The Tribune

AFTER writing last week about the then upcoming clash between England and Germany at the European football championships, the extraordinary events of recent days demand a return to the subject today.

It is hard not to gloat over England’s famous victory on Tuesday against its traditional footballing rival by a healthy two-goal margin to reach the quarter-finals of the competition. The whole of Britain has been celebrating and some are now going so far as to say that beating Germany was one of the great moments in the nation’s recent sporting history.

Then, on Saturday at the Olympic Stadium in Rome, a dominant England overwhelmed a good Ukrainian side with an emphatic 4-0 score line to move into a semi-final against Denmark. This will be played tomorrow at Wembley Stadium in London, the scene of England’s triumph over Germany in the final of the 1966 World Cup. The other semi-finalists are Italy and Spain and the final will be on 11 July.

After more than half a century of footballing defeat and despair at the hands of the Germans, the joy of defeating them on home soil has been amazing amid scenes of jubilation and partying into the night not seen for a long time. The icing on the cake was the later stunning victory over Ukraine that put England into a semi-final of a major football competition for the first time for 25 years, with a high quality of football - six goals in the last two matches and, thanks to a strong defence and an outstanding goalkeeper, without conceding a single goal during the course of the tournament.

Wonderful as all this is, however, people ask why it is seen as being important in a wider sense.

Last week, I suggested international football is more than just what happens on the field of play. The power of the game to move an entire nation should not be underestimated. In so many countries, including Britain, people’s fascination with it –- as a truly global sport –- transcends the game itself. Far from being a trivial pursuit of trying to kick a ball into a net with your opponents attempting to stop you, in the overall grand scheme of things football matters because the game dominates the thinking, hopes and dreams of millions of ordinary people almost worldwide.

They support and associate themselves with teams at the club level as well as their national side as a symbol and reflection of their country’s identity and culture, so that a close relationship develops between football and the idea of nationhood. The fortunes of these teams are important in the everyday lives of so many to the extent that success or failure can determine the national mood. For example, historians say England’s 1966 World Cup victory set the seal on the so-called ‘Swinging Sixties’ in Britain. This was seemingly a golden period in the life of the nation, signifying the end of traditional unwanted restraint in society – together with class consciousness and division going back to the Victorian era – and the beginnings of greater social freedom throughout the land.

Fast forward to the present when, throughout Britain, millions of people of all races and creeds are sharing in the excitement and satisfaction of supporting the national team and revelling in its success. Britain is a multi-racial nation and proud of it. United in a sense of euphoria, people’s interest in the national team’s fortunes induces a welcome spirit of solidarity and unity in a display of patriotism and love of country that strengthens social cohesion.

In advance of the championships, the England manager, Gareth Southgate, penned an open letter to football fans explaining his players’ sense of pride in representing their country. But patriotism remains a dirty word among the so-called metropolitan elite who shamelessly seek to conflate it with nationalism which means something quite different; namely, the ugly side of allegiance to one’s country based on a belief of superiority that can result in aggression towards other countries.

What football surely shows is that, despite the accusations of Black Lives Matter and of woke zealots about racial division and discrimination, most people cherish the history of their country – regardless of its accepted blemishes – and appreciate and support what it stands for today. What is more, just take a look at the racial diversity of the current English team with its mixed race make-up. The realisation that all of these players have reached the pinnacle of their sport irrespective of their different backgrounds surely does more to bring about racial harmony than endless lectures about critical race theory and supposed unconscious bias.

On a broader front, even though such a connection can seem far-fetched, it is interesting to link pride in the national team and the new sense of optimism with other positive developments in the country such as its imminent release from more than a year of coronavirus pandemic restrictions – with the new Health Secretary quoted as saying COVID-19 cannot be eliminated so we have to learn to live with it. Then there is the recent prediction by the OECD that Britain’s economy is set to grow by some seven percent this year together with the finding by the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) of a new surge in manufacturing output. Add to that, as just one example, a huge new post-Brexit investment in the UK by car giant Nissan and the picture looks rosier by the day – with a discernible change of the public mood.

‘The Lion Roars’ was one headline in the UK press last week. Can it be justified? Some say ‘yes’ because of England’s latest victories. But, on a broader front, only time will tell. As was shown in 1966, football has the power to unite a nation and create a mood of buoyancy throughout it. So, what is for sure is that, if England beat Denmark tomorrow and then go on to lift the trophy as footballing champions of Europe, the boost to the country across-the-board will be incalculable – such is the influence of the ‘beautiful game’!

Time to kiss and make up, boys

Whatever people may feel about the rift between Prince William and Prince Harry following the latter’s decision to drop out as a working member of the Royal Family and move to California, most will surely hope the brothers can achieve some form of reconciliation. They are said to have had a strained relationship after a couple of years of rows over Harry’s wife Meghan and her alleged bullying of staff - which is now under formal investigation - together with her own claims of racism and being abandoned by Buckingham Palace staff. Some people have labelled this a feud, with Harry saying the two are now on different paths.

But observers will have been disappointed if they were looking for drama at last week’s low-key unveiling by the brothers of a statue in London in memory of their beloved mother, Princess Diana, on what would have been her 60th birthday. It must have been encouraging for those who wish The Queen and her family well to see William and Harry put aside any personal animosity at the small private ceremony and join together in paying tribute to their mother.

This was to celebrate her life, to honour her memory and to ensure that her role in support of humanitarian causes and her place in history will be remembered by future generations.

The ceremony was attended by Diana’s immediate family and lasted about an hour. Reportedly, the Princes wanted to avoid the limelight. So there were no speeches but a joint statement was released saying, in part, that ‘Our hope is this statue will be seen forever as a symbol of her life and legacy. We remember her love, strength and character – qualities that made her a force for good around the world, changing countless lives for the better’. The sculptor of the larger-than-life statue, Ian Rank-Broadley, is well known for designing the Armed Forces Memorial at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire in the West Midlands of England. He is also responsible for the image of The Queen that has appeared on all coins in the UK and the Commonwealth since 1998.

The eight-foot bronze sculpture is in the Sunken Gardens created at the request of King Edward VII in 1908 at Kensington Palace which had been Diana’s home. The informal statue, designed to reflect what Diana was like in her short life, shows her with her arms around two children with another little boy behind her. According to reports, it was intended to show – with these ethnically diverse children – her friendly and gregarious nature; and, in the words of a spokesperson for Kensington Palace, it represents the ‘universality and generational impact of the Princess’s work’. It is said that, being unhappy in her personal life, Princess Diana felt an instinctive affinity with others who were suffering in one way or another and was always ready to comfort them.

Inevitably, there have been raised eyebrows about the brevity of Harry’s rushed visit to the UK of one week that included a coronavirus quarantine period of five days. So, since he attended a charity event as well as the statue ceremony, the presumption is that he had little time to see either The Queen or his father, Prince Charles. Harry is said to have found personal freedom. Others regard his so-called escape with his wife to California as a refusal to meet his obligations and duty as a senior member of the Royal Family.

It is sobering to realise that Diana’s sons are now about the same age as she was at the time of her death. Despite her shortened life, by common consent she won a place in the nation’s heart because of her gift for humanity, compassion and empathy. Could it just be that the unveiling of a statue to honour her might herald a more cordial and peaceful time for the Royal Family after the recent friction generated by the Harry and Meghan controversy and the sadness of the passing of the Duke of Edinburgh? All who honour The Queen and value her extraordinarily effective role as the longest serving monarch in British history will pray for reconciliation within her family.

As the US packs up and goes home, what next for the Afghans?

Afghanistan is in the news again following the early withdrawal last week of US and other NATO countries’ troops. President Biden had recently announced that they would be gone by September, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

The withdrawal brings to an end the nation’s longest war in history which cost nearly 2,500 American lives.

Backed by close allies like Britain, the US invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks with the objective of dismantling the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda which had perpetrated them. This was partially achieved by later killing Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of al-Qaeda’s operations.

The US-led combat mission was declared over by 2015 but large numbers of troops remained to train and assist Afghan security forces who were battling – as they continue to do – against the so-called insurgent forces of the Taliban. The Bagram Airfield base, which was the centre of US military activity for 20 years, has been vacated and military equipment removed. But, reportedly, a security contingent will remain in order to protect US diplomats and to help keep Kabul international airport open.

Some critics are now saying there has been no definitive ending to the Afghan war - no surrender, no peace treaty, no final victory and no decisive defeat. So, what will happen next? Most observers believe that, once foreign forces have left, Afghanistan will deteriorate into a deeper civil war, with an emboldened Taliban, which already controls large swathes of the country, coming out on top.

There is insufficient space today to analyse this further. But, as the country faces the bleak prospect of continuing conflict within its borders, the sad fact is that, even after the expenditure of so much blood and treasure, to all intents and purposes the Western powers’ 20-year mission achieved relatively little – and, even allowing for the difficult and challenging circumstances, ultimately it may be judged by history to have been simply a colossal failure.