Wrigley was the boy at our school who had everything. Well, a football. A proper one, made of leather. He was also the owner of a pump which ensured that the precious orb remained inflated. On the downside, Wrigley himself was an ill-tempered, thuggish little git. If he felt himself the victim of a poor offside decision, an over-enthusiastic tackle or a fruity insult, he would gather up his football and depart. He was never molested as he left, as he was also in possession of a seemingly endless supply of older brothers, each more terrifying and bellicose than the last.
We all pretended to like Wrigley because of his football. But really we all hated the cringing sod.
I hadn’t thought about Wriggers for a long while until I heard about last week’s vote that agreed Palestine could be a member of UNESCO. The Americans didn’t want this to happen. They don’t care for Palestinians. In fact, prior to the vote, they had tried twisting the arms of several players, but without success. The result went in a direction they didn’t favour, so they picked up their ball (or, in fact, their “aid” money) and, Wrigley-like, sulked off home.
Although I didn’t think it at the time, I can see now that there were excuses for Wrigley. He was a spoiled child of nine. You just don’t expect the same behaviour from a country aged 235.
I wonder what Wriggers and his family are doing now. Still in Liverpool, I imagine, perhaps engaged in some unpleasant and anti-social activity. Or possibly international development. I can hear them now, coming out with expressions like: “Hello, lad. I notice no one’s chucked a brick through your shop window this week. Do you want to take a gamble on it not happening next week either?”
There was a story about the local priest telling the Wrigleys that he was organising a fund-raising event in the school playground. Would they be prepared to have a stall? “No trouble, father. Leave it to us.”
On the day of the fete, youthful visitors were able to witness at first hand the assembled Wrigleys’ particular twist on charity collection. This was an “Avoid a Fat Lip” stall. If you donated a coin of the realm considered of reasonable value, no one hit you.
This story is very much like the American attitude towards international development. To call it “aid’ is a language perversion. It is the unprincipled and amoral purchase of influence. It is bribery to enforce the policies of the United States.
It’s not as if UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) is some irrelevant sideshow. Earlier this year Hillary Clinton, visiting its headquarters, said: “I am proud to be the first Secretary of State from the United States ever to come to UNESCO, and I come because I believe strongly in your mission.” And why not? It is a globally recognised organisation whose aims are to achieve sustainable development on the basis of building peace, eradicating poverty, observing human rights and encouraging mutual respect.
The Americans have ceased their funding simply because they lost an open, transparent and fair vote. Democracy’s great policeman was one of just 14 votes opposing Palestinian membership, compared with 107 in favour. The nation that bombs half the planet in the interests of democracy immediately declared that UNESCO could go and whistle for the $60 million dues it was to make this month. The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu poodled along a similar path, freezing that country’s $2 million a year subscription.
The result, according to UNESCO’s Director General Irina Bokova, is that it will be impossible for them to implement crucial programmes in education and support to emerging democracies.
It puts old Wrigley into context. He might have been a thug, a whinger, a moaner and a bully, but he’s outclassed by our Transatlantic cousins. He only took his ball back: they’ve taken hope and encouragement from millions.
