Soccer and Globalization...

In the article "Soccer and Globalization"
(The Globalist 6/2002), the Globalist evaluates the 2002 World Cup in Japan/South Korea as a worldwide celebration of soccer and its fans .
Worldwide? No! This does not count for the USA, a country that does not pay as much attention to this sport as the rest of the world does.
The article describes this phenomenon, the U.S. sport isolationism as a result of a new kind and development of isolationism, which has already been expressed in its Anti-Kyoto attitude and various other actions that probably tried to direct globalization to a better future...

Globalization and diabetes

Globalization has improved the problems with poverty in many of the developing countries. As stated by this article in the NY Times, we are to a point "where more people are overweight than undernourished". Once globalization has set foot in a less developed country, we impose on them a new way of life.

Bringing industry into the country is healthy because it helps to provide a source of capital and the country may then be involved in world trade. However, when we start to "help" these poorer people by providing them with the "healthy" foods that we are so used to, you can't help but to expect an increase in diseases such as diabetes.

The worst part is that the underdeveloped countries to which globalization is spreading have poor health insurance and health care. So when someone is affected by the disease they have a difficult time treating it.

Another interesting thing I found in this article was a quote from a doctor in India.

“Diabetes unfortunately is the price you pay for progress,” said Dr. A. Ramachandran, the managing director of the M.V. Hospital for Diabetes, in Chennai (formerly Madras).

It is unfortunate that for a country like India to be involved in the globalization process then they have to take with it both good and bad.

911-Retroperspective

Two more retroperspectives:

The first one, "9/11 Five Years Later: Successes and Challenges" is an official paper from the Whitehouse and focuses on the positive American archievements after 9/11: The transformation of the Government, the ability to protect the homeland and the fact that America and its allies are safer, but not safe...

The second one, "Nation marks Lives Lost and Signs of Healing" is from the NY Times and focuses on the actual services that were held on September 11th 2006, the president's reaction and how Americans go back to normal...

Globalization and 9/11

While globalization had permeated our society prior to the attacks of September 11th 2001, the extent to which our world was interconnected became completely evident during and after this crisis. In an article from PC Magazine, Lance Ulanoff states that while he was within five miles of the towers, he learned of the attacks via AOL Instant Messenger, a sign of the times in which we now live. As images and stories shot across phone lines, internet pages, e-mails, cell phone satellites, and AIM the world learned of the terrorist attacks in record speed with amazing detail almost momentarily. Many people took this exchange of information for granite, assuming that we would have all be informed with comparable speed 20, 10, or even 5 years ago. However, this is simply not the case. That same globalization and Westernization of the world that enraged the terrorists of September 11th created the communication systems we depended on during the crisis.
Furthermore, Ulanoff and many others saw the growth of technology post 9/11 as both positive and negative. Technology grew to a point of “permeating our lives in new and sometimes unpleasant ways.” Globalization helped to invent, build, and maintain the lines of communication that now act as sources of surveillance to help maintain national security. Our post-9/11 culture may find a bit of solace in increase security attempts, but we must remember that we are forfeiting our personal freedoms for this reassurance.
In this same spirit, another 9/11 retrospective from the NY Times, discussed the change in historical perspective post September 11th. Scott explains that 9/11 has affected the teaching of history significantly, as “American history is being studied less as the story of a neatly packaged nation state and more in a global context, as part of something much larger.” In essence, 9/11 proved exactly how embedded America has become in the global system. Through technology, religious strife, national policies, American foreign policy, cultural trends, and innumerable other aspects of globalization, our divided nation states are quickly rushing toward a single global system. Our American empire (as it is now so frequently referenced) must realize that globalization comes on every level and is increasingly impossible to control.
Overall, 9/11 embodies the best and the worst of globalization. We see the results of the struggle to deny Westernization and cultural dilution coupled with improved communication and global response methods. Five years after this tragedy, the world continues to become smaller and more interconnected, as political and religious strife between nations these same nations continues.

P.S.-- http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ can keep you posted on the number of civilian Iraqi citizens killed in the military intervention to this point. Currently the number is between 41,860 and 46,537. A few other statistics we discussed can be found in another retrospective from London’s The Independent, at 5 Year Retrospective and Statistics.
All of this information is absolutely astonishing.

9/11 in Pictures

Dr. Margolies asked us to find 9/11 5th year retrospective websites and I'm not sure this one counts, but it's all pictures with a few captions to show chronology. I would recommend looking at them, even though some are hard to see.

9/11 in Pictures

Spreading the Flu...

Speed of the Spread of Flu Is Linked to Airline Travel

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR

Published: September 12, 2006

Airline travel has a significant effect on the spread of influenza, a new study reports, raising the question of whether flight restrictions may be helpful in controlling a pandemic.

Although computer simulations have already suggested a link, this study, published online yesterday in PLoS Medicine, offers the first observations of the phenomenon.

The researchers compared the timing and number of influenza deaths in 122 American cities with the volume of airline travel during the same period for each of nine flu seasons, 1996 to 2005. They found that changes in the rate of spread and the timing of peak mortality each year correlated with yearly fluctuations in monthly airline passenger volume.

Domestic airline travel in November was the best predictor of the speed of influenza spread, the researchers found, although influenza infections and deaths usually peak in late February.

They suggest that travel during the Thanksgiving holiday may be the central event in determining the rapidity of transmission. The fewer domestic airline passengers there are, researchers found, the slower the flu moves across the country.

This effect was particularly pronounced after the Sept. 11 attacks, when a temporary flight ban was instituted in the United States and airline travel volume was lower than in any other season from 1996 to 2005.

In most years, the peak date for influenza mortality in the United States occurs within two days of Feb. 17. But in 2002, the peak date was almost two weeks later, on March 2.

In 2003, 2004 and 2005, the peaks gradually returned to the normal range, Feb. 29, 19 and 17, respectively.

Full Article

This article is less morally saturated than my other posts, but I thought it was interesting to think about globalization as spreading as many diseases as goods and services. Imagine if the world was as connected during the time of the Black Death; would any one have survived? If the rat flea vector really did spread the disease, possibly on ships, imagine how much faster that would have happened if even a few sick people boarded airplanes and went off to other countries.

Something as common as influenza, once used in combination with smallpox to eliminate Native American populations, is now spread across airplanes from city to city and country to country. This is just one of the many little ways that the world is becoming connected that most people don't even think about.

The skeptics of global warming

Anyone who views the current issues of global warming with mild concern might find the escalating debates over this topic fascinating. For more than a decade now, we have relied on scientific research to show that greenhouse gases effect the environment by absorbing more of the UV rays from the sun and thus increasing the atmospheric temperature. This scientific research has also been a solid basis for attributing this climate change to human activity.

Skeptics of global warming have recently began a campaign that refutes the idea that global warming is connected to human activity. (Article) Their reasoning rests in doubts that have been served to them on a silver platter. They strangle scientific research by attacking it at its weakest point, the fact that there is a level of uncertainty involved in science.

It is quite intuitive that most of these skeptics are sided with the oil industry. In fact, it was pointed out in an article by Chris Mooney that Mother Jones tallied more than 40 groups that are backed by ExxonMobil who have in some way been connected to the underminings of scientific research. In this article, Mooney shows how these skeptical groups use doubts about science to debate. For example, Michael Crichton spoke at one event in Washington, D.C., where he was considered to be an expert on the topic of global warming because he is an M.D. and wrote a fictional story about global climate changes.

To me it seems this idea should never have been questioned (the idea that global warming is attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases, which is caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels). A new concern has arisen, which may play a large part in this debate (that is, if our world cares anything for coral reefs and other marine animals). The newest concern deals with the increased acidity (lower pH) of the ocean waters. As levels of atmospheric CO2 increase from the burning of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 which is absorbed by ocean waters also increases. The acidification of the ocean waters is actually believed to be more harmful than the global warming concern. (Article on opendemocracy.net)

Either way, it is obvious that our environment is that deer in the headlights. Something needs to be done about these critical environmental changes.

Chinese Censorship and Globalization Reform

Throughout Globalism’s Discontents, Stiglitz argues that globalization has created problems in developing countries of the periphery because the governments of these nations have not set globalization to their own terms. By allowing rapid, unchecked and careless globalization to occur, these struggling nations have failed to mold globalization to best benefit their specific country. Regulating globalization seems to be the key, as Taiwan and Korea have done in the past. The problems with globalization occurred as these nations opened up to the free-market theories and pressures of the West (who were undoubtedly looking to profit from the periphery’s open economic status). Thus, Stiglitz calls on peripheral countries to adjust globalization to their interests, rather than falling prey to Western pressures, TNCs, and global financial groups (IMF, World Bank, etc).

In this spirit of protecting national interests, many countries impose strict censorship laws on their citizens. China, a frequent champion of censorship, has recently been cited in the New York Times as increasing their control over the media in the recent months. The article explains that news and media will be both monitored and censored in order to protect “‘national security.’” While such a blatant attack on personal liberties is certainly of concern, I could not help but wonder if this was the Chinese weapon against McWorld. Could this represent (among other obvious political motives) a Chinese attempt to regulate globalization for their best interest? And if so, was Stiglitz calling for such a drastic attack on foreign interests? Is this the reform that globalization needs to benefit all citizens of China?

The demeaning turn of events Stiglitz discussed concerning the Chinese involvement in the WTO, and their status as a “developed” country certainly reflects a disrespectful, individualistic approach to global organizations that cause economic strife in peripheral countries. Such treatment in the global sector could cause China to realize that especially in a world forum, Chinese interests must come first. While Taiwan and Korea have been semi-successful in adjusting globalization to fit their national policies, these countries are certainly not considered particularly democratic. Many developing countries seem to attempt to regulate globalization by fighting for national interests in the economic sphere and avoiding the infiltration of globalization in the social sphere, but is this truly possible? As China and other developing countries struggle to find the best balance of national interests and globalization, some of their policies many not fit the Western ideals, but I think it is safe to assume that this was their intent.

Response to Consumer Responsibility & Nike

On the one hand I have to say that I generally agree with Laura's post and the main arguments in Miguel Korzeniewicz's article (and if you are interested in this, I would really like to recommend Michael Moore's documentary, "The Big One", in which Moore deals among others examples with Nike's production policies and incluedes a really shocking interview withNike's Chairman Phil Knight ...), because I think that people should be made aware of how these global players function and how they exploit people in underdeveloped countries as Nike does in Asia...

But on the other hand, I am not quite sure if we are not applying double standards when we talk about Nike's policies. What Nike does is definitely wrong, but are we 100% aware of where our other products are coming from and under which circumstances they were produced? Is it probably easier to critize Nike, because Nike is such a globalized brand? Do we always double-check the origin? Do we always care?

I think I do not, because if I want to buy an Adidas soccer ball for instance, do I always check where this ball was produced before I buy it, even though I know that probably children in underdeveloped countries are producing it? Therefore I think that consumers need to be made more sensitive regarding their consumer buying habits and especially about the product's background. Because each time we are confronted with Nike's policies for instance, we feel really blamable and try to act differently the next time...

Unfortunately an intention that only lasts till we see the new good-looking Air Force Ones in the next new Nike ad!

Globalization and the Free Exchange of Knowledge

Julie is right in her assertion that Globalization affects much more than economics. It affects, for example, the culture and education of Chinese youth in spite of more conservative parents and educators. According to an article in the Washington Post (you may need to register in order to view it,) sex is traditionally a taboo subject that is rarely discussed at school or at home for fear that such knowledge will corrupt the youth by turning their minds from more valuable academic endeavors. This created a situation in which there was a high demand for information on sex, but very little supply. Relatively new sources of information, including radio and the Internet, have been filling the gap.

The virtually unlimited supply of information available is eroding the power of the traditional culture to control the youth's knowledge of sex. To many Chinese parents and educators, their country's culture is being damaged by what might be called a "McWorld" openness regarding sex and sexuality. China's connections with the rest of the world inevitably affect the views of population. The exchange of information is much more difficult to control than that of capital or labor, and many are upset with the effects of seemingly corrupting knowledge on the beliefs and behaviors of the youth. In such a globalized world, there are many more uncontrollable influences on Chinese youth than there ever were before.

"The World Since 9/11" - The Economist

I initially felt like writing about the David Henderson article, "The Case Against corporate Social Responsibility". However, this afternoon I came across a reprint of an article from "The Economist", ( a magazine that might not be in favor with ardent anti-global views) in the VA Pilot commentary section. The article dealt with the question of exactly what has happened since 9/11 when a new era of a global war on terror emerged. I do not know exactly how to incorporate 9/11 with any one aspect of globalization. The easy example would be to make the obvious connect to "Jihad-McWorld" article. It would be valid since it stands to reason that the terrorists are easily linked to a strong anti-western and liberal agenda. (Despite my earlier rebellion of constantly asking the question 'one man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter-now somewhat answered in my head that anyone who kills thousands of civilians, no matter what their motivation- war or freedom-is a terrorist or criminal)
What would be more interesting is to see how the advent of the war on terror has affected the daily world in all aspects (law, economic transactions, society, media, etc). To me, each of these things has a global aspect to it. The media for example does not seem an immediate relation, despite it's coverage. In Julie's earlier blog, she noted that states have failed to recognize that globalization extends beyond economic matters. I agree and disagree with her. It is valid to say that no state has yet to understand the matter at hand. Going back to the media, it seems to me that the rapid exchange of info has allowed the combatants on both sides to use it as a means of worldwide propaganda. It would be difficult for terrorists in the Middle East to relay and help further their cause with other sympathizers in Southeast Asia without the inter-connectivity provided by satellite based media coverage and the internet. Vise versa the US seems to try and capture in on the global change of ideas by promoting the ideal of democracy in the new Iraq as reason for the war. Agree or disagree, I think the government is evolving to grasp other aspects of globalization even if it does not know how to use them for good.
The article itself gave an overview of the past five years. Two things stood out at me. First the article argued that while radical Islam did not create terrorism, it has entered a new stage both due to its actions and of the US led response.
Second, the conclusion said, "The world must still strive to destroy Al-Qaida...But it had better do so with cleverer means than those used by Bush so far". The political judgment at the end does not interest me so much as the use of the word "world". (I had to include the last part so the rest of you would not immediately attack me for being some neo-con hawk). Notice the writer did not say the US, coalition of the willing, the UN, NATO, the EU, or any other single organization; it said world. I feel that this is what might be missing in the debate on how to combat terrorism. If the world became truly involved, then perhaps all aspects of globalization could be used to disseminate the causes for terrorism while still providing security.
I know this is a sensitive subject. No one has made it easy to discuss. Keep in mind, no matter how easy it is to lay blame on the evil conspiracy of oil interests or any other easy to blame leviathan, we as citizens are the ones who stand the chance of feeling terrorism's harsh reality when it does occur. I look forward to seeing how the rest of the class relates terrorism to globalization. Good night.

Consumer Responsibility & Nike

Consumer Responsibility - Nike

I've been waiting to buy some new Air Force Ones since the end of last year, but I just can't bring myself to purchase them. Even though a great majority of the items I wear and use daily are also produced similarly, something about knowing that Nike makes somewhere around a 400 percent profit on some sweatshop worker, probably a young girl, makes me wonder about my own responsibility in the global economy. In Miguel Korzeniewicz's article "Commodity Chains and Marketing Strategies: Nike and the Global Athletic Footwear Industry," Korzeniewicz does a fantastic job of summarizing Nike's achievements and theorizing as to their origins, but he barely skims the surface of what I would consider the more important debate, outsourcing. In the article, Nike's factory moves from Korea and Indonesia to China and Vietnam are mentioned, but their impact on the surrounding peoples is ignored.

In these mostly peripheral countries, Nike takes advantage of cheap labor to reduce costs merging with factories to produce shoes and other athletic-wear for a fraction of the selling price. While this set-up does include new jobs for the area, the jobs are menial (Nike admits that most are entry-level positions) and the profits do not benefit the workers or the surrounding area.

According to Nike's own website, although child labor is prohibited, "child labor presents many challenges, including falsified age records. Local circumstances, common sense and decisions made in the best interest of the young worker may create occasional exceptions to our policy. And we 'grandfather' into our system workers who are of legal age but fall below the Nike age standard when we begin business with the factory." Thus, Nike can emphatically state that the starting age for workers is between 16 and 18 although 15 year olds are generally accepted and factories can make their own decisions about worker's ages.

If Nike and other companies like it are outsourcing to cut costs and offering diminutive wages to underaged workers, and I knowingly buy the shoes (this can apply also to the earlier Wal-Mart discussion) does that make me responsible, and if so, what is my responsibility to factory workers in China? Is it like Julie said, are we just ignoring the social costs of globalization? If that is the case, what kind of a toll is it going to take on the people in peripherial countries if they're already struggling?

If you get a chance, check out the Video Clips for a short and sweet view of two Nike factories in China and Vietnam. My favorite part is how at the end of each one the workers are seen enjoying themselves around a few bowls of rice. I wish I got to work a 60 hour week in a factory to support my family and eat too!