How Pele Represents a Globalizing Post WWII World

In Franklin Foer’s book “How Soccer explains the world”, Foer makes discusses the example of the Brazilian soccer star Pele and comments on how he represents the rise of Brazil as a world power in the time period following World War II. In addition to representing the rise of Brazil, I also believe that Pele’s experience also exemplifies globalization in the Post World War II period.  

To begin, an aspect of Pele’s career that exemplifies increasing globalization is that Pele was initially considered “A non-exportable international treasure” early in his career. However, later in his career increasing globalization changed this idea. The state was no longer the focus, but rather Pele was able to expand his possibilities for his future to include the possibility of playing abroad. The state no longer had the control to prevent him from going abroad because the state was not as powerful nor regarded as much as the focal point of his soccer career. Rather, Pele was able to take his talents to a more international focus and play soccer in the United States.  

                Another aspect of Pele’s career that emphasized the increasing effect of globalization was that after Pele’s domestic career in Brazil ended, he came to the U.S. and began playing for the New York Cosmos. This represents the shift that globalization brought about because international borders were no longer as important. In the past, it would not have been as easy for someone to do this, but the lack of emphasis on domestic borders that was brought about by globalization allowed Pele to easily move from one state to another. Pele was able to move across international borders easily and still be successful.

An additional way in which the example of Pele shows an aspect of globalization was how his time spent in America “made him a capitalist” according to Foer. After Pele spent time in the United States playing soccer, he began to illustrate American ideas of capitalism. For example, he played for a much larger salary and began singing endorsement deals with many international corporations. This illustrates the way norms and ideas, as well as economic practices, can be spread across borders with rising globalization, because Pele shifted his norms and values as he was exposed to more capitalist ideas.

                Another way Pele exemplified globalization was his relationship with international corporations. Pele signed many endorsement deals with large corporations toward the end of his career, such as Nokia, Samsung, and Coca-Cola. The amount of money Pele was able to make shows the influence of these transnational corporations that rose with the accelerating globalization during this time period. In a previous era, it would have been unlikely for someone who spent the majority of their time in one country to have such an international presence, but due to increasing globalization, these companies understood that Pele could have a large presence in many other countries as well.  This also represents the increased economic and financial flows across borders that accompanied increasing globalization, as Pele was able to make money across borders and from companies that were based in different states.

               

An Unconventional Reason Against Iranian Nuclear Weapons

         The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, one of the most important political documents of the 20^th century, made explicit that countries with nuclear arms would not tolerate the spread of those arms around the world. It is no wonder then that the United States constantly voices its condemnation of Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, citing the Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as a fear of irrational Islamic actors. While these fears may have some basis in reality, I would argue that the true danger of Iranian nuclear proliferation lies in the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons weakening and destroying the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction itself.

            Despite widespread opposition to the idea of Iranian nuclear weapons, many individuals currently assert that nuclear weapons in Iran would create a bipolar power system, one that promotes stability, and therefore should be allowed in Iran. Highlighting the, albeit tenuous, peace accords struck between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War and the recent peace between Pakistan and India, these advocates believe nuclear weapons will lead to a much more stable system of power in the Middle East. Put simply, they argue, “once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply… and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today” (Sokolski 203). However, many activists and politicians on the other side argue that Iranian nuclear proliferation would not lead to stability in the Middle East, but destruction. These activists assert that Iran is an irrational actor in an area fraught with extremists, and so nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would likely end up being used on innocent civilians in the West. Furthermore, these individuals argue that Iran occupies a position on top of oil reserves, and as such could pose an economic as well as a military threat to the United States if their nuclear weapons were allowed to develop. Essentially, these more realist actors argue that being permissive towards Iranian Nuclear weapons will lead to “More Nuclear Proliferation” (Sokolski 203), “Higher Oil Prices” (Sokolski 204), and “Increased Terrorism Designed to Diminished U.S. Influence” (Sokolski 204).   

            I would agree that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, but for radically different reasons. I believe the danger in Iranian weapons is not the danger that Iran itself would pose to the West with them, but rather the danger of destroying the tenets of mutually assured destruction. It is generally agreed that mutually assured destruction (MAD) exists on the principle that if large-scale conflict ensures between two nuclear powers, nuclear weapons will soon be used. For instance, during the Cuban Missile crisis, the possibility of the destruction of Florida and other Southern States nearly escalated to the possible nuclear destruction of the world. Under MAD, totally world destruction will follow under any kind of invasion or military action between two nuclear powers. Thanks, in part, to this principle, direct war between superpowers is a thing of the past, as no superpower is willing to risk utter destruction in such a manner. While this principle may seem sound on the surface, upon further investigation it is revealed to be fallacious. Take the current NATO situation in Eastern Europe, where Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are raising serious questions about the ability of NATO to protect them. According to NATO treaties, countries like the United States and United Kingdom, nuclear powers, would be required to counter any Russian aggression in these countries, an action that would doubtlessly risk nuclear destruction. This begs the question: If Russia attacks an eastern NATO country, will the United States really intervene, destroying the entire world in the name of a piece of paper? The clear answer appears to be no, no one in the United States would or should be willing to destroy themselves and the 7 billion citizens of the Earth in the name of preserving the autonomy of roughly 2 million Latvians. I would venture to say that the same could be true of roughly any military engagement across the world. Even if Florida, California, or Massachusetts were invaded, I would not want to invite the destruction of the entire world to spite such an invasion. Such an action would be equivalent akin to nuking one’s nose to spite the face. Ultimately, the more nuclear deterrent situations there are, the greater the probability that one country will eventually call what I will say is the MAD bluff. For instance, the hatred between Iran and Israel may grow to such a point where they are out for blood, but not total destruction, and the two states may simply agree to engage in large-scale war and not use nuclear weapons. Neither side would have a reason to use nuclear weapons until the other’s government and people were almost destroyed, and so huge swathes of destruction could ensue up to this point. Ultimately, this could cause the system of nuclear deterrence to break down and warfare to continue as it did before nuclear weapons. States could act ignorant of nuclear weapons, and, in the words of Schelling, a world without nuclear weapons “would be a nervous world”  (Schelling 4). The world could fall back to a state when World Wars between superpowers raged rampant and the world once again was bathed in blood and anarchy.

            Due to this possibility, nuclear weapons in Iran should be avoided; not due to Iran’s particular politics, religion, or economics, but rather because any nuclear proliferation at all risks the collapse of MAD, a system which has prevented World War and protected the lives of world citizens for the last decades.

Avocado Shortage

Andrew Simpson

GVPT200

Avocado Shortage 

Recently California has suffered from massive water shortages and as a result of this their production of avocados is decreasing dramatically. California is the number one producer of avocados both for and in the US. I believe that this will cause the price of avocados to rise in the US. People can argue that there are other places for the US to purchase avocados but since California has the absolute advantage on avocado production the price will still go up.

            There are many different reasons why the price of avocados would go up. First, if there is a shortage of water then that means that the price of water will increase. Since water is an essential resource for avocado production an increase in the price of water would result in an increase in the price of avocados. Another way avocado price could increase is with an increase in wages. I would assume that producers of avocados in California would want to produce the most amounts of avocados possible. If this is the case then they might have to hire skilled worker at higher wages to respond to the water shortage. What would happen is producers would grow the avocados for a shorter period of time in order to conserve water. This change in production would definitely cause a change in the skill demanded from the workers. There are many different ways that the water shortage can directly affect the production cost of avocados.

            It can be argued that the US could simply purchase their avocados from other producers. The US also acquires some of its avocados from Mexico and other South American countries, however when it imports goods it is more expensive. Either way, California had the absolute advantage of avocado production in the US so wherever the US gets them from its going to cost them more. Absolute advantage means that California is able to produce more avocados than other domestic producers and foreign producers. It can also be said that California specializes in the production of avocados meaning that they are the top supplier. California avocados are also preferred at most places in the US so a probable scenario will be that most places will continue to purchase from California despite the price increase.

            It has been reported that California production of avocados will decrease 40 percent in the next couple years. This is directly related to the water shortage going on in California and will cause the price of avocados to rise dramatically. Factors such as the price of water and higher wages for workers are directly affecting the price of avocados. It can be said that the US could acquire avocados from other foreign and domestic sources. However, California has an absolute advantage on avocados in the US and it will cost the US extra to shop elsewhere. It is clear that lack of water and other resources can have a major impact on different aspects of the economy, and due to water shortage we will see the price of avocados rise in the next couple years. 

Embedded Liberalism

      Globalization has opened the doors to the interaction of and economic as well as cultural integration among domestic and oversea markets. Following WWII, many states implemented free-market systems that resulted in greatly increasing their productivity, subsequently creating innumerable modern opportunities for international trade. As result of free-market systems and globalization, many underdeveloped states have gained the opportunity to enter the global market. However, while the expansion of international markets through globalization has increased economic prosperity, the unilateralism approach has allowed transnational corporations of dominant states to expand their market productivity. Consequently, I agree with Rawi Abdelal and John G. Ruggie assertion in  “The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism,” that there is a necessity to renew embedded liberalism and revitalize global governance to monitor transnational corporation activity specifically related to main standards in labor and human rights.

            The idea of embedded liberalism appears inapplicable because powerful states assert their dominance over international markets while smaller states narrowly exercise attention let alone power in these markets. Subsequently, markets have steered away from the notion of multilateral markets, to a unilateral system. The large expansion of GM soy harvesting in Paraguay is a prime example. Currently, Paraguay stands globally as the sixth producer and the fourth leading exporter of genetically modified soybeans. The high demand for soybeans has increased the monopolization of land in Paraguay by foreign firms. According to the documentary “Paraguay: Soya and Pesticides,” 2% of the landowners control 80% of the land in Paraguay, many of which are foreign owners/corporations. These economies of developing countries, such as Paraguay are receiving a boost, but at a detrimental cost to their local markets and communities.

Moreover, the increase harvest of soybeans is not only displacing families from their lands in order to keep up with market demands, but the increase use of pesticide to aid the harvest is poisoning communities. Although for some in Paraguay GM soybeans equate a lucrative golden harvest, to others it represents a death symbol. Up until the landmark case of 11yr old Silvino Talavara, the deaths of many children in Paraguay that resulted from pesticide poisoning were classified as a cause of  “malnourishment.” However, justice for the Talavera family was delayed. Only after years of campaigning, would an autopsy be carried out to present the true cause of death of Silvino Talavera before a judge. Furthermore, as the story of Silvino Talavera surfaced, so does the concern for communities that surround the “green gold” harvest, who have little power against large agricultural corporations.

The main principle of embedded liberalism is to “legitimatize international markets by reconciling them to social values and shared institutionalize practices.” (Abdelal and Ruggie, 153) This principle suggests the necessity to “to balance, both domestically and internationally, the benefits of internationalized financial markets with their substantial risks; to share the rewards and costs of the disruptions created by internationalized markets across national societies.” (Abdelal and Ruggie, 153) However, the lack of balance between internationalized markets and the local communities they affect is evident in the unequal relationship international markets share with less developed states. As mentioned by Rawi Abdelal and John G. Ruggie, it would seem that dominant states and by extension, transnational corporations have adopted Thrasymachean justice—“the strong define right from wrong, and the weak must live with the results.” (160) This unilateralist approach is ephemeral because of the damage it causes, such as the disturbance of communities and subsequently the violation of human right.

Thus, in order to have a prosperous international market while upholding standards of human rights, it is imperative that embedded liberalism and multilateralism coexist. Consequently, I agree with Abdelal and Ruggie proposed solutions to revive embedded liberalism. The first one is to have organizations such as IMF and UN mediate between states to yield multilateral solutions in regard to the international market. Furthermore, as Abdelal and Ruggie indicate that although multilateral solutions “require more compromises, are longer-lasting arrangements.”  (160) The second solution is that the voting weight of leading international organization alter, “to reflect economic realties of the 21^st century,” to limit the voting weight of dominate states such as United States and that of European countries. (Abdelal and Ruggie,160)

Finally, this new era of globalization has been beneficial to many countries, with respect to increasing economic growth and potency. Furthermore, globalization and international trade has raised living standard and increased opportunities that might not have been available previously for certain communities. Yet, due to the lack of embedded liberalism, many multinational corporations seize resources of developing countries for lucrative purposes and destroy their communities. For this reason, embedded liberalism must be enabled to live up to it core principles.

           

An Argument Against the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction

        Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is an argument that is used to explain why they has never been a nuclear war. This theory states that because nuclear weapons are so destructive, no rational leader will use them because of the consequences that will result in a nuclear ware of almost certain destruction to both sides. This is a result of many countries having second strike ability (the ability to launch an attack after already having been attacked), which means that a country launching a nuclear weapon would also likely be destroyed as well. However, despite the rationale behind the MAD theory, I will argue that there are many other explanations more effectively show why there has never been nuclear war.

        To begin, one must consider who in the world has nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the eight main holders of nuclear weapons. Looking at this list, most of these countries are democracies, if nothing else than in name (such as China and Russia). Therefore, one could contend that rather than MAD, one reason that there has never been a nuclear war is because only democracies have nuclear weapons. Thus, the lack of a nuclear war could be explained by the democratic peace theory, which states that democracies never fight each other.

        Another effective explanation of why there has never been a nuclear war aside from MAD is international institutions. The age of nuclear weapons has existed only since WWII, and this is a time period of large scale international cooperation through institutions such as the United Nations. I would argue that the reason that there has not been a nuclear war would be that there have been no large scale military conflicts in this period due to international intuitions that are present in this period. For example, the UN is an organization that helps facilitate cooperation and prevent wars through the collective security it creates among members. Additionally, the UN gives countries in conflict a chance to have their conflicts mediated in a neutral location which can help prevent wars. Considering nuclear weapons have only existed in this period, the prevention of a nuclear war could be attributed to international institutions in the post WWII period.

        Another issue with the MAD theory is that it counts on actors to be rational. This means that since a state that begins a nuclear conflict will also likely be destroyed as well, no rational actor will engage in nuclear warfare with a country with second strike capability. However, we cannot count on all actors who have access to nuclear weapons to be rational actors. For example, if North Korea gains access to nuclear weapons, we cannot assume they will not use them irrationally. We cannot count on them to be a rational actor, considering that we view a large portion of their actions dealing with other nations as irrational. For example, their hatred for South Korea could push them to act irrationally and engage in nuclear warfare.

        To conclude, I believe that there are many other explanations for why there has never been an all-out nuclear war aside from the theory of mutually assured destruction. However, all of the alternate explanations that I have cited still point to a nuclear war never happening, so I would conclude that regardless of what explanations or theories you believe in, it is hard to believe that a nuclear war will ever happen.