12 february 2018 http://www.openthemagazine.com 17
visibly shaking Federer. “oh yeah, people came from Basel and
it’s so nice to share this moment,” he replied, choking. “so yeah,
i just, i just want to say thanks to everybo...” And that was that.
“That first one was like, ‘oh my god,’ you know, like i was
able to win one, the rest now doesn’t really matter. i’m Wimble-
don champion, i’m grand slam champion,” Federer explained
to Courier in the studio. “This one here, tonight, reminded me
more of the 2006 win i had here after i beat (Marcos) Baghdatis.”
six months shy of his 37th birthday, this win and these emo-
tions reminded Federer of his 24-year old self—a Federer in the
middle of a peak so wide that it was actually a ridge; a Federer
who was then in the beginning of a run that saw him reach 10
consecutive grand slam finals, winning eight of them.
Back then, in 2006, Federer arrived at grand slams know-
ing that anything less than the trophy would be considered a
tragedy by both him and his fans. during this period, Federer’s
greatest competition wasn’t Nadal or Novak djokovic or Andy
Murray (boys who were still cutting their teeth in the sport), but
Federer himself. Now, with Nadal, djokovic and Murray way-
laid by injuries (leg, elbow and hip, respectively), a 36-year old
man has outlasted his much younger and far stronger rivals to
once again reach a point where he fears only his own reflection.
The fact that Federer once again enters grand slams with the
burden of being favourite—at an age when simply competing
should’ve been the ultimate burden—tells you everything you
need to know about his genius. And why he is, without a doubt,
the greatest sportsperson the world has yet seen.
“i got to the final quickly on both occasions (against Marin
Cilic this year and Baghdatis in 2006) and i had a lot of, um, emo-
tions left,” he said. “i spent all day thinking of how cool it would
be to win, and also what it would be like to lose after coming so
close. so when it was all said and done, that’s when it hit me.”
Twelve years ago, on the same podium, Federer was pre-
sented with his second Australian open trophy by rod Laver,
widely considered to be the greatest tennis player before Federer
and a man Federer considers to be his ultimate hero. “i hope you
know how much this means to me,” he had told Laver and the
crowd then, quivering, before bursting into hot tears and
walking away from the microphone to get a hold of himself,
and Laver. “i guess it’s all coming out now.”
Twelve years later, at the rod Laver Arena, with rod Laver
clicking smart-phone pictures of a trembling sixth-time Aussie
open champion, Federer combusted. Again, he stepped away
from the mic, snivelling, even as Cilic, who had lost over five
gruelling sets, smiled. “did Laver really take pictures?” Federer
asked a room full of reporters at the press conference. “i didn’t
even see it happening through the thick tears.”
Composed now and perhaps even a little embarrassed,
Federer hastily added: “it was what it was, you know, and i wish
it wasn’t so sometimes. At the same time, i am happy i can show
emotions and share it with the people. That does mean more
than anything else to me.” n
By AdityA i yerW
heN soMeoNe sAYs he’ll give you a
‘bloody nose’, the likely setting is a school
playground. But ever since the 2018 state
of the Union address by Us President
donald Trump, speculation has mounted that the
recipient of that schoolboy tactic may be North Korea,
a country that has violated all canons of reasonable
behaviour expected of a nation-state.
The trouble is that the ‘bloody nose’ may end up hurting
the Us and its ally south Korea more. The danger arises from
the North Korean capability to execute a nuclear strike on
the Us, as it has long-range ballistic missiles in its arsenal
now. The south Korean capital seoul is less than 100 km
from its border with the North.
At another level, the problem is one of signalling: there
is no effective way to separate a mere ‘bloody nose’ from a
full-blown attack involving nuclear weapons. it is in
Pyongyang’s interest to exaggerate the threat of any hostile
action by the Us and claim that its existence is at stake. This
situation is similar to india’s vis-a-vis Pakistan. islamabad
often claims that south Asia is ‘the most dangerous place
on earth’ and portrays even minor military exchanges as
potential nuclear flashpoints.
When nuclear weapons were invented in the late 1940s,
their deterrent effect was expected to secure a peaceful future.
The use of these weapons was seen as a ‘great taboo’, as former
Us secretary of state robert McNamara described them.
But with the invention of less powerful, low-yield nuclear
weapons, that logic has vanished. And it is rogue states that
are exploiting these in the most cynical manner. The
practical use of such bombs lies in their limited destructive
power. Unlike the weapons that flattened hiroshima and
Nagasaki, a low-yield bomb can be thrown at an advancing
army in a desolate area like a desert or mountain wasteland as
a warning signal. But any use of a nuclear weapon can trigger
panic enough for a full-scale retaliation. in such an event, the
idea of a ‘warning’ shot is rendered futile.
North Korea has been exploiting this ambiguity
against the Us to its hilt. But ultimately it is the nature of
the Pyongyang regime that is at work here and not the
alleged power of the nuke that the Us may or may not hurl
at it to give it a ‘bloody nose’. As with other totalitarian
systems, the internal structure of the state determines
its external course of action. This is the dilemma that
democratic countries face in a world that unfortunately
has rogue states armed with nukes. na Bloody Nose
It is not easy to give one to a rogue state
armed with nuclear weaponsAFTERTHOUGHT