Use the World Cup to protest North Korea?

Every four years the World Cup provides a forum to condemn a “rogue nation.”
In 2006, Senator John McCain introduced a Senate resolution advocating a World Cup ban on Iran, one of the original ” Axis of Evil”. Fortunately, FIFA held firm in its policy to disregard such politically loaded demands and McCain’s resolution went nowhere.
This time it is North Korea, part of the same “Axis of Evil”. The North Koreans arrive at the World Cup following accusations by the South Koreans of causing the unprovoked sinking of one of their naval ships that claimed the lives of 46 sailors this March.
The incident has sparked an international crisis with war a real threat between the two neighbours with the North Koreans in possession of an undisclosed arsenal of nuclear weapons in their possession. It has led to a flurry of diplomatic activity with the premiers of China, Japan, and South Korea recently meeting to sort out the best way to deal with the crisis.
South Korea has already cut off most of its trade ties. Japan has also followed suit but it is China, the country with the most sway with the reclusive Kim Jong Il who have refused to commit to condemn or to sanction the North Koreans. Without Chinese intervention, these sanctions have very little actual meaning, other than symbolic ones.
So here come the alternatives. An article in the LA Times by Paul Stares opines that the World Cup is the best forum to publicly rebuke the North Koreans who qualified after 44 years. Millions of viewers will tune in to see their matches in the Group of Death with Brazil, Portugal, and Ivory Coast. Players could be encouraged in those squads to wear the number 46 emblazoned on armbands or wristbands in solidarity with the bereaved South Korean sailors.
Stares mentions that similar symbols of protest were employed by some Iranian players in last years Confederation Cup when they wore green wristbands in support of the Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate of the Green movement, who contested the presidential elections against the authoritarian Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
The rigged election which led to Ahmedinejad retaining his presidency sparked a wave of protests which engulfed Iran for days with the police and the Basij, the para military thugs used by the government resorting to brutal methods to quell the nascent movement to democracy.
The murder of Neda Agha- Soltan captured on camera went viral around the world as millions tuned onto it through the internet and Twitter. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians marched through the streets chanting, “Where is my vote?”
It led to a brief but exhilarating hope that in the face of such populist anger, the hold of the Muslim clerics on every facet of Iranian life would finally yield to the more progressive and reformist vision first initiated by Mohammed Khatami, whose election in 1997 as president of Iran brought a temporary end to the Iranian revolution which brought to power Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the installation of an Islamic Republic.
The Iranian players who wore those green armbands during the Confederations Cup were were forced to retire by the Iranian Football Federation. FIFA on hearing the news wrote a letter to the Federation demanding an explanation which led to denials that the players were punished.
So will such symbols of protest work in the case of North Korea? In Iran’s case, beyond these gestures: the pro reform, pro democracy movement is now a nascent aspect of the political landscape in Iran. Such symbols have power only when they signify a broader change in socio-political parameters within the existing hierarchy, or a complete breakaway. The Vietnam peace sign worked because the US public wanted an end to the 20 year war. They had had enough.
The Iranian players wore armbands because they were part of a vanguard heralding that change which the world witnessed through the instant access of social network sites and cell phone cameras. The revolution was televised. Much of the intense interest came from the awareness that a change to a more progressive Iran also impacts viscerally the prospects of Middle East peace, earth’s most intractable geopolitical puzzle.
In North Korea’s case, the public’s feelings towards that country are defined by Dear Leader’s quixotic cult of personality. The international ramifications of a dispute between the world’s most politically isolated country and its southern neighbour is less well understood or even followed by anyone other than a political junkie. Even South Koreans despite this most grievous provocation are ambivalent in their feelings. They see an enemy but they also see a badly behaved brother.
With this context in mind, armbands with 46 emblazoned or spectators bearing placards will resonate less with a viewing public robbing it of meaning and potency as a way of shaming North Korea. The potential meeting of both countries on the pitch might be the subject of intense political debate but beyond that little else.