamed her:

“However, despite the numerous horror stories about this coercive exploitation, some big-name practitioners don’t seem moved by the plight of the Emirates’ imported serfs. Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and a member of Gulf Labor, an advocacy group that is seeking to redress this region-wide injustice, earlier this year wrote a chilling New York Times Op-Ed piece. In it he quotes the Iraqi-born, London-based architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar, now being built for the 2022 World Cup. She has unashamedly disavowed any responsibility, let alone concern, for the estimated one thousand laborers who have perished while constructing her project thus far. ‘I have nothing to do with the workers,’ Hadid has claimed. ‘It is not my duty as an architect to look at it.‘”

Hadid contends that Filler defamed her because workers have not begun constructing the stadium, and no workers have died. Moreover, the passage implies that she is indifferent to the workers’ deaths. Architectmagazine.com reports that Hadid’s complaint seeks “a withdrawal of the article from publication, a retraction, unspecified damages from the defendants, full payment of legal fees, and ‘any further relief as justice may require.’”

On August 25, 2014, Filler retracted his statement in a letter to the editor entitled, An Apology to Zaha Hadid, which is also added to the end of the review online. The Los Angeles Times reports that Hadid’s legal team received Filler’s retraction but has yet to respond.

Although Hadid obtained Filler’s retraction, it may be difficult for the architect to receive any other relief that she seeks in her complaint if her lawsuit reaches the trial stage. Since Hadid is a Pulitzer Prize-winning architect, she will likely be deemed a public figure, and consequently, she has to prove that Filler acted with “actual malice” when he wrote his article, which is a difficult standard to prove, as explained in this post about celebrity defamation suits.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Phil Gyford via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Review of Books Retracts Defamation Error appeared first on Law Street.