English Chess Forum

The Agenda has been released. Among several interesting items, it includes some motions from the English Chess Federation.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:33 pm

Among several interesting items, it includes some motions from the English Chess Federation.

The Isle of Man can be represented at FIDE meetings although not qualifying to take part in Olympiads (?)

The Iranian Federation are to be told to drop their political boycott of their players facing Israelis, or be excluded from FIDE.

Eligibility for FIDE membership is based on membership of the UN OR membership of the IOC. Not both as currently worded.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:29 pm

The Iranian Federation are to be told to drop their political boycott of their players facing Israelis, or be excluded from FIDE.

With so many strong Iranian players coming to the fore this is becoming a real problem. Good to see Nigel Short, who coached their juniors for a short period taking this on. Chess24 article.

I coached Iran's national team - not their juniors.

I haven't given much thought to this, but won't let that stop me:

1) I share the general distate for the policy of the Iranian chess federation and can see that it flatly defies gens una sumus
2) but what will actually be achieved by such a measure? I can think of only two possibilities:

a) Iran are thrown out, but we then have an uproar from other muslim nations, let alone the unedifying spectale of depriving some of the most talented young players in the world from progressing their careers. They might not all be in a position to follow Firouzja out of Iran and might reasonably think that we are the ones not applying gens una sumus, or
b) Iranian chess federation purportedly complies, knowing that nonetheless any chess player who does play against an Israeli still faces vilification at home and advises that it is, naturally, unable to afford effective protection. Then the Iranian chess players might be in en even worse position - if they default, they won't be protected by pointing to the policy of their federation.

In the latter situation, the charade of "voluntary" defaults could carry on indefinitely. I would not have thought that "making the point" is worth the cost, and would generally caution against gesture politics.

No doubt we expect the motion to fail anyway. Fine. But then we are definitely spending time on gesture politics.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:08 pm

No doubt we expect the motion to fail anyway.

That is not obvious to me.

And given that the European Chess Union, which comprises over 1/4 of the total electorate, voted unanimously to end the odious practice of "forbidden pairings", it is not obvious to me either...

Complex topic. I am a bit surprised that FIDE are not following the IOC's lead.

I am disappointed that Malcolm did not at least tell Council he intended to submit this motion.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:25 pm

Complex topic. I am a bit surprised that FIDE are not following the IOC's lead.

What makes you think they are not?

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:01 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:25 pm

Complex topic. I am a bit surprised that FIDE are not following the IOC's lead.

What makes you think they are not?

I googled "IOC ban Iran" and spent about an hour reading the news articles and IOC statements. As far as I can see the IOC have not taken the action proposed in the motion.

Paul,

I see what you mean. The Iran Judo Federation has been banned by its global sporting body, for similar offences, and CAS heard their appeal a couple of months ago - no result so far. Iran would presumably not have been involved in judo competition at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, had they been held.

Which should come first? I suppose IOC can only ban a nation for bad behaviour in one of its sports if that body tells them about it. In any case, Iran is at present rather more in the soup because they have executed a top wrestler who was involved in a protest against the regime.

The ECF motion relating to Iran has now been removed from the Agenda. I do not know how or why this has happened.

And now it's back, with a response from Iran.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:21 pm

And now it's back, with a response from Iran.

Ah, I couldn't find the response from the Iranian Federation.

FWIW, I agree with Jonathan Rogers' post above and think he makes a good point about the application of "gens una sumus"... Sometimes I wonder whether sanctions produce positive results - isn't there a risk that divisions will be exacerbated? Won't it be the ordinary citizen that suffers? Why is the ECF supporting the motion?

Angus French wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:12 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:21 pm

And now it's back, with a response from Iran.

Ah, I couldn't find the response from the Iranian Federation.

I can find neither the motion nor the Iranian response.