Today’s global threats are, in part, rooted in the urban growth that swept both the Soviet and Western camps during the half century Cold War. Moreover, today’s challenges — crime, poverty, and terrorism — are quite different from those faced in last century’s ideological conflict with the Soviet Union.
As we have seen in previous posts, defense of Western nations during the Cold War period fell largely on the shoulders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. Today NATO remains important, but the defense against crime, poverty, and terrorism is more diffuse, less multilateral. For example, who is responsible for ensuring the public safety at a global event like FIFA’s 2014 World Cup? Does the obligation belong to FIFA, the host nation (in this case Brazil), the various municipalities where stadiums are located, or some nameless global defense organization? And has the accountability changed as a result of the terrorism in Boston that affected the widely attended Boston Marathon?
As most of us concede, the threat against urban areas has grown since the World Cup’s inception 83 years ago. And the various facets of urban development have changed also. A look back at urbanization during the period of Cold War rivalry is enlightening, providing a glimpse of the forces shaping the development of today’s megacities, targets for many current threats. Brazil’s cities are a good example. As you can see in the graph below, Brazil’s population escalated rapidly during the Cold War period. Much of this population growth occurred in urban areas, so much so that by Cold War’s end in 1990, Brazil was 77% urbanized.
Cities, worldwide, grew at a rapid pace during the half century Cold War. Over the course of the conflict, the rate of urbanization in the developing world approached — and then exceeded — urban growth in the industrialized countries.
During the 1950s and 1960s (the first years of the Cold War), the proportion of global population in cities of 100,000 or more increased about a third faster in the underdeveloped regions of the world than in the developed ones. This growth trend reversed the urban momentum long held by First World cities.
In 1920, almost three-fourths of the worlds’s urbanites lived in western cities, while only a little more than a fourth lived in the less-developed regions. By 1990, in contrast, two-thirds of the estimated population in cities of five million or more lived in the Third World.
Much of the urban expansion during the Cold War period took place in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, the three regions that the two superpowers saw as most militarily significant.
Over the entire period, from 1950 to 1990, urban population grew by 604% in the Middle East, 449% in South-Southeast Asia, and 470% in Latin America.
Urban areas in the post World War II Third World didn’t develop in a vacuum. Although some were affected by the intense militarization surrounding the Cold War conflict, all cities in the developing world were subject to the same urban trends. And while differences in the Soviet and American models of urban growth and land use ultimately influenced the most important (and most closely affiliated) of their client states, many aspects of urbanization were shared in common by both the socialist and capitalist camps.
The Cold War’s Urban Problems
During the first half of the Cold War period, mutual concerns included matters associated with rapid urban expansion, particularly population growth leading to regional imbalance. Related anxieties included rural-urban migration, jobs, housing, and quality-of-life issues.
The early Cold War period — from the 1950s to the 1970s — was marked by the on-going marginalization of many urban areas and was a time when shantytowns and squatter settlements became visible to authorities, elites, and the urban population in general. Much of this marginalized housing is still with us. In fact, in the context of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, it is anticipated that “over 150,000 people will be evicted from their homes because of the World Cup.” Most of those evicted live in favelas — Brazilian shantytowns that are being sanitized for image reasons.
SOLIDAR SUISSE, a non-governmental organization (NGO) supporting more than 50 projects in 12 countries, argues that
Relocations have already been carried out in all the major cities where World Cup matches are to be held — Sao Paulo, Curitiba, Fortaleza, Recife, etc. But the preparations for this large-scale operation have only just begun.
At kick-off time, an estimated 150,000 to 170,000 people will have been evicted from their homes. Whole neighborhoods must disappear to allow the construction of stadiums and infrastructure, such as roads or airports. On the other hand, the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics are being used as an excuse to “renew” whole parts of towns. To compare, Raquel Rolnik, UN special envoy for housing rights, spoke of 20,000 evictions in South Africa. There have already been eight times more in Brazil!
Of course, the World Cup is not the only culprit. Other large events worldwide have triggered similar actions and policies. In every such case, people are displaced and relocated to
sites on the outermost borders of the cities, dozens of kilometers from their original places of residence. There are hardly any schools or health facilities there. Those who had jobs can often no longer get to them because there is not public transportation. There are almost no jobs in these places, and thus no chance of income. All this constitutes a violation of the right to adequate housing. Social networks are being destroyed, which makes it even harder for people to organize their lives.
Compensation is very low for a clearance of informal housing that is not 100% legal, which is the case for the majority of the housing in Brazil’s cities. The amount is woefully insufficient to allow people to live adequately elsewhere. The former inhabitants cannot afford to return to the new buildings. Those who fight back are forcibly evicted by the police or the buildings are torn down without warning. The profits of constructing the new buildings pass through to private hands. Raquel Rolnik speaks of massive land and real estate speculation. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)
In the second half of the Cold War, additional problems were observable. Capitalist cities, especially, concentrated on questions associated with the impact of debt, structural reform (frequently imposed in accordance with guidelines established by the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund), privatization, and the globalization of manufacturing. Questions surrounding capitalism and the contest between the local and the global will be discussed in future posts. Suffice it say for now that these issues were, at times, related to a debate over the role of cities as both consumers and producers. Interestingly, this discussion also had relevance in the socialist world.
Consumer and Producer Cities
Some scholars argued that cities in developing countries worldwide could be characterized as consumer centers where
collective consumption referred to forms of services collectively provided, usually by the state — mass housing, transport, health facilities, and so on.
In the capitalist case
the provision of such services was identified as a source of political mobilisation, as it spawned urban social movements, protest groups aiming to improve urban conditions through contesting the existing pattern of collective consumption.
In the socialist case
the task before policy-makers . . . [was} to convert them into ‘producer cities’.
This was seem as requiring a reduction in
the size of the largest cities (deurbanization), containing large-city growth and promoting the self-sufficiency of the urban economy, and encouraging the growth of small- and medium-sized towns and, where necessary, creating new towns.
[Havana (Cuba) is a great example of this policy approach.]
The Informal Sector
In both camps, the period from 1970-1990 became known as the era of the permanent informal sector after it became clear that “marginal sectors whether defined spatially, economically, politically, or socially were not about to disappear.”
Today, in most cities worldwide, these marginal sectors are entrenched. In Brazil, preparation for the upcoming World Cup means that “street vendors fear for their livelihoods because the World Cup sponsors demand exclusive sales rights.”
The World Cup basic agreement plans exclusion zones around the stadiums and fan parks. According to StreetNet International, the federation of street vendors’ organizations, existing street vending licences in host cities have already been withdrawn or not renewed. In the tourist areas of the host cities, no new licences are being issued. . . Police repression in city centers has increased: vendors’ goods have been confiscated without compensation, and their stalls destroyed, they were fined, and there have been cases of physical violence. Furthermore, many street vendors have lost their sales locations in the inner city because of construction sites linked to the World Cup or to the Olympics. Displacement to the outskirts of the cities threatens their livelihood. Up to 300,000 street vendors may be affected by this. (SOLIDAR SUISSE)
To wrap up, regardless of economic or ideological underpinnings, urban concerns in the developing world converged throughout the Cold War period as neither socialist nor capitalist cities were able to devise policies to incorporate the disadvantaged. Many are now arguing that — so far as Brazil is concerned — it is FIFA’s responsibility to do what the United States and the Soviet Union were unable to accomplish. One such group says:
FIFA must finally face up to its responsibility and make a contribution to improving the living conditions of the Brazilian population. It must consistently commit itself to verifying that no human rights are violated or workers exploited. And it must not pocket all the profits, leaving Brazil with a mountain of debt.
I’d love to hear what you think. Comments are welcome.