The seemingly positive effects of globalization

It has been often observed that the world of sports tends to transcend politics when those two worlds intersect. This is evident when analyzing race relations in America and seeing how athletes such as Jackie Robinson and Jesse Owens became symbols of racial equity and progress. This is why I see How Soccer Explains the World by Frank Foer as particularly interesting when analyzing the effects and prevalence of globalization. In the chapter How Soccer Explains Islam’s Hope, Foer shows how the game of soccer, through globalization, affected Iran’s cultural identity and promoted secular nationalism, which contested traditional Islamic belief. I believe soccer’s popularity through globalization can have major impacts on cultures' traditional practices without completely uprooting the culture’s identity. But this is a difficult balance to strike and shows some of the negative aspects of globalization. However, I do believe globalization through exposure of western, liberal ideals is partially responsible for the protests and uprisings associated with the Arab Spring.

As Foer explains in his book, the popularity of soccer and the prosperity Iran enjoyed because of the success of their national team lead women across the country to protest the laws the forbade women from entering the stadium to celebrate. There were demonstrations across the country, and Foer says that a “football revolution” had taken place. Western liberal democracies would view Iran’s regulations as backward and undemocratic. And it took the exposure to the west and western ideals through soccer to show the people, or at least the women, of Iran that the suppressive natures of their laws were not ideal because they could not celebrate their team’s success. As Foer put it, people realized they could challenge their tyrannical leaders, which is something that liberal democracies hold a lot of value in.  Additionally, this kind of uprising and protest was completely independent of an invasion or any political action. There is always a contention of whether or not liberal democracies should intervene in countries that treat their citizens unfairly and deny them rights. However, through globalization, the West can influence other states without having to directly intervene. The popularity of soccer and the shared appreciation across the world provides a platform for people to express their frustration, which a very positive consequence of globalization. However, there is another side to this where it could be taken to the other extreme and countries could lose their sense of cultural identity. In an ideal world, liberal democracies would want states to value liberal, democratic views and at the same time, retain their cultural identity. These two things are difficult to reconcile and shows a drawback to globalization. This is why Foer says that the football (soccer) revolution might be a return to secular nationalism because people are still rising up in the name of their nation, not another like the United States.

The interconnectedness created by soccer can be paralleled to the interconnectedness created by social media during the time of the Arab Spring. I do not believe globalization was solely responsible for the Arab Spring but I do believe technological advances in the form of social media helped globalize the protests that took place throughout the Arab world. Globalization through soccer and social media are very different, however, because soccer tangentially inspired revolution and protest, whereas social media was a tool used to directly pass on influence to other states. The Arab Spring provided western states the opportunity to implement authority over Arab nations, which, as I mentioned before, has its benefits and drawbacks.

Globalization, Corporations, and Soccer Oh my!

         Globalization can be defined as the increased interconnectedness between states through the spread of goods, ideas, and other aspects of culture. Though this is a widely accepted definition, Globalization remains a contested concept given its recent expansion due to novel technological advancements. This modern day progression has helped mass-facilitate an interconnected world. Despite global growth however, the increase of Globalization has led to the subversion of government authority. Power now resides among large corporations and a handful of elites that are now attempting to expand their economic power, into the political realm. However in expanding their power, elites have provided opportunities for their countries constituents. Franklin Foer’s novel “How Soccer Explains the World” provides a specific example that supports this argument, the Cartolas in Brazil.

As America is known for their hamburgers and blue jeans, Brazil is known for their soccer. Many argue that soccer is the main factor that has recently helped globalize Brazil, and I agree. The sport comprises a good portion of the Brazilian economy, “newspapers carry the prediction that soccer will generate four percent of Brazil’s gross domestic product within years.” (Foer, 120) Brazil is known for producing star-players, which is what attracts foreign investors to the region; thus connecting Brazil to other countries. Foreign investors, such as NationsBank (now Bank of America), negotiated with the club team’s elites, widely known as the cartolas, or top hats. Cartolas were infamous for capitalizing from the game and using money allocated to the team for their own personal funds. This corruption led to downfall of various club teams and, in turn the Brazilian economy. “Because Eurico Miranda (a cartola) squandered the Bank of America investment, Vasco (his club team) slipped into debt and mediocrity.” (Foer, 118) Many of these cartolas, such as Eurico Miranda, tried spreading their sphere of influence to the government largely in hopes of protecting themselves from their own corruption. Miranda was safe so long “as he held on to his congressional seat,” because “parliamentary immunity protected him from prosecution.” (118)

This is a large critique that globalization receives. As more countries trade goods and ideas, only a select few actually greatly profit. Those who do amass great wealth are the cooperate elites that facilitate trade. That is not to say that other citizens within these nations do not profit, however. Private corporations have definitely bolstered economies, which in turn have led to the emergence of several laissez faire governments. Such as Brazil' government and the United States’ government.

These governments have implemented regulatory laws to prevent cooperation’s from usurping too much power, such as the Pelé Law in Brazil. Nonetheless, so long as the economy is booming, and citizens are happy, the government will not do much to restrict these companies. Once the economy begins to fall, government’s begin to intervene. As seen, for example, in FDR’s New Deal Program after the Great Depression hit the US.

Although corporations and elites, such as the cartolas in Brazil, are gaining a lot of power, the public isn’t completely against them. This is because an inflated economy provides benefits to citizens within the nation—such as a greater standard of living, more job opportunities, etc. It is only when the economy becomes stagnant when citizens begin to request more government involvement. In Brazil for example, Eurico Miranda was a populist and who gained popularity by pushing stolen money into public works projects. This style “has been reduced to a common aphorism used to justify support for [cartolas], ‘He steals but he makes’” (Foer, 138)

As Globalization expands, it has led to an increase in corporate power. However in expanding their power, elites have helped provide opportunities for their countries constituents.

Unexpected Results of Globalization

With regard to How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer, one aspect that I find especially interesting can be found in the second chapter. This chapter, entitled How Soccer Explains the Pornography of Sects, deals with the ongoing hatred and disgust between dissimilar groups. The example in the novel has to do with the dislike between the Protestant supporters of the Glasgow Rangers Football Club and the Catholic supporters of the Celtic Football Club. I find this relationship interesting as it sheds an intriguing light on the concept of globalization in a modern context.

            Due to the sectarianism of the Protestant and Catholic supporters of the Rangers and the Celtics, Foer notes that there have been at least 8 deaths that are directly connected to this rivalry. This kind of hatred between groups goes against what one would typically think would result from globalization. A greater ease of communication and higher level of interconnectedness should yield itself to more cultural understanding and acceptance between groups. If we can more easily communicate with people from different upbringings and different backgrounds it would make sense that we, as a global society, should be able to better understand different people. As “globalization enthusiasts” of the nineties would put it “once a society becomes economically advanced, it would become politically advanced – liberal, tolerant, democratic.” Contrary to this logical school of thought, the relationship between Celtics fans and Rangers fans presents a scenario driven by, sometimes violent, hatred between “sects.”

            It is for this sectarianism that I find the increased pluralism of the two teams interesting. Foer notes one player for the Rangers, Lorenzo Amoruso, often times encourages the Protestant Rangers fans to chant and sing along to anti-Catholic songs. The irony being that Amoruso is Catholic. I find it intriguing that despite this sectarianism we can still see globalization at work. The increased interconnectedness between states and groups of people has allowed for Amoruso, among others, to be Catholic players for the Rangers. It is clear from this that globalization is still evident in the world of soccer. I, however, find it interesting that globalization has not necessarily had the cultural impact that I along with the nineties “enthusiasts” would have expected.

Having said that I think it is important to keep in mind that one major impact of globalization is the unequalled economic prosperities. Increased interconnectedness between different states and different groups of people allows for the potential of incredible economic growth. It is from this impact that Foer makes a very interesting point. He explains why in the context of soccer we don’t see a more accepting, pluralized group of Protestant and Catholic supporters. Economic ventures and the possibility of profit are huge driving factors. It is for this that Amoruso encourages the singing of anti-Catholic songs at the games, it allows for more economic benefit. I find it interesting that consumerism seems to be more of a predominant result of globalization in this context. The globalization in the soccer industry, or in this instance at least, seems to have less to do with the spreading of ideas and cultures, and more to do with the potential to make money. From this it is more understandable that hatreds between sects can carry on throughout generations despite a more interconnected society.

Overall I find this concept very interesting. I would fully expect that globalization would lead to a more accepting, understanding global society. However, scenarios like that in the novel demonstrate how hatred between sects can be longstanding with little room for reconciliation. It’s interesting how cultural understanding is not always the most likely result of globalization.

Works Cited:

Foer, Franklin. "How Soccer Explains the Pornography of Sects." How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. 35-50. Print.

Shirk, Mark. "Globalization." Lecture, GVPT200, College Park, MD, November 12, 2014.

The Dangerous Side of Globalization

Globalization is often defined by increasing interdependence among nations and an unprecedented flow of information across borders and cultures. Although it is important to acknowledge the benefits of such transnational activity and incomparable opportunities, it is equally necessary to understand the potentially dangerous consequences of globalization. Many proponents of globalization tend to overlook the ways in which globalization can actually exacerbate pre-existing conflicts and facilitate further violence between ethnic groups.

In his book “How Soccer Explains the World,” Franklin Foer uses many examples to demonstrate that seemingly simple events - such as soccer games - are frequently representative of much broader transnational conflicts, and serve to highlight cultural differences rather than inspire unity. This theory has unfortunately been proven true on many occasions, and was recently illustrated by a soccer match between Serbia and Albania that took place in Belgrade, the Serbian capital city. On October 14^th, 2014, the Serbian and Albanian teams faced off in the qualifying match for the 2016 UEFA European Championship games. Although a tournament that aims to bring together hundreds of Europe’s best soccer players would appear to be the ideal outcome of globalization, the dearth of Albanian fans in the stands proved otherwise. Serbian officials made it clear that Albanian fans were not welcome in Belgrade, thereby highlighting the way that soccer has been used as a means of expressing long-standing tensions between Serbia and Albania following a series of ethnic conflicts at the end of the 20^th century.

Unfortunately, the lack of Albanian fans did not ensure that the soccer game progressed peacefully. In the middle of the game, a drone flew onto the field, carrying the flag of Greater Albania. The territory of Greater Albania is a heavily contested issue and a frequent source of conflict since it includes Kosovo, an area that was a part of Serbia until it declared independence in 2008. Kosovo is recognized as an independent state by many major world powers, such as the EU and the United states, but the Serbian government refuses to do the same. A flag at a soccer game may not appear too threatening at first glance, but as Franklin Foer can attest, soccer games often mask ethnic nationalism and racist inclinations that frequently result in violent outcomes.

A Serbian player removed the offending flag, but it was quickly recovered by the Albanian team, resulting in a brawl that soon included players from both teams and dozens of angry Serbian fans. The diplomatic nightmare that ensued in the following weeks consisted of multiple meetings between Serbian and Albanian leaders, and several Serbian appeals to the international community for increased support. The intensity of the tensions that followed the Serbia-Albania game emphasizes the far-reaching impacts of what Foer refers to as “hooligan warfare.” Although globalization is lauded for bringing the world’s nations together and generating an endless flow of innovative ideas, it must also be credited with encouraging radical nationalism and spreading a global culture of "gangsterism” – inspired by popular movies and music – that promotes violence and hatred.

The ease of communication and economic opportunities that result from globalization can impact society in many positive and beneficial ways. However, the same international networks that allow for such benefits can also promote crime and violence in the name of nationalism and pride. The events that transpired at the Serbia-Albania match demonstrate this dark side of globalization. Increasing numbers of nations and ethnic groups are opting to use the globalization of sports games as a platform with which to express political statements and strengthen ethnic divisions. As Red Star Belgrade player Perica Ognjenovic so succinctly put it, “This is not soccer, this is war.”

Sources:

Foer, Franklin. How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York: Harper. 2010. Print.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/15/watch-drone-disrupts-serbia-albania-soccer-match-sparks-diplomatic-incident/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2014/10/13/no-albania-fans-at-euro-2016-qualifier-at-serbia/17185485/

Japan & China crunlbing economy, in your pumpkin pie.

         After winding down from all the stuffing I did to myself with traditional Thanksgiving Food that I am sure we are all aware of; turkey, green bean casserole, marshmallow and sweet potatoes casserole, mashed potatoes, gravy, stuffing, and cranberry sauce. Not to mention the not so traditional foods like; dumplings, spaghetti, and Peruvian chicken (we had a Friendsgiving as well, where friends bring a dish to share with everyone) and the endless table of desserts, which I will not go into because I will end up wanting to go to the fridge and start eating again. After, all the food, I started to think whether or not I wanted to go shopping on Black Friday; do I want to go wait in line? Should I risk the craziness that is the Black Friday experience? Or Should I wait for Cyber Monday? So, I decided to check online to see if I can find a cheap new iPhone 5/6 that I could purchase. When I stumble upon some news; the Japanese Yen is decreasing its value, compered to the peg of the US dollar. As we saw in the Globalization lecture, global economy is like a knitted sweeter; if a threat comes lose and it gets caught on something, it will eventually start to dissemble the sweater until it is just a ball of yarn. This really got me thinking; if one of the biggest economic driven countries in the world is starting to collapse, what would happen to the rest of the super economic- powers? Will these countries follow the pattern as well?

         The fallen of the Yen over the fall season has have an impact on the economy world wide, for instance an iPhone is cheaper in an Apple store in Tokyo, then in an store in the US. For a long time the rule of thumb has ben that any Apple electronic device is generally cheaper in the US market, than a market in a developing country. For instance an iPhone can range the price from $700- $900, in Germany, Hang Kong, Singapore, and Italy, while in Japan the same iPhone will cost you only $649. Even though, the price is almost similar, this distorts the concept I had about japan; I always saw it as a high costing country like Switzerland. The yen is declining because the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to implement (for the second time) the “quantitative easing”, which means that Abe is going to print out more yen, in order to try to stabilize the economy. The effect of the yen has plummeted 10% against the dollar value, in just less than a month. One dollar will now buy you around 118 yen. Predictions of what will happen, are useless as paper boat however, Wall Street sees the yen, going as low as 130, depending if Abe wins his second term, and if he decided to keep printing money.

         The most intriguing thing about the Japanese economy is that if, this will create a domino effect on neighboring countries, just like it happened before during the Great Depression.

         So, I started to look online and came upon an article on Flipboard, which tittle read; “The Chinese Economy is Facing a $6.8 Trillion Nightmare That Could Get Worse”. The actual shades light on how the Chinese economy is facing a lose of $6.8 TRILLION, which were used to build ‘ghost cities’ as Ordos. Ordos is a compilation of apartment complexes that are, well, empty. Generally building anything in a country will boost the country’s GDP, yes it is spending, but at the end it depends on more, such, as; where does it go? Where is it located? Is it creating jobs? Is it leading people to find or established new jobs or educations? If it is simply, doing nothing, it is a waste of money, and it affects the country’s economic future. This had lead to the world’s most secretive bank to lash interest rates; one-year deposit from 0.24 to 2.75% and the one-year lending bench rate from 0.40 points to 5.60%. This is in results of slowing the economy down.

         If globalization helps improve the economy of other countries, as well as strengthen the global monetary system, with such major economic powers as Japan and China facing such crumbling economic hiccups, what are third world developing countries going to face in the future?

Fear of Iranian nuclear weapons program are largely unfounded

For a while now, there has been this underling fear of the Iranian government obtaining nuclear weapons and using them to attack Israel and the U.S. abroad and at home. In 2012, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Iran had the capabilities to build nuclear weapons but did not know whether they would. Because of this report, the media was inundated with anti-Iranian propaganda that propagated the fear of the possibility of Iran creating nuclear weapons. Kenneth Waltz, in his paper ‘Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balance would mean stability”, argues Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would bring more balance to the Middle East, which is an interesting point and one that I tend to agree with. There is only one country in the Middle East that has nuclear capabilities and that is Israel, a U.S. ally. Waltz points out notes that much of the unrest in the Middle East is due to the fact that Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear capabilities. Since the U.S. and Israel are allies and Israel is perturbed by the idea of Iran having a weapons program, the U.S. also takes on this fear. However, I would ask, why does the US take on this fear when a country like North Korea actually has nuclear weapons? Waltz also points out that there is a perception that Iranian leaders are not rational actors and are foaming at the mouth, waiting in anticipation to use nuclear weapons. The theory of MAD states that even the most irrational actor will not use nuclear weapons knowing it would lead to the destruction of their state. I find this to be largely true and it also points out a flaw in defining actors as rational and irrational. Most would not label Kim Jong Ill and Kim Jong Un as rational actors but North Korea has not used their nuclear weapons, although they have threatened to on several occasions. North Korea having nuclear weapons is seen as laughable, whereas Iran is more of a threat and there’s larger sense of urgency when it comes to Iran. This is because in Iran there are more religious martyrs who are willing to sacrifice their life for religious purposes. I would say, however, this is not the case within the Iranian leadership and they are not any less rational than any other leader. In 2012, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’ Supreme Leader issued a fatwa or order stating that having nuclear weaponry is a sin in Islam. This got very little media attention because it counters he dominant narrative of Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Also, Iran is a country that is filled with natural resources unlike North Korea. An invasion of Iran, much like Iraq, would be far more enticing because of the country’s resources. Iran is decades behind North Korea in terms of advancement of nuclear technology and even North Korea isn’t anywhere near many other countries with nuclear weapons are, like Pakistan. Waltz’s main argument is that if Iran had nuclear weapons, the Middle East would be far more stable because they would not be as vulnerable to Israel who has nuclear weapons. I find this to be mostly true. Balance of power is a concept that manifests itself in several different ways within social science. Hard power in regard to state relationships should be no different. In addition to US involvement in the region, the Middle East has also been unstable at the hands of Israel who has issued attacks on both Iraq and Syria in fear of a nuclear weapon program. Waltz states that power begs to be balanced and while I do not believe that Iran having nuclear weapons would put an complete end to unrest in that area, I do think that would provide more stability than there is currently.