Victims of North Korea

North Korea and South Korea at night

The tensions surrounding the countries at the heart of the North Korea problem couldn't be greater at the moment. An awful lot of the world's problems are caused by a lack of communication and by cutting off all communication with the South, North Korea are only exacerbating the situation.

Kim Jong-Il, who died in 2011, was portrayed as clownish by the Western world and his son is attracting the same level of mockery now. I'm tempted to feel sorry for Kim Jong-Un because he's been forced into adopting the Juche ideology of his father and grandfather. He must feel an enormous pressure to maintain the nation's stance towards its enemies while at the same time cultivate the kind of adoration from the people that is necessary in order to keep control. Being only 29 and despite having a large group of advisers, his alarmingly direct and aggressive rhetoric could surely be put down, in part, to naivety. The ruling class in North Korea may be mad, but they're surely not stupid enough to consider seriously the possibility of going to war with the United States.

While all the talk surrounds America's response, the role of China, and the inevitable debate about economic consequences of this or that (because heaven forbid that this conflict affects the markets), what is always neglected is the lives of ordinary people in North Korea. When a person in North Korea is declared a traitor, perhaps for listening to South Korean radio, or making fun of the Eternal President, he or she would likely be sent to a prison camp and tortured or executed. One of the many things which prevents any kind of revolution is the fact that if one man revolts, then his blood is 'tainted' therefore three generations of that man's family would be sent to a labour camp as well. It's one thing to risk your own life but it's another to risk the lives of your children too.

The chilling picture of North Korea at night is symbolic. North Koreans live in darkness, literally and metaphorically, and light needs to be shone and focus needs to be shifted onto them. Korean reunification will happen one day and it's hard to see how that can happen without significant bloodshed.

In any case, I think it's important to highlight more often the plight of the people in North Korea than the politics and warped ideology. As such, it's worth mentioning Liberty in North Korea, an American-based charity which sets out to rescue North Koreans, such as the one shown in the video below. In this, Hyeonseo Lee talks about how she escaped from a country with barely any food or electricity, no internet, and where children are taught everything through propaganda.

"Jesus wanted to build the Kingdom of God. Instead he got the Church"

I was genuinely excited by the drama that unfolded in Vatican City this week and the election of the new Pope.. aka Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles... etc etc... I didn't expect to be but there's nothing quite like it. There was more drama than on all manufactured reality shows put together. Few institutions maintain the aura and mystery of the Catholic Church after all.

I've read about some people who have expressed disappointment that Cardinal Bergoglio is doctrinally conservative, as if they thought the conclave would perhaps elect a pope who would fly a rainbow flag on the balcony while promoting the One Billion Rising movement and announcing a sponsorship deal with Durex. My sister pointed out the total lack of women involved in the whole process and it was indeed striking to see the absence of any female influence within Vatican City. The decline of the Catholic Church in Europe is hardly surprising when it's the least adaptable form of Christianity (although the CofE tries its best to be) and marginalises half of the people in society. Even the new pope's country, Argentina, is increasingly secular.

In my opinion, preventing their priests from getting married is one of the major defects of the Church and one reason often given, that the priest should be married to the Church, is disingenuous to say the least. Catholicism is the cult of the virgin and is obsessed with chastity and celibacy but not only is it an unnatural way to live, from personal experience a priest can only benefit in his ministry from having a family. It goes without saying that this situation must be one factor in explaining the endless sex scandals, in which case their stance does far more harm than good.

You could argue I suppose that if you don't like the Catholic Church, just don't be a Catholic. But if the pope is the direct successor to St Peter and is head of the 'one true faith' there surely has to be a greater sense of responsibility to adapt to changes in society. Evolution and 'survival of the fittest' isn't about fundamental change as such, it's about adapting to the changes in your environment and surroundings. If you don't adapt, you die.

Because of this, I think the appointment of Pope Francis is as progressive as anyone could hope for. The conclave recognise the need for change on the inside of the Vatican and it's hugely symbolic that he's named himself after Francis of Assisi who was said to be asked by God to re-build the Church from ruins. He takes the bus to work and told his friends to give their money to the poor rather than buy plane tickets to see him become Cardinal. Many of his views aren't in keeping with modern society precisely because they're Catholic views, but maybe he does, and hopefully will, ponder the question that too many Christians forget to ask themselves: What would Jesus do?

Lent. A good time for blog ressurection.

Well, this blog didn't turn out too well.

It's surprisingly hard to keep up a blog. Although I suppose it depends on one's motivation and inspiration which aren't things I've had in abundance recently.

In any case, when Lent began last Wednesday I decided actually to give up something for once. The temptation was to leave out the 'something' and just give up for Lent but in the event, I took the plunge and resolved to give up alcohol. I don't get drunk easily but I do drink most days, so I'm not enjoying this teetotalism at all. Not having a proper job and being reminded of it on a daily basis as well as living at home like I'm 17 again makes it even harder to resist the lure of the Glenmorangie in its sophisticated decanter.

I also went the extra mile by not just giving up Twitter for Lent but avoiding the internet entirely every Friday until Easter. I'm now expecting some major world event to happen during this time. Fortunately the Pope must have forseen this and decided to resign two days before Lent so hopefully that will deter the Queen from dying or North Korea from attempting reunification before Easter.

So far, so good. And while I felt really disconnected last Friday, I definitely felt more free to do other, more productive, things. The realisation at the end of the day that there wasn't that much I missed about being online made me wonder how I waste so much time. Just one of the latest triggers of my bidaily existential crises.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this flowchart: 

Olympic Power Games

This week Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey supposedly caused controversy and risked upsetting Wales football fans by posing in the shirt of the Great Britain Olympic team.

Unless I'm completely out of touch with the feelings of most other Wales fans, I don't see anything to be upset about. The FAW, like its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are against Welsh participation in a British team next summer. The argument is that by having the four home countries playing as one at the Olympic Games, then they will all be put under pressure from Fifa members who believe it is unfair for the UK to maintain the privileged position it finds itself in. And it's true, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are lucky to have sporting independence when there is an absence of political independence.

However, do other Fifa affiliated countries really care about this? I would argue that it is in the interests of other countries that our independence remains, but only in a sporting sense. Merging the four associations would strengthen the possibilities for the team. Admittedly, a GB team would contain mostly English players, but add to that the likes of Gareth Bale and Aaron Ramsey and we would have a team that would be more of a threat to the major teams in Europe and South America. From the perspective of foreign countries, creating a permanent GB team would be to strengthen a rival.


If this were purely an argument about the team each country of the UK puts out, then surely the FA would have reservations about the Olympics too? After all, if the fears of the other FAs were realised there would be no more England football team. Yet the English, to me at least, don't seem to be at all worried about this.

The real reason that the FAW, SFA and IFA are so against the idea of a British Olympic team is because the four home associations hold high positions of power in world football which are undeserved and massively out dated. The laws of football are made by the International Football Association Board, in which Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland each hold one vote, and Fifa (represented by more than 200 other countries) holds another four votes. In the 21st century this seems a bizarre and archaic set up. It has been this way since 1958 though the organisation has existed since the 19th century. There is a long held resentment by Fifa members that the UK holds such a position in the game and it is hard to argue that today this is deserved.

Now it is easier to understand the position of the home associations. The FAW do not want to lose that position on the IFAB as well as the post of Fifa Vice-President which is retained by the UK and rotated throughout the home nations. It is not surprising that the home nations are desperate to cling to this power but it is not good for football that it remains this way. Why should the UK have as much say in the laws of the game as the rest of the world put together? It is understandable why our unique position would be threatened with a combined Olympic team.

Uruguay's pioneering 1924 Olympic team

In my opinion, Bale and Ramsey should definitely play for 'Team GB'. I would want to play if I could, after all the Olympic football tournament has a great history and for Welshmen it's likely to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to play on such a stage. While it would be catastrophic if we were to lose our Welsh national team and I am as patriotic as any Welshman, I don't think this is what upsets other major countries within Fifa. What I do feel sympathy with is the view that it is old fashioned and wrong that the UK should hold a Fifa Vice-Presidency and half the votes on the law-making board. There's no way four small countries would give up such power easily but giving up this privilege would be progressive for world football. History and tradition justifies keeping four teams, but it should not justify holding onto excessive power.

"Success is a journey, not a destination. The doing is often more important than the outcome" Arthur Ashe

 Today on Twitter I found a link to a graphic on a Spanish news website illustrating the 42 passes that led to Spain's first goal against Scotland on Tuesday night. Every single player, including the goalkeeper, touched the ball at least once. The Scottish players might as well have joined the Tartan Army in the crowd.

The fact that neither Cesc Fabregas nor Andres Iniesta were involved in the move shows the strength in depth that Spain possesses. Despite being without two of their best midfield players Spain are still able to display their 'tiki-taka' style of football. And with no compromise on quality. Almost every national team in the world would have to alter their approach to games without their most important midfield players, but then not every team is World and European champion. Spain play like Barcelona but the technique, composure on the ball and passing ability is emphasised far more in the education of youngsters in most of Spain. These qualities at youth level have been shown in the country's success in the U21 European Championship this summer.

On BBC Breakfast this morning, there was talk of a local authority ceasing to release the results of football matches at under 12 level. The general consensus seemed to be that this was a bad thing, that it was failing the children by preventing them from having to deal with victory and defeat, one person even claimed it was a symptom of Britain's 'Nanny' culture. But I think the point was missed entirely. The philosophy in the UK too often is to get the ball down the pitch as quickly as possible and just make sure it ends up in the net.

Never mind patient approach play, achieved through intense technical coaching, just lazily hoof the ball up to the strikers and hope for a lucky bounce of the ball or a defensive mistake. From a very early age, boys learn that goals are all that matters and it is therefore the case that it doesn't matter how you score, just that you do. The ends justify the means, supposedly. But this approach has limitations, best illustrated by the lack of success by England and the other home nations. If, like in Spain, young boys were brought up to focus more on passing, movement and patience then they might stand half a chance. Unfortunately, the British approach favours limited players so it's far easier not to adopt Spain's approach. What's more, British football fans also have this impatience ingrained into them. If a team passes the ball around for too long in their own half, or involve the keeper for more than a couple of  touches, it is met with frustration and shouting to get the ball down the other end. What the Spanish seem to realise is that if your team has the ball, then the other team can't score.

I'm not suggesting that every club side should try to replicate Barcelona. Every team should play to its strengths, even if that means having to endure Stoke City narrowing their pitch to maximise the impact of long throws into the box. But I am suggesting that the FA, the FAW, the SFA and the IFA implement Spanish methods into the education of young footballers. Maybe then fewer teams would take the Stoke approach because British versions of players like Xavi, Fabregas and Iniesta would emerge.

A counter argument to this would be that it is harder to win football matches the Barcelona way. But I don't believe that the end always justifies the means. People remember most champions because of their results, but people will remember Barcelona and Spain because of what happened during an entire 90 minutes. That's why Spain will not be remembered as the lowest scoring World Champions in history, but as the most technically gifted and admired team for a generation. When Spain play football, it looks an easy game, but if it were an easy game, everyone would play like that.