What Ways does Globalization Exacerbate International Crime - Essay Example

Hastedt (p.45) described globalization as “ill-defined” and Love (p.5) observed that “Globalization creates a world of paradox.” In your own words, define globalization. In what ways does globalization exacerbate international crime/drug trade? Simply put, globalization is a model that integrates the global economic, political and cultural systems and is typified by an increase transnational trade, geographical mobility and communication. Its enabling capacity that drives its benefits also drives the negative impacts such as the manner by which it aggravates corruption and undermines governance, the rule of law, democratic processes and transparency especially in states that have weaker institutions. In addition, globalization also provides the means for international criminal and drug organization to flourish, co-opting the trade networks so that their operations becomes more complex, fluid and sophisticated. What globalization does is to diminish the state’s capacity to effectively govern. This is demonstrated in the manner by which multinational companies undermine its authority and cause instability and how criminal organization and terrorists can use globalization channels to support their operations. Today, it is increasingly becoming evident that states can no longer control or solve globalization-induced problems such as crime/drug issues on their own. (Love, 8) The US-Mexican border is an excellent example of the ills of globalization. This area threatens the American national security as it became a spot for terrorism, illegal immigration, transit point for drug trade, among other factors that result as a consequence of the Mexican experience as a failing democratic state. The globalizing forces enable the problems from Mexico to spill over its borders towards the US, with the latter almost incapable to address them. The globalization phenomenon entails dramatic growth in resources and capabilities. Legitimate actors have taken advantage of these variables to spur development and solve problems such as poverty and inequality. However, they are also accessible for those organizations and elements who work to exploit them for criminal, illegal, illegitimate and unjust activities. 2. How do belligerent groups exploit illicit economies such as drug trafficking for both economic resources and political capital? Use an example from at least one geographic region in your response. Illicit economies thrive in smaller states where the availability of alternative means of subsistence for people within an economy is very limited. The worst case is that the populations tend to become dependent on the illicit economy because of the existence of belligerents. This happens when the economy is mired in poverty and the majority of the citizens are poor with no means for adequate subsistence. As belligerents sponsor the illicit economy they are seen as benefactors. For example, in a poor location, illegal gambling generates reliable and continuous livelihood for the locals. As more and more people earn their living from the illicit activity, the belligerents who support it earn the credit, hence, reap huge amount of political capital. A specific example is the case of FARC in Colombia. This group turned to drug trade in order to finance its movement against the Colombian government. As the enterprise grew, more and more Colombians especially in areas controlled by the guerillas came to rely on the cocaine cultivation for their daily subsistence. Because large segment of the population offer gratitude, FARC came to achieve huge political capital. The dynamics of this phenomenon underscored the economic and political outcome of the exploitation. Through drug cultivation, FARC was able to acquire economic resources that sustained livelihood for many Colombians. In the process, the belligerent gained support and sympathy which is translated into political capital. The belligerents can further capitalize on illicit economy for economic and political games through the governmental response to the illicit activities. For example, if the government starts to crack down the illicit economy, it will cripple the means of subsistence for many people. As it is suppressed, people came to turn more towards the belligerents for protection. They are less inclined to cooperate with the government as it is increasingly seen as the enemy. Here, belligerents gain more political capital. 3. How does global poverty threaten U.S. national security? The United States cannot remain indifferent to the poverty that exists elsewhere on account of the fact that it enjoys prosperity at home. The fact is that poverty dramatically increases the risk of civil conflict, and war zones, which – for their part – create the ideal operating environments for international outlaws. It must be underscored that the modern transnational security threats such as infectious disease, environmental degradation, international crime and drug syndicates, proliferation of small arms and weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism, they mostly emerge from impoverished areas. America will just wake up one of these days confronting these elements created from elsewhere, wrecking havoc in its very own doorstep. One can already see this with how the US is affected by the social, security and political problems that beset Mexico because of its poverty. Poverty incidence reduces many weak states’ capacity and authority to govern their territory and administer its resources. The resulting circumstances becomes create the vacuums and vulnerabilities that can easily be exploited by transnational criminals and terrorists. In addition, poverty also prevents many countries from providing adequate health services that can result to the outbreak of deadly epidemics and diseases. The experiences with bird flu, AIDS, among other epidemics show that the US is not insulated from what is happening outside its borders. With the geographical mobility involving vast number of people migrating or just travelling from one country to another daily, the threats are difficult to control. It is clear that poverty results in a host of complex and diverse web of problems that can entangle not only the location of the incidence but also developed countries such as the United States. The most serious of these are the so-called transnational security threats such as terrorism, disease and environmental degradation. 4. Even though the U.S. population is aging, it still has a promising demographic projection in contrast to the rest of the developed world. In the context of this particular global trend, what are the implications for U.S. national security? There are numerous studies that link security to the demographics of the population. First, it affects economic security. Able-bodied workplace is crucial in order to sustain growth and prosperity. The wealth of financial capital cannot make up for the lack of workers that would drive the engine of growth. American industries or those by other developed countries will not run on money but through the availability of physical labor. In addition the relatively fewer younger generation cannot work and support the growth of aged retirees. The elderly will also claim a significant amount of healthcare cost. As the aging population grows, so do the expenses for their health and retirement programs, compromising other services in the governmental budget. (Howe and Jackson, 20) The geopolitical stature of countries facing aging population is also expected to be diminished. The rationale is simple: large population means bigger and more capable military power. Manpower, wrote Libicki, Shatz and Taylor is crucial in several fronts. First, it has a direct impact on national income, technical expertise, productivity and national expenditure, among other variables. Collectively, they demonstrate two glaring dimensions in the reality that population affects a nation’s capability to wage war. First, larger countries can raise proportionally more fighters and, second, demographics affect economic growth and, thus, the ability to raise resources for military expenditures. (Libicki, Shatz and Taylor, 90) It is clear that in order for a country to be competitive in the global economic and military spheres, they must be able to check population decline. This is especially true in the case of developed countries. They risk losing their advantage in the future as their labor force is diminished. 5. Briefly describe the key elements of state function that determine state fragility or state failure. Using those elements, provide your assessment of whether Yemen is a fragile or failing state and briefly conclude with an analysis of the national security implications for the United States. The definition of a failed state is simple. It pertains to a sovereign country that, unfortunately, can no longer exercise its authority and capacity for “state security, effective governance, territorial and border control and economic sustainability.” (Wyler. 6) A failed state is a breeding ground for transnational security risks and threats as belligerents, criminal organizations and other lawless and non-state actors operate with impunity. As the state fails to prevent, much less control them, these actors thrive, co-opting and corrupting institutions to perpetuate their existence and operations. For example, “terrorist can benefit from lax or non-existent law enforcement in these states to participate in illicit economic activities to finance their operations and ease their access to weapons and other equipment.” (Wyler, 6) A failed state, however, is distinguished from the concept of fragile state in the sense that, with the latter, the state legitimacy is weak and the state capital is insufficient to spur economic growth and sustainability. Besides these two elements, fragile and failed states are share many commonalities. The most important of these is the way they are both incapacitated to administer their own affairs. As a result, both are prone to civil unrest, criminality and humanitarian emergencies. Yemen appears to be on the throes of being a failed state. Last year, thousands upon thousands of Yemeni protesters took to the street to protest the regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh. The demonstration has crippled the entire country, prompting the resignation of Saleh. The government that took charge afterwards also proved to be incapable of exercising authority especially when the entire country is on the verge of collapse. There is now a power vacuum that is being taken advantaged of by belligerents such as Houthis. Today, this group already controls the city of Saada. The state is not only paralyzed but also, it is at risk of breaking up as the country painfully hobbles in the process of political transition. These concerns have national security implications falling into several key areas: terrorism, international crime, and regional stability which are all vital to U.S. interest. Yemen could become a haven for terrorist and insurgency networks within the region, taking advantage of an incapacitated government. As a result, Yemen could steadily descend into anarchy, destroying its democratic institutions in the process and cause further instability in the Gulf region. It can also lead to population migration, a development that could pave the way to the spread of violence. For the US, it is imperative that the Yemeni problem is addressed immediately. It is crucial in protecting its national interest. The turmoil in the country jeopardizes its objectives in the Middle East and in addressing the problem of Islamic extremism. International diplomacy is widely seen as the solution for this dilemma because of the complexities in the transactional relationships involved. (Goodson, 163) It is important to note that the problems of a failed state are no longer confined to its borders. It can spread like wildfire, affecting many countries in the process. The roots of the demonstrations and violence in Yemen demonstrated this. It started from Libya and spilled over to various countries such as Egypt and Yemen. It is, hence, a global concern, with global repercussions and requires global engagement. 6. Stephen Krasner’s article “Talking Tough to Pakistan: How to End Islamabad’s Defiance,” and Anatol Lieven’s article “A Mutiny Grows in Punjab” present two very contrary recommendations concerning U.S. strategy in Pakistan. Analyze these two authors’ views on U.S. national interests in Pakistan and their intensity. Which view of U.S. national interests is the better guide for U.S. strategy in Pakistan? Justify your choice, using other course readings to support your choice if appropriate. Stephen Krasner and Anatol Lieven offered two very different takes and solutions with regards to the US strategy in Pakistan and why it has so far failed. Their arguments were published in Talking Tough to Pakistan: How to End Islamabad’s Defiance and A Mutiny Grows in Punjab, written under their bylines respectively. The situation in question is the widely perceived failure of the current US policy on Pakistan typified by a combination of censure and aid. The common perception is that an exhortation to perform better is not enough – not an effective policy - especially that the American aid flows uninterrupted into the Pakistani coffers. Krasner’s position follows the hardliner approach: that is, to treat Pakistan as a hostile country. He enumerated numerous incidences that demonstrated how Pakistan acted against the interest of the US. There is the case of the alleged transfer of American aid to the enemies of America. He then cited the manner by which those Pakistanis who helped the US operation that finally killed Bin Laden were rounded up and thrown in jail. The incidences are, indeed, numerous and gravelly inimical to the America. Krasner is of the opinion that, in order for Pakistan to finally implement the reforms and initiatives that the US has been insisting on, the US government must take a forceful approach both in the manner in which it uses aid and military offensive to punish transgressions. Lieven, on the other hand, preferred a more diplomatic approach to the issue. He branded the US campaign in Afghanistan as unjust, calling the American policy half-baked. Instead, he proposed that, the government should adopt a different perspective in their engagement with Pakistan as an ally. Rather than treating Pakistan as a tool in wading out of the Afghanistan with the American military prestige intact, the policy should focus on preserving the Pakistani state while containing the terrorist threat in the borders of the country. Now, both of Krasner and Lieven’s positions are valid and legitimate. However, I am more inclined to favor those of Krasner’s. The diplomatic approaches – call it appeasement if you may – have been exhausted and yet Pakistan is still proving to be difficult. I believe that these states will only respect strength and authority. Krasner was pretty specific with the strategies that could be attempted. I believe that most of these will achieve positive result. His position is made more significant by the fact that Pakistan has nuclear capability. The assumptions that the country is currently involved in nuclear proliferation should already alarm the US. A report by Goldberg and Ambinder detailed the evidences attesting to this point. We should act decisively in this area before it is too late. Strong policy and engagement would not only put pressure on the government but also on the Pakistani people, who are increasingly becoming ungovernable. Most experts agree that America has no chance in changing the Pakistanis’ attitude towards America. So force appears to be the only factor that would command attention and cooperation. If the US will heed Krasner’s proposal, it will be sending a forceful message, especially since it is in the position to do so with the amount of aid that Pakistan has received from its American ally. Read More