Alina Shaidy applies a postcolonial and intersectional feminist critical eye to the liberal interventionism and human rights abuses surrounding the Qatar World Cup.
The 2018 World Cup was held in Russia and the upcoming 2026 World Cup will be held across North American Countries, including stadiums in the United States. Neither Russia nor the United Sates have particularly ‘clean’ human rights records. When questioned about the choice to allow Qatar to host despite their current human rights infractions, FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s response was that Europeans ‘should be apologising for the next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons’, a very telling deflection. So, why is there controversy surrounding the World Cup being held in Qatar, when the same criticism could be levelled at other host countries?[1]
This is not to say that Qatar is above criticism simply because other countries also commit human rights abuses. Every country’s human rights record should be critically examined. Amnesty International cites migrant workers’ rights, women’s rights, and LGBT+ rights among the list of human rights abuses that have and continue to occur in Qatar.[2] No abuse of human rights should go unchecked, but are the United States, the UK, or other Western nations really in a position to criticise Qatar, while similar abuses are littered throughout their own past and present?
In 2017, UK nationals were one of the five most prevalent potential victims of modern slavery.[3] In the same year, the UK was hailed as ‘exemplary’ in its anti-slavery efforts but, in the years since the Modern Slavery Bill, the UK’s slavery policies have arguably regressed, not improved. With continuing rhetoric about abuses to the system and moves towards making slavery an immigration and asylum issue, the UK are not exactly the shining example of tackling modern slavery that their criticism of Qatar suggests them to be.[4]
So why the double standard and heightened criticism for non-Western countries? And could this hypocritical western criticism constitute a renewed form of post-colonialism? Many Western countries disguise issues such as slavery and women’s rights behind rhetoric involving healthcare or immigration instead. Is it simply the case that where human rights abuses are not explicitly labelled as such, they are much easier to ignore? Or is the power and history of the West such that they have the global leverage to silence any mass criticism where non-Western countries do not?
Several Countries that have protested Qatar being hosts have laws that are misaligned with these protests. Advocates of women’s rights have heavily criticised the guardianship system in Qatar, which requires women to be tied to a male guardian, often needing their permission to make life decisions and receive forms of healthcare (particularly reproductive health care).[5] However, when these criticisms come from countries such as the United States and the UK, that critical eye should also be turned inwards.
In the United States, the recent landmark decision to overturn Roe v Wade meant that abortion is no longer protected as a constitutional right. Individual states are now free to control their own abortion legislation, which led to the immediate criminalisation of abortion in 10 states, with more imposing strict limitations on legal abortions.[6] Some states, such as Arizona, only allow abortion where the mother’s life is endangered, providing no exception for rape-related pregnancies or if the mother is underage.[7] Abortion law in the UK is very complicated. While legal and accessible, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab stated that it was unnecessary to include abortion in the proposed Bill of Rights as abortion law in the UK is ‘settled’ and refused to enshrine abortion as a fundamentally protected right.[8]
So, we need to be as vigilant and critical of our own states and their laws as we are towards Qatar.
The attack on women’s rights in the UK and the United States is not only limited to abortion. In the UK there is a distinct gender divide in treatment when it comes to reproductive sterilisations. Male sterilisation is protected under the 1972 National Health Service Family Planning Amendment Act, making it far more accessible. In contrast, it is much more difficult to be accepted for female sterilisation. The NHS guide for sterilisation states that: a GP may recommend counselling before referral, can ‘refuse to carry out the procedure if they do not believe it is in your best interest’, and that a woman ‘may be more likely to be accepted if … [they’re] over 30 and have had children’.[9] When looking at first-hand accounts the picture becomes clear, women’s bodies are still being regulated by patriarchal structures in healthcare, where women are told they are too young to be sterilised at 26, despite their male counterparts being offered vasectomies at 24.[10] Through these first-hand accounts we see the significance of this issue, as women’s autonomy is still questioned and their own desires are ignored by medical professionals, despite men in the same position being given the privilege of agency over their own bodies.
Similarly, in the United States, doctors are unlikely to consider female sterilisation before a woman has had children, with many women requiring their husband’s consent first. Not only are women not allowed to make a choice regarding their own reproductive future, but they are actively dismissed. It is only once this male consent is given, or when doctors consider the woman has birthed ‘enough’ children that she would not regret her decision, that female sterilisation is considered[11]. Where Qatar reveals a very obviously patriarchal system, examples such as this show that similar, better hidden systems also exist in the West. While these system may be less explicit and therefore easier to ignore, the West needs to hold up a mirror and critically examine its own reflection.
Taking just this small example of women’s rights as a point of comparison, the hypocrisy of western criticism is obvious. While no state should be limiting the rights of its people, when it is done in the West, opposition is primarily social and political and there is never global condemnation of these actions. In comparison, when these similar systems and abuses exist in the East, while more obvious in their expression, they are immediately labelled as barbaric and trigger liberal interventionism.
These contemporary comparisons of law and society call to mind the West’s historical abuse of human rights throughout their imperial and colonial history. The West’s history of colonialism, militarism and problematic domestic laws must be acknowledged when looking at human rights abuses. Western history does not paint a picture of acceptance and tolerance, but rather one of brutality, exploitation, and what would amount to modern human rights abuses.[12]
But should the devastation that litters Western countries’ history books mean that they should not be able to criticise other country’s human rights abuses? And would this line of thinking not simply lead to no country ever having the right to criticise another? Undoubtedly world history is plagued with human rights atrocities committed by Western states, against countries in the East. But if we used historical wrongs to absolve modern nations of their social and moral responsibility to uphold human rights, then there would be no global progress.
Ultimately comparing human rights abuses across the world is an incredibly complex discussion that cannot fully be developed through the lens of a single World Cup. The human right abuses that occurred in Qatar before and during the World Cup 2022 must undoubtedly be put to an end. But is it right that this charge is being led by countries that have not only historically abused human rights, but who continue to do so, arguably in many of the areas that Qatar itself are being criticised for?
Many of those who travelled to Qatar to experience the World Cup have come away with positive experiences, with women saying that they felt safer and more comfortable, arguably due to the strict social rules that were imposed during the World Cup.[13] Instead, should we turn the question to FIFA as an organisation? Why did they give the bid to Qatar if they were aware of the human rights abuses that occur? Why do they continue to allow funding from countries such as Qatar and Dubai, despite seemingly disagreeing with their moral and social values? How far can we truly make sports apolitical when the ‘politics’ being referred to are fundamental human rights? If we look to FIFA and the way they conduct their business, is there a much more telling story about how human rights can and will be compromised, for the right price?
Instead, I propose that each country should look at their own current standard of human rights before attempting to criticise other countries or to hold the moral high ground. The hypocrisy of Western countries becomes most evident, not through a tallying of every country’s historical wrongs, but through contemporary comparison. While Qatar made a pledge to improve its human rights when accepting the bid for the World Cup, it did not do enough to ensure the safety and comfort of both the people who would travel to the World Cup (particularly LGBT+ fans who felt unwelcomed in the run up to the World Cup), or its own people. In the aftermath of the World Cup, the patriarchal, slave-labour, and anti-LGBT+ structures in Qatar still exist and must undoubtably be amended. However, the Western countries that have taken such strong stances against the Qatari hosts are not the beacons of human right that they profess themselves to be. They lack an essential, self-critical eye which would enable them to see the reflection of their own society in Qatar and work to improve themselves, alongside fighting for improvement in other countries.
[1] Although this article relies on the global divisions of ‘West’ and ‘East’ to represent ideological and socio-political dynamics, these terms are used as a representation of these divides and not as an acceptance of these contentious and slightly anachronistic terms.
[2] ‘Qatar 2021’ (Amnesty International) < https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/qatar/report-qatar/> accessed 16 December 2022
[3] Global Slavery Index, <https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/findings/country-studies/united-kingdom/>, accessed 21 January 2022
[4] Haroon Siddique, (The Guardian, 8 November 2022) ‘UK Rolling Back Efforts to Tackle Modern Slavery’ <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/08/uk-rolling-back-efforts-to-tackle-modern-slavery-charity-says>, accessed 21st January 2022
[5] ‘Qatar 2021’ (Amnesty International) < https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/qatar/report-qatar/> accessed 16 December 2022
[6] Rose Ireland, ‘What does the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade mean for abortion rights in the US and beyond?’ (Saunders Law, 5 July 2022) https://www.saunders.co.uk/news/what-does-the-us-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-mean-for-abortion-rights-in-the-us-and-beyond-2/> accessed 17 December 2022
[7] Katie Kindelan and Mary Kekatos, ‘Where abortion stands in your state: a state-by-state breakdown of abortion laws’ (ABC News, 27 July 2022) <https://abcnews.go.com/Health/abortion-stands-state-state-state-breakdown-abortion-laws/story?id=85390463> accessed 17 December 2022
[8] ‘No Strong Case for Changing Abortion Rules, Says Dominic Raab’ (BBC News, 29 June 2022) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61981988>, accessed 22 January 2022
[9] NHS ‘Female Sterilisation’ (NHS, 18 March 2021) < https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/female-sterilisation/> accessed 16 December 2022
[10] Rachel Thompson ‘Doctor No: The Women in their 20s Being Refused Sterilisations’ (Mashable, 25 May 2016) <https://mashable.com/article/female-sterilisation-uk>, accessed 22 January 2022
[11] Shira Feder, ‘A Woman was told she needed her husband’s permission to get her tubes tied. Her story went viral, but it’ not uncommon’ (Insider, 25 February 2020) < https://www.insider.com/a-woman-needed-husbands-consent-to-get-her-tubes-tied-2020-2> accessed 17 December 2022
[12] Gianni Infantino, FIFA President, (Speech at FIFA News Conference, 19 November 2022) < https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12098/12750801/gianni-infantino-fifa-president-hits-out-at-qatar-world-cup-criticism-in-extraordinary-speech-ahead-of-tournament>
[13] Shaimaa Khalil, ‘Qatar: Why women feel safer at World Cup 2022’ (BBC News, 16 December 2022) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63991529> accessed 17 December 2022
Photo credit: Jernej Furman from Creative Commons
DISCLAIMER: THE BPP HUMAN RIGHTS BLOG, AND ALL PIECES POSTED ON THE BLOG, ARE WRITTEN AND EDITED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE STUDENT BODY. NO PUBLICATION OR OPINION CONTAINED WITHIN IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VALUES OR BELIEFS HELD BY BPP UNIVERSITY OR THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THAT OF THE AUTHOR AND ARE IN NO WAY SUPPORTED OR ENDORSED BY BPP UNIVERSITY, THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP OR ANY MEMBERS OF STAFF.
BPP Human Rights Law Blog 