Observe why Britain attacked Qatar outside | World Cup

Contributing writers: Yang Fuxin, Li Zhenjie

The XXII FIFA World Cup is in full swing in Qatar. While fans around the world watched the game enthusiastically and marveled at the host's preparations and organization of the event, the United Kingdom, the birthplace of modern football, made discordant noises one after another. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the official media of the United Kingdom, not only did not broadcast the opening ceremony of the World Cup, but instead raised the banner of "human rights" during the "prime time" of the opening ceremony, angrily accusing Qatar of bribing FIFA, squeezing migrant labor, and denying women's rights. Last week, Transport for London notified World Cup Qatar Limited (Q22) and Qatar Tourism that they would ban advertising on London's buses, taxis and the Underground system.

Britain's attack on Qatar with full firepower, burning the fire of public opinion inside and outside the green field, is not so much a deep-rooted embodiment of "Western-centrism", but rather a manifestation of the bitterness and helplessness of the old dream of the "empire that never sets", and opening a farce out of "moral indignation". To explore the reasons for such a gaffe of the always "decent" Britain, we must also look to the long-standing history of the rise of Qatar but for Britain a history of decay.

British influence on Qatar began in the second half of the 19th century. The Qatar-Bahrain War, which broke out in 1867, effectively undermined the 1835 Truce at Sea signed by the British Royal Navy, which oversaw the emirates along the Persian Gulf, raising concerns among British colonists about the safety of trade routes. The British army intervened in the "mediation", and Qatar under the Al-Thani family reached a peace agreement with Bahrain, which laid the foundation for the future development of an independent emirate.

With the return of Ottoman power, Qatar submitted to Ottoman rule in 1871. However, since the abundant oil and gas resources had not yet been discovered, the British only regarded Qatar as an ideal relay station for colonizing India, so they did not have too much entanglement with the Ottoman Empire over the ownership of Qatar. After the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire completely disintegrated and its sphere of influence withdrew from the Arabian Peninsula. In 1916, Qatar officially became a British protectorate. Due to the disparity in power between the two sides, Qatar was forced to accept servile terms, including allowing British merchants to participate in the local pearl trade, allowing the British to set up postal and telegraph offices, not transferring, selling, or mortgaging their territory without British consent, and Qatar's diplomatic and military initiative was ruthlessly deprived by Britain.

In the following 55 years, Britain has always handled its relations with Qatar with an absolute sense of "colonial superiority", although this "sense of superiority" has its basis for existence under specific historical conditions - British colonial rule objectively did promote backward Qatar towards a civilized modern world, but this "sense of superiority" is also the key factor for Britain to get drunk in the old dream of empire, even if the former colony is completely separated from its rule, but if the development path does not meet its so-called value standards. The British would try to impose long-arm rule and play up its achievements in colonizing the area.

After World War II, Britain's national power was greatly weakened, and the quest for independence and liberation of the countries once ruled by it almost became a trend. After the "loss" of India in 1947, Britain's influence and control in the Persian Gulf was greatly reduced. In 1968, when Britain announced that it would relinquish political control of the Persian Gulf within three years, Qatar declared self-government from the British government in 1970.

Although Qatar in the early years of independence still had a certain degree of economic dependence on Britain, this self-confidence of "decolonizing imperialism" quickly evaporated as the Qatari government gradually nationalized oil companies and expanded cooperation with other industrial powers. In 1973, Qatar, along with other Arab oil-producing countries, used oil as a weapon to openly rebel against the domineering Western world, and since then it has gradually become a "soft power power" in the Middle East.

Since the 90s of the 20th century, Qatar, which has made a lot of money from oil revenues, has made a big "move" into the real estate industry of its former metropolis, especially the British capital London. In 20 years, Qatar bought London landmarks such as Canary Wharf, The Shard, Heathrow Airport, Harrods, etc., becoming a veritable "London landlord". In May, Qatar also pledged to invest £10 billion in the UK over the next five years in areas such as technology, health, infrastructure and clean energy. However, as Britain made a fuss about the World Cup, Qatar has said in recent days that it is reviewing "current and future" investment plans in London. The Qatar Investment Authority, which controls more than $460 billion in sovereign wealth funds, is where this tough statement lies.

From the facts, Britain should not and has no reason to be at odds with Qatar. Now, the UK is facing a historic cost-of-living crisis due to a chain reaction caused by soaring energy prices, and recent political civil unrest has exacerbated the UK's economic situation. In stark contrast, Qatar, which has the world's third-largest natural gas reserves, has stood up to the aura of the World Cup and signed energy orders that have shaken the global market. On November 21, Qatar National Energy announced a 27-year long-term LNG purchase and sale agreement with Sinopec, setting a record for the longest supply contract in the LNG industry. On November 29, Qatar reached an agreement with Germany to supply 2 million tons of LNG per year from 2026. As the geopolitical situation becomes more complex, Qatar's position in the global energy supply chain has further improved. If Britain does not exercise restraint in this World Cup turmoil, it may pay a more serious price than the loss of huge investment.

The UK's approach has also caused widespread concern in its own society. Recently, the British "Financial Times" issued a sharp comment on the "BBC criticism of the Qatar World Cup": There are still a considerable number of people in the Western world who still hold the cliché of "Orientalism" and "Western-centrism", and still think that they are still the commanding heights of human civilization. Those who criticize the World Cup in Qatar are psychologically unprepared for the changes that will take place in the world this century.

Contrary to what some bistandardists in the West see, the World Cup in Qatar provided them with an opportunity to reset the Western narrative, because some Western countries constructed an accurate definition of "good" through absurd imagination, and also constructed a stereotypical image of the "other" in the East. When the World Cup is successfully held and the potential of the host country is demonstrated, the United Kingdom and other Western countries should perhaps pay more attention to further developing cooperation with Qatar, rather than turning their backs on the Olympic spirit of understanding, friendship, solidarity and fair play, and turning the green field of good hope into a political game with undercurrents. (About author:Yang Fuxin, assistant researcher, Center for Mediterranean Rim, Zhejiang University of Foreign Chinese; Li Zhenjie, Associate Researcher, Economic, Trade, Industry and Investment Research Center, Mediterranean Research Institute, Zhejiang University of Foreign Chinese)

Source: China Youth Daily client