Globalization in Soccer: Good or Bad?

Saria Rudolph

11/26/2014

There are both pros and cons of globalization that are expressed throughout the different themes of Nationalism, Racism, and power of influence, within Foer’s book How Soccer explains the world. There was a gradual increase in terrorism especially considering historical interactions between the different states mainly Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Soccer is used as a tool for terrorism and/ or intimidation in the forms of racially influenced beatings or shouting of insults during games, threatening soccer players lives if they scored for their team. Globalization also leads to an easier spread of information through the media and other forms of technology (Globalization lecture slide 6, Shirk) increasing one’s influence on different states. (pg 14) “An ethos of gangsterism- spread by movies, music, and fashion conquered the world.” “It (Red Star hooligans) borrowed heavily from African American gangster rap, a favorite genre of Serb youth.” (pg 26) “Arkan threatened to shoot a rival striker’s kneecap if he scored against Obilic…At games, they would chant things like, “if you score, you’ll never walk out of the stadium alive...”

There was also the internationalization of domestic conflict and a loss of cultural diversity (Globalization lecture slide 8, Shirk) because they sought to assimilate Nigerian players into dominate culture of the state. As stated one page 25, when Red Star wouldn’t sell the club to him. Arkan set out to create his own Red Star. Dirst, he bought a team in Konsovo and purged its largely ethnic Albanian lineup.”

Racism was always present and there was continuous pattern presented in the book where when a new ethnic group the ethnic group that previously was the main focus of racism was replaced with the newly introduced ethnic group. For example, as stated on page 71 “...One not nearly as likely to kill that has been made less pernicious by globalization’s transformation of Europe. Thanks to the immigration of Africans and Asians, Jews have been replaced as the primary objects of European hate.”  This is eerily similar to the beginnings of the United States when at first Irish immigrants were mistreated by British immigrants who were in the United States longer. Years later the same process continued except during the second “round” of immigrants Italian immigrants who were in the exact same place as the Irish immigrants were mistreated by some of the Irish immigrants who now took on the British immigrants’ place.

One of the pros of globalization is the improvement of global economies. As stated on page 120, “some Brazilian players have flourished in the global economy.” There is also an easier transfer of information and cultural exchange. As stated on page 155 “Without a fight, the easterners had exchanged the Ukrainian language for Russian, intermarried, and embraced the Soviet system.”

When Nigerian players were made additions to the Red Star’s soccer team that have develop a sense of pluralism as the state was becoming less homogeneous however, eventually racism evolved against these new players beginning within their own team. Therefore, although there are both pros and cons to globalization it essential to the improvement of the world.

Should the Security Council be effective or fair?

           The world is a messy place.  Ethnic conflicts, border disputes, civil wars, religious fanaticism and other issues cover the planet.  Decisions that are made regarding these issues affect the entire international community – democratic logic leads us to the conclusion that such a decision should be made by the entire international community.  This, however, is a faulty logic.  When it comes to large-scale international decisions, bodies like the UN Security Council are prime examples of why effectiveness should be prioritized over fairness.

            In his article entitled Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council, author Ian Hurd says that while the Security Council does have an enormous amount of formal power, it does not control the means by which that power is carried out – the Security Council relies upon the cooperation of member states.  The Security Council does not have absolute, authoritative power.  However, Hurd also states that within the Security Council, the “Permanent Five” essentially hold a monopoly on power.  This may seem like a contradiction, however it simply means that while any member of the Permanent Five can block any resolution that it so chooses, resolutions passed by the Security Council are only as powerful as the member states who follow through enforcing it.  Any decision made by the Council must pass unanimous approval, or neutrality at minimum, before becoming a formal resolution.  A non-permanent member can make as much fuss as they want, but it will have little effect on the final status of a resolution.  Hurd notes as well that the Permanent Five almost always meet before formal meetings to hash out what will be said/agreed upon, further removing other members from the decision-making process. 

            That being said, some may perceive this as an unfair way to make decisions. However, a fair approach simply is not feasible with all of the issues facing the world today. The nations that comprise the Security Council are collectively the most influential nations on Earth.  Not to be melodramatic, but their economies, militaries, culture, etc. are driving forces behind the entirety of human existence today.  The Security Council, and United Nations as a whole, would not exist were it not for these powerful countries giving it legitimacy via membership.  The Permanent Five give the UN most, if not all, of its legitimacy.  Much like cable and internet providers, those who contribute more to the company, i.e. the UN, receive faster internet, more TV channels, etc, i.e. more power.  Furthermore, this method of governing is more effective than

            Since the Permanent Five contribute the most to the United Nations, they deserve to have more power than other nations.  Additionally, this method is effective due to the small number of actors making decisions, allowing for faster decision-making.  To favor fairness over effectiveness is simply an ideological folly, because the need for global security outweighs the desire for fairness in the decision-making process.

Deterrence vs Compellence?

             Deterrence and compellence complement each other within international relations both prior to wars and as a result of wars.

North Korea even though many other nations also have nuclear weapons whenever Kim Jong Un makes a bomb threat all other nations are cautious just in case he is actually serious. Often because United States is a great power we are urged to help as well as China because not only is it also considered a great power but it’s also physically closer to North Korea. China is also North Korea’s main and possibly only trade partner. Therefore, if North Korea were to not comply China could call off trade with them just as United States did with Japan as a method to prevent further war crimes Japan was inflicting on their neighbor countries, Korea, China etc. However, this can go either two ways North Korea actually comply with China’s demand and have their trade partner or North Korea would declare war on China and use its nuclear weapons or possibly attempt to invade China and loot for the natural resources they need. Neither possibility would be in either's interest no matter how strong Kim Jong Un's reputation for being crazy is.

                After World War I Germany was left to pay the debt and was forced to demilitarize through the Treaty of Versailles due to the many war crimes as well as essentially starting the First World War. The United Nations used compellence through the Treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to demilitarize and was unsuccessful resulting in the Second World War.

The United States bombing of Hiroshima but mainly Nagasaki possibly had two agendas, in an attempt to prevent further war crimes from Imperial Japan against its neighboring countries the United States broke trade with Japan as a warning. Then after the Pearl Harbor the second strike capability comes into play, as a result United States responded by bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the same motive in mind but also possibly to deter the Soviet Union from trying to spread communism to Cuba by showing what the United States was capable of developing and the destruction that these atomic bombs could do. If both of these “theories” are true then it was only partially successful since Japan is no longer occupying its’ neighboring countries however Cuba is communist.

Deterrence is evident in the prisoner’s dilemma the interrogators already have information on the prisoners and because the prisoners are not interrogated in the same room. The prisoners already know their hand are tied prior to the interrogation but another factor that strongly influence their choice to cooperate with the police or remain silent is the fact that choosing to cooperate with the police officers can result in that person getting no jail time assuming their partner or partners remain silent. Because of this incentive and keeping in mind that their hands are already tied this leads to them both or all “snitching” which is ultimately the police officers’ goal.  If both of the prisoners choose to cooperate with the police officers results in mutually assured destruction.

• MAD Lecture Professor Shirk
• Game Theory Lecture Professor Shirk

The War With ISIS: A Game of Chicken

            President Obama announced Friday that he had authorized the deployment of 1,500 additional American troops to Iraq in order to fight the Islamic State (Cooper & Shear, 2014). In an interview with Face the Nation on Sunday, the President said this is not a sign the US strategy against ISIS is failing, but rather that “the campaign is entering a new phase” (Pearson, 2014).  But how should the United States strategize to fight an enemy such as ISIS? ISIS desires to gain territory in the Middle East, establish an Islamic state there, and exact revenge on the United States, no matter what the costs may be (Johnson, 2014). Therefore, fighting ISIS can be represented by a game of chicken. In this essay, I will compare the conflict between the Untied States and the Islamic State to a game of chicken, which may shed some light on the current crisis and America’s response.  

            ISIS is a group of Islamic extremists that emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq (Beauchamp, 2014). ISIS operates under a “deviant and pathological” interpretation of Islam, one that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide are appalled by (Johnson, 2014). They are extremely determined to accomplish their goals, and their tactics are even so extreme that al-Qaeda broke with the group in February 2014 (Beauchamp, 2014). Religiously motivated groups such as ISIS are often the most passionate, and the least willing to compromise. ISIS has also proved time and time again that they are willing to go to extremes in order to send a message or accomplish their goals.  ISIS often acts employs suicide bombers and kills Muslim civilians that will not follow them (Beauchamp, 2014). After journalist James Foley was beheaded by ISIS in August, the group warned America, "WE WILL NOT STOP UNTILL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR BLOOD" (Johnson, 2014).

            ISIS clearly poses a serious threat to both U.S. security, and innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria. By no means do I intend to downplay the importance of this issue. But, the situation does share many similarities with the chicken example we discussed in class. As I have demonstrated, ISIS is more concerned with achieving its goals and proving its point than it is with its own survival. In this way, it can be compared to a drunken man who is willing to risk death in order to protect his reputation. Following this example, ISIS (Player 1) would always stay straight. This leaves the United States two options: also stay straight, or swerve. Should the United States stay straight, this would achieve the min-max equilibrium of the game. This was represented by (-500,-500) in the example. If the United States swerves, ISIS will enjoy a gain of +5, while America will suffer a loss of -5. In real life terms, the United States “staying straight” would mean a full out military assault on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It would require continual airstrikes, thousands more U.S. troops, and who knows how many dollars spent, and the U.S. would not stop until ISIS was completely destroyed. There could be no remnants of ISIS influence left anywhere in the region. “Swerving” would mean backing down on the vow President Obama made in September 2014 to defeat ISIS. It would save American lives and dollars, but would harm Obama’s credibility.  If America’s threats are not taken seriously by its enemies, the U.S. could be put at greater risk for attack. Obama also would generally look weak on the world stage. ISIS, on the other hand, could continue its fight to restore the caliphate, gain followers, and plot against the United States.

            Game theory would suggest that the United States should therefore “stay straight,” and devote all necessary resources to defeating ISIS. Personally, I believe that since Obama has already vowed to destroy ISIS, he has limited his option to swerve. However, it is important to reduce the costs of fighting ISIS as much as possible, as the president will quickly lose the support of a casualty-averse general population.  

Sources:

Beauchamp, Z. (9 Oct. 2014). 17 Things About ISIS and Iraq You Need To Know. Vox.com. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro.

Cooper, H. & Shear, M.D. (7 Nov. 2014). Obama to Send 1,500 More Troops to Assist Iraq. The New York Times. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html?_r=0

Johnson, M.A. (3 Sept. 2014). 'Deviant and Pathological': What Do ISIS Extremists Really Want? NBC News. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/deviant-pathological-what-do-isis-extremists-really-want-n194136

Pearson, M. (9 Nov. 2014). ISIS Fight in New Phase, Obama Says. CNN. Retrieved 9 Nov. 2014 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/09/world/meast/isis-threat/

NAFTA: A Case Study on Free Trade

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect. This agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico created the largest trade bloc in the world. The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate trade barriers between the three nations. When looking at the effects of NAFTA on the United States over the past two decades, it becomes evident that free trade comes with both benefits and consequences.

The main benefits of NAFTA are best seen when looking at aggregate economic data between the three countries.  Overall, trade flows have increased from $209 billion to 1.1 trillion (as of 2012).  From 1993 to 2006 alone, U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew by 157% compared to 108% for the rest of the world. In 2003, the Congressional Budget Office conducted a study to estimate the total economic impact of NAFTA, and revealed that NAFTA has caused a small increase in U.S. GDP.  

      With the elimination of tariffs between the three nations, consumers are not burdened with the extra cost of imported goods, which reduces domestic inflation.  Furthermore, on the manufacturing side of the economy, industries have been able to rely on specialization and division of labor to maximize their profits. An example of such an industry is the U.S. auto industry, where the elimination of tariffs on U.S. auto parts has resulted in increased exports to Mexico.  The U.S. has also been able to import oil from Mexico and Canada for the past 20 years, which has helped decrease U.S. dependence on the Middle East.

These benefits did not come without a cost, however. Critics of NAFTA cite the impact of the agreement on the labor market as a reason why free trade is not necessarily as beneficial as some would believe. In many ways, NAFTA now required all U.S. workers to not just compete with each other, but with workers in all three countries. Some companies took advantage of this new workforce and moved their factories to Mexico, where there are fewer regulations. This change resulted in a loss of jobs in the U.S. manufacturing industry and low wages for those who were able to keep their jobs, resulting in increased income inequality. The decrease in demand for U.S. labor diminished the power and influence of collective bargaining, which resulted in poorer working conditions as well.  

The drawbacks to NAFTA are not limited to its economic effects. In the agriculture industry, NAFTA created an opportunity for the U.S. to expand its production via exports to Mexico. Ultimately, this expansion led to increased deforestation and unsustainable water use due to the need for increased farmland.  While supporters of NAFTA will claim that increased oil imports from Mexico and Canada are a positive aspect of the trade deal, opponents argue that such imports have increased our reliance on fossil fuels as energy and ultimately delayed the development of alternative energy sources. Perhaps the largest and most devastating effect that NAFTA has had on the environment is the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In order for all of this trade to take place, manufacturers have built new factories and machinery that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions near the U.S.-Mexican Border increased by 1.3 billion tons over a period of 15 years.

            During lecture last week, it was mentioned that with free trade, there are always winners and losers. NAFTA exemplifies this concept well. While the effects on total economic output have certainly been positive, it is clear that workers in the manufacturing industry and the environment paid the price for this economic expansion. As the United States considers free trade agreements in the future, policymakers should keep in mind the impact of NAFTA and where it brought both successes and shortcomings.

Sources:

http://vault.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/nafta-and-mexico.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401562.html

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NAFTAReport.pdf

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf

Is The IMF Doing More Harm Than Good?

            The economies of many countries in today’s world are intertwined and work together toward a common goal of stability and prosperity. However, this is easier said than done. In class, we have discussed in the past few weeks how countries have collaborated with one another to form institutions that will create security for its members. These organizations include the UN, NATO, and the IMF. Some of these organizations have been more successful than others. In the last 20 years, the IMF has failed to properly handle economic crises, which causes many people (including myself) to question the legitimacy of the organization.  

            The first major blunder the IMF improperly dealt with was the Asia crisis of the 1990s. During this time, currency fluctuation was rampant and foreign investors began to worry. This lead to the first major currency crisis in the time of the IMF. Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has been noted for his criticism of the handling of the crisis by the IMF. Stiglitz argues that the IMF bowed down to the demands of Wall Street, who wanted to create the new markets for their own gain. He also believed that the poor austerity measures lead many foreign investors to improperly handle the funds and led to a prolonged recession in the region. I agree with the views of Stiglitz, as the IMF did more harm than good in this situation. Rather than allowing the country to receive a capital influx, the IMF allowed for foreign investors to count their losses and take what money they had. By allowing for the divestment in the country to occur, the countries in the region were irreparably harmed for many years to come.

            The next poor handling by the IMF was in the recent European Debt Crisis of the late 2000s. During this time, many countries of the Eurozone had major debt and liquidity issues, leading these countries to default on their loans. Countries like Greece and Cyprus went into a massive recession, causing their GDP to crumble and their interest rates to skyrocket. In an attempt to combat this, the IMF and the World Bank introduced major austerity measures to entice investors to stay in the region. The IMF believed that the influx of capital from the IMF would stabilize the economy and move towards growth. However, this did not work out as hoped. Although the IMF handling of the European Debt Crisis was not as bad as in Asia, I believe that the measures that the IMF took could have been stronger. One of the major flaws of the IMF capitalization is that they enacted repayment measures that are very far out of reach for countries to be able to attain. This caused the countries, such as Greece to have difficulty pulling themselves out of the recession.

            I believe that organizations such as the IMF are a good idea in theory, but the execution of such organization has failed to prove itself. The IMF on countless occasions has failed to provide realistic austerity measures for the countries having difficulties controlling their debts. This lack of optimistic methods has caused for countries to continue spiraling down into deeper debt. Some of these countries may never recover to the same levels. If the IMF were to introduce difference austerity measures, it would give these countries a chance to grow back to their pre-crisis glory.