The Backlash Against Globalization

The Backlash Against Globalization

Soccer at least in its modern iteration was created in England from which it was able to spread to the rest of the world. Seeing the connection between soccer and globalization author Franklin Foer wrote the aptly named book on the subject How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. In Chapter six of his book “How Soccer Explains the Black Carpathians” Foer focuses on how globalization spurs countries to focus on their comparative advantage and the resulting backlash of racism in these countries. 

Globalization forces countries who want to be competitive in the market to focus on the production of the goods they are best at making. No country will buy from you if another country makes a cheaper and better quality product. This phenomenon happens in soccer as African countries are exporting their best player to play in European Soccer Clubs. Foer explains that “Agents scoured places like Gboko for teams they could sell to European Soccer Clubs” (146). These African players are perceived as more skilled at soccer than their European counterparts and are imported to improve the performance of various soccer clubs around Europe. Why would a team waste time producing their own soccer players when they can import better players from other countries to play for them?  While this benefits not only the soccer teams but the world economy the native populations of the importing countries always fight globalization.

Globalization has the unfortunate tendency to create an us vs. them mentality. Workers feel that they are losing their hard earned jobs to forces that they could never compete with even in soccer. These feelings often tend to lead to racist sentiments in two forms depending on how large the group of “job-takers” are. If the group is small such as in Lviv, Ukraine the population will act like “an eight year old refusing to try dinner at an Ethiopian restaurant.” (156) When a Ukrainian kid sees an African in real life they are stunned as they have never seen one outside of TV. There will be off handed racist comments made at the Nigerian soccer players but nothing worse. They do not know why they do not like the people they just feel like they should not. The real problem occurs in countries like Poland where there is relatively large group of these “job takers”. In Poland when African soccer players arrive on the field the crowd throws bananas at them. There is an active culture of racism here galvanized by nationalist elements that can lead to harmful outbursts. In these types of countries nationalistic elements are actively looking to harm them.

While globalization benefits the world many people do not see it that way. They see it as a parasite taking their hard earned jobs. Through the lens of soccer we can see how soccer clubs follow the rules of comparative advantage to make the best soccer club possible and the racist backlash that occurs as a direct result. Soccer is the perfect microcosm of globalization.

Positives and Negatives of Globalization

In How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer connects the culture of soccer to globalization. In the third chapter, Foer focuses on how soccer explains the Jewish question. While in this chapter Foer extensively analyzes Jewish soccer groups in Europe, I think that an extremely interesting point he makes is that “Zionism and modern European anti-Semitism dripped out of the same fin-de-siècle intellectual spout” (70). Foer’s entire focus of this book is globalization, but it is easy to conclude that globalization is either entirely positive or entirely negative for the world. In this chapter, Foer juxtaposes Zionism and anti-Semitism to prove how globalization has both positive and negative aspects.

In the chapter, Foer talks about how the soccer teams, specifically Hakoah, didn’t just play the sport, but they also spread Zionism. It is because of globalization that these teams were able to travel around Europe and the entire world. On a surface level globalization led to the spread of soccer culture throughout the world, but if you look deeper it is clear that with the spread of soccer came additional political and ideological influences. If you think about it in the context of the 21^st century, soccer has become such a huge part of everyday life in much of the world. Not only do people watch the games on TV, but they also follow teams very closely and build friendships and enemies based on their love for soccer.

Many of the contributions of globalization, like sports, are very positive for the world. However, globalization has also been accompanied by negative ideologies, such as anti-Semitism. Foer compares anti-Semitism towards Jews in Europe to discrimination towards Native Americans in America.  Specifically the use of both cultures as mascots and the similar use of cartoons to represent stereotypes were used as points of comparison. I think it is extremely interesting that not only did globalization lead to the spread of anti-Semitism in Europe, but it also may have led to the similar treatment of Native Americans in a completely different continent. Both of these issues have continued into the 21^st century; there is a constant debate regarding the use of Native American symbols and names for sports teams or clothing, and in addition there is still a prominent issue of anti-Semitism in Europe. I think that while globalization does lead to many positive exchanges between people of different cultures, it can also lead to sharing negative ideologies like discrimination against minorities.

While Foer uses Zionism and anti-Semitism in Europe to portray the positive and negative affects of globalization, I think that it is the spread of these ideologies to other continents like the United States that actually reflects the extent to which globalization has impacted the world today. For example, when there are acts of anti-Semitism in Europe, people in America hear about it and react to it. In addition, the arguments about the cultural appropriation of Native Americans are not only confined to the US, but they are also discussed in other parts of the world. It is very clear that there are both positive and negative aspects to globalization, but I think that the greatest contribution of globalization to the world is the fact that these discussions and arguments are not confined to one country. If there is a conflict or ideology that one region is struggling with, people all over the world are also struggling with the same conflict. Some people may understand this to be a bad contribution (because countries are getting involved in conflicts of other countries which they really don’t understand), but I think that the interconnectedness between countries is ultimately a positive thing for the world.

Should Institutions have teeth?

In class we spoke a lot about institutions and the way in which they bring about a greater sense of camaraderie among states and how they increase communication and therefore decrease the likelihood of essentially another world war. I understand this and I respect this. However, I find it impractical when trying to mitigate a situation in which one or both of the parties may be something like a paramilitary group which is not a state in itself but poses a threat to other states and citizens. With the United Nations, if two countries battle for an extended period of time with one being unreasonable or the other making false threats (or fulfilling those threats) they both begin to lose face. They start to lose legitimacy in the eyes of others. It is in states’ best interest to avoid any conflict that will make them look petty. This being said, paramilitary groups like Hezbollah or ISIS don’t have this loss. In fact, with the more attention they get from organizations, and the more arguments had and the more they follow through on their threats, the more legitimacy they gain. This undermines, I think, the foundations for overarching international organizations built to be bigger than states.

As of now the UN ‘military’ is a peacekeeping force that lines the border between things like Cyprus and the Turkish side of Cyprus. With the rise of nuclear weapons and the increase in prominence of terrorist groups it may be time for countries to contribute actual armies to make a sort of world army. This would create horrible problems in regards to compensation, contribution, deployment, relevance, and if it is at all ethical I know. But I think it is time for a unified force which has some teeth to be serious discussed. Right now there is a vicious cycle of those who have the power to help do not have the responsibility and those who (some say) have the responsibility do not have the means or authority to rally a group who can actually change things. On the flip side, I don’t know if becoming hostile will make us seem threatened and backfire instead of what would be thwarting their efforts.

I like to think that, ultimately, no single group of people will end the world and that all of this is unnecessary, that mediation will always work and negotiation is better than force and none of this will ever have to come to reality but I think with the rise of technology the possibilities are now greater than the imagination of what the guidelines surrounding organizations were meant to be. 

All for One

Blogg Post 3

GVPT200

Professor Lugg

All for One

            The international financial system that is currently in place protects countries of financial obligations post war.  Implemented after World War II, the Bretton Woods System is system that leading countries of the world all take part to keep the worlds economy afloat.  I argue that the current system of international economy is the base building block for a world government.

            Narrowing our focus two key components of a powerful state: the military power and financials stability.  Of course, there are other factors, but we will focus only on these two factors.  After World War II, the world suffered economic turmoil.  The losers of the war economies were shattered.  As well as, the winners had war debt to repay.  In addition, the states lost multiple military resources.  Nuclear power and mutual assured destruction had begun to arise.  As a result, the Cold War began. 

            Aside for the military perspective of global power, the financial stability of the world needed regulation.  Therefore, upon urgent agreement sovereign states must agree monetarily.  So began, a cooperative financial system, the Bretton Woods system, to compensate for floating exchange rates, to establish fixed rates, to limit convertibility, and lastly an institution to regulate these factors.  Under these circumstances, the leading sovereign states agree on a system that regulates financial factors is close to a world government.  Take note that, the institutions that regulate the international economy, systematically run on the power of voting and consecutive agreement, much like a democracy.  A vital clue is uncovered and begs the question: if the world’s finances can run democratically, what else can function democratically on the global scale?  Would a global Constitution work?  Would global individual rights work? 

            On the contrary, establishing a global democracy comes with four contradictions.  First, Religion is a major factor will hinder this argument.  Although, the different religions differ with specifics, so lets' boil down religion to: treating all people equally, or along the same lines of a feminist.  The specific nature of religion begins with a belief above ones’ self.  Likewise, forcing one specific religion is unethical; therefore, the religion factor is simply treating all people with respect. Secondly, another set back to a global government is the lead country in charge.  This notion is can be answered just like our financial problem.  Every sovereign state will have a vote and evenly distributed power.  Thirdly, the military factor, as discussed in lecture mutual assured destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war, so it is safe to assume that MAD can work on a lower scale.  In the same light, states that cause global intervention, e.g. Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan will have to dealt with by killing off the regimes that break the only religion rule, treating all people equally, obviously they can not function.  That statement may sound harsh, but a global government will have to make drastic decisions for the common good.  Lastly, a global language, this factor branches into culture and citizen’s heritage; similar to the religion factor, imposing one language for the world is unethical. 

            A global government may give the impression of only a few countries have over all power.  Therefore, staying focused on how our global finical system like the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and others alike will be he base line building block for a global government.  All the set backs of this argument are inconclusive, but these main deterrents are typically the causes of world issues presently.  In conclusion, will a global government work? 

The Concept of Rationality in International Relations

The concept of rationality often arises when discussing mutually assured destruction and the use of nuclear weapons. For class, we read two differing opinions on whether Iran should have weapons of mass destruction, and if Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East. I think that the possession of nuclear weapons has provided a peaceful situation in much of the world, but this is only because rational states are those that are in possession of the weapons. Recently, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted about the annihilation of the state of Israel (as published in the Jerusalem Post), an action that I think further proves that Iran is an irrational state and should therefore not be in possession of nuclear weapons.

An interesting phenomenon that has occurred is that there has been no nuclear war, regardless of the fact that there are nuclear weapons in the world. I think that it is possible for nuclear weapons to create peace, because they do act as a deterrent. While the Cold War was an unpleasant time in history, it did not actually lead to fighting or the death of thousands of people that is normally characteristic of war. However, I think that the present situation of nuclear weapons acting as a deterrent is only because rational states are in possession of the weapons of mass destruction. These states understand that the purpose of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent, and not to be used as a weapon.

The argument that rational states can responsibly posses nuclear weapons also supports why Iran should not. Iran is not a rational state, as can be seen by the recent tweet by Iran’s Supreme Leader. On November 8^th, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated” (Jerusalem Post). As a highly ranked official in Iran, Khamenei’s actions represent the government and the irrationality that characterizes it. If Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, I believe that they would not use them as a deterrent as the rest of the world has done. Rather, I think they would actually use them as a weapon, specifically against Israel. Some may argue that there is currently no stability in the Middle East because Israel is a regional hegemon due to their sole possession of nuclear weapons. The same people would argue that Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would therefore provide stability to the Middle East, because there would be two powerful states in the region to balance each other out. However, I think that this would not be the case, because Iran is not a rational state like Israel, as can be seen from Khamenei’s tweet.

The Jerusalem Post article also brings up another situation in which Iran’s rationality must be questioned. The article mentions that President Obama recently sent a letter to Khamenei to suggest cooperating in the fight against ISIS. After that, however, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman stated, “Iran should not be included in any coalition that is formed to fight Islamic State.” If Iran was a rational state that the United States could trust, I don’t think that Foreign Minister Lieberman would have made this comment. It is Iran’s rationality that calls into question how reliable they will be as an ally in the fight against ISIS. Ultimately, a country’s rationality does not only play into whether they should have nuclear weapons, but also whether or not they should be used as allies for a common goal.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Khamenei-on-Twitter-No-cure-for-barbaric-Israeli-regime-but-to-be-annihilated-381215

The Case for Nuclear Disarmament: The Cost of Mutually Assured Destruction

Evan Kielar

The Case for Nuclear Disarmament: The Cost of Mutually Assured Destruction 

Nuclear weapons have no purpose in the modern foreign relations.  Nuclear weapons are not only functionally useless as a deterrent they may fall in the hands of irrational actors and they cost a lot to maintain.  The ideal move for all countries would be a simultaneous disarmament but the U.S can start the process by reducing their arsenal.

The justification for the continued existence of nuclear weapons is deterrence. Very few states actually like the idea of nuclear weapons but they feel defenseless without it. If all states have nuclear weapons and all more importantly have second-strike capabilities, the ability to retaliate before they are hit, no one will use them. If deterrence were the true goal the strongest method would be to disarm and destroy all nuclear weapons in the world, though sadly this is easier said than done. The only way any singular country would disarm is if they knew all other countries with nuclear weapons were similarly disarming, which will likely never occur. There would always be actors like North Korea who would never agree to such a plan causing it to all fall apart it. The U.S can start this process by reducing their arsenal. Currently we have over five thousand nuclear warheads clearly way more than we need for deterrence. Reducing our stockpile by a couple thousand seems like a reasonable start. Luckily no nuclear weapons have been used against another country since World War Two. If nuclear weapons were just pointless they would not be such a problem but there is a risk that comes with increased nuclear proliferation.

Mutually assured destruction only works on the assumption that all actors are rational. If an irrational actor was ever able to steal even a single nuclear warhead, they could cause untold destruction. Terrorist organizations such as Al- Qaeda and ISIS would set off a nuke if they were able to because they do not fear for life. Since they believe they will be rewarded in the after-life for their deeds they are will willing to sacrifice anything included their life for their doctrine. The more nuclear weapons that we create and especially when countries like Pakistan, that are hot-beds of terrorist activities, create more nuclear weapons terrorist organizations are more likely to acquire the weapons. Even if they never fall into the wrong hands nuclear weapons still come at a cost to the host nations.

Nuclear weapons are very high maintenance tools of war that have devastating consequences if not taken care of properly. If they are not refitted every couple of decades they will begin to leak nuclear fuel which can lead to lethal levels of radiation poisoning to the crew working at the nuclear facilities. These refits cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per nuclear warhead, leading to a price tag of trillions of dollars every couple of decades for weapons we do not even use. By reducing out stockpile we can at least reduce the price tag that we pay for these useless weapons. 

While nuclear weapons will not disappear tomorrow we can begin the process of disarming. By reducing our nuclear capacity the U.S legitimizes the claims that nuclear weapons are functionally useless, can fall into the wrong hands and cost the host countries trillions of dollars. It always takes one to start a movement.