Has Increasing Globalization Brought More or Less Global Security - Essay Example

Has Increasing Globalization Brought More Or Less Global Security? Globalization has made the world less safe. The advancement of communications technologies and efficient methods of transportation during the last decade has greatly diminished the barriers of distance which has allowed the diverse societies of the world greater access to each other and has tied the economies of nations together in a grand global network. Globalization has, over a relatively short amount of time, brought together people of all cultures. Interacting with persons of vastly dissimilar societal backgrounds has become commonplace and necessary. This has opened the doorway of all nations for members of terrorist groups, who openly despise Western cultures, to infiltrate which has lead to mortally dangerous and economically disastrous consequences. Terrorist acts in a particular country affect the people and property of that nation but severely threatens the economic prosperity of all nations in this inter-connected world. Globalization can be defined within many different contexts but, essentially, it refers to the world becoming seemingly smaller as communication technology advances and the unimpeded access across international borders for products, people and assets. Innovations such as jet airplanes and computers have accelerated the globalization process and blurred territorial boundaries defining nations increasingly making customary conceptions of a nation’s sovereign authority irrelevant. It also facilitates the ill-intent of terrorists. Globalization “relies increasingly on a kind of trust, the unsentimental expectation that people, individually and collectively, will behave more or less in their rational self-interest. The terrorists made use of that trust. They rode the flow of the world’s aerial circulatory system like lethal viruses” (Porter, 2004) according to Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker Magazine. Terrorist groups do not recognize or try to circumvent the traditional definition of a sovereign state and utilize all the technologically advanced tools that have accelerated globalization. Additionally, terrorists, specifically Muslim fundamentalists, are concerned that their ancient culture is being replaced by a Western culture they despise. Globalization has allowed deviant Western traditions such as the exploitation of workers, sexual permissiveness and capitalistic icons such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds to seep into and change their cherished way of like. Allowing unfamiliar ideologies and customs into their lifestyles is difficult for religious fundamentalists of any description. Add the fact that the U.S. has built military installations on Muslim Holy lands and, along with the ‘coalition of the coerced,’ recently invaded two Muslim countries and killed many innocent civilians. Western nations are invading the culture, governments and sovereignty in a region of the world where religious fanaticism exceeds the fervor of what is commonly known in the U.S. as the ‘Bible Belt.’ It is little wonder that these people are fearful of the West and possess sufficient motive for terrorist acts. (Porter, 2004) The increasing numbers of trucks and container vessels that facilitate international commerce increase the likelihood of a terrorist successfully smuggling himself or a weapon undetected across a vulnerable border. In contrast, a small number of scholars and policy makers argue that economic openness will result in a reduction in transnational terrorism. Proponents of this view believe that economic globalization promotes economic development, which in turn alters the decision calculus of terrorist groups toward a reduction in terrorist activities. Progress in economic development due to trade and capital flows removes one of the main incentives for people to engage in terrorist activities out of desperation and poverty. Although this argument is relatively new and less well developed, many policy makers have turned to it for a solution to global terrorism. “Terrorism is the product of marginalization and poverty, and marginalization and poverty the products of globalization” (Henwood, 2001). Transnational terrorists also often take advantage of the international trade network to market goods or services in an effort to marshal resources with which to carry out their criminal activities. “Saudi Arabia, home of Osama bin Laden himself and many of his funders, has been embedded in the global oil economy since well before most Al Qaeda members were born. And Afghanistan, their current home, is almost entirely outside the circuits of global trade and capital flows--an exclusion that contributes greatly to its extreme poverty and social disintegration” (Henwood, 2001). Terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda have permeated the illegal diamond trade to raise money for their activities and as a means to launder vast sums of money. “Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network relied on illegal as well as legal international trade to fund its operations” (Shahar 2001). Al-Qaeda is thought to be involved, for example, in Liberia where they staged a diamond funneling and money laundering operation for a Sierra Leone rebel group which murdered more than 50,000 and tortured, raped and abducted many thousands of others in one year alone. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed in Liberia by rebel forces. Al-Qaeda is also involved in illegal diamond operations in Tanzania and Sudan. In addition to assorted rebel groups and Al-Qaeda using ‘blood diamonds’ to finance their ventures, Hezbollah is also active in this illegal pursuit (Kelbie, 2006). “Terrorist organizations often rely on the international trade network to trade contraband to fund their various operations. The increasingly fluid nature of the global investment and distribution networks makes such trade increasingly less risky and therefore much more likely” (Matthew and Shambaugh 1998). The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were on U.S. soil but resulted in severe repercussions regarding not just national but the global economy as well. On that day and for about a year and a half prior, the major economies of the world were teetering on the edge of at least recession conditions and many were close to a full-scale depression. The attacks prevented any perceived or real economic upturns that were predicted given the factors present at that time. The event destroyed lives and property, increased government spending at a time when the country could ill afford the excessive expenditures and squelched corporate and consumer confidence which further slowed the economy and hindered the recovery efforts. The events lasted over a period of a couple of hours but its affects are still being felt all over the world. The heightened insecurity regarding terrorist acts and its effects on the economy worldwide continues to give worry to investors and businesses which only serve to further cripple the economies of most countries. The terrorist actions served only to further exacerbate the current economic problems experienced in the U.S. and around the world which had begun well before the attacks. The blame for the economic woes cannot be pinned entirely on the events of Sept. 11. However, in the long-term, this event brought a definitive modification of approaches for future economic policy-makers at the national and global level. The globalization efforts which focused the world on economic gains in the 1990’s have been morphed by one event into overriding interests concerning national security interests. We also face a longer-term uncertainty, namely how the emphasis on increased security will impact the economy. This new trend that forsakes economic gain for security concerns is likely to continue at least for the next several years (Noshab, 2002). The cautiousness that corporations exhibited with their assets in 2000 and early 2001 became more intensified which kept the world markets hostage to the most prolonged market slowdown that many people could remember. This extended bear market condition was not the result of Sept. 11, though it was initiated within the U.S. borders. This time the attack was internal and not as obvious. A seemingly never-ending succession of multiple corporate scandals including Enron, Merck, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton and many others brought about a sudden halt to the modest and commendable world market growth following the global economic resuscitation measures. While these corporate misdeeds caused a major slowdown of the U.S. markets as well as in the economy as a whole, its contaminating affects were also suffered in the European and Asian markets. The EU was affected even more than the U.S. itself by these U.S. corporate scandals. “The economic downturn does indicate a greater role of factors other than those related to the 9/11 events, however, the fact that these attacks have brought a major shift in global patterns is beyond dispute” (Noshab, 2002). Everyone, including corporations and individuals will be burdened with the extra costs to businesses in the form of elevated insurance premiums and other added costs of doing business in the post-9/11 world. (Looney, 2002). Businesses must pay higher insurance and warehousing costs because they must retain higher levels of inventory to protect against interruptions in imported supplies (Moskow, 2001). “Business may be required to hold larger inventories than previously, owing in part to less reliable air and rail transportation. There is anecdotal evidence from the auto industry that production was interrupted because components were not immediately available from suppliers after the September 11 attacks, owing to delays in shipments crossing the U.S.-Canada border” (Looney, 2002). This is but one example of the peripheral costs of terrorism, costs which trickle down and spread out to all citizens of most countries of the world. The integration of the global financial market also leads to an increase in the sheer volume of financial transactions. Monetary authorities are less and less able to regulate transactions effectively because those transactions have multiplied so rapidly in number. Security issues increase the cost of doing business which will probably decrease the rate at which business grows for an indeterminate amount of time, but by how much and how long is unknown (Moskow, 2001). Many policy makers, journalists, and scholars believe, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, that globalization causes an increase in the frequency of transnational terrorism. Global terrorism affects the lives and property of the people directly affected by such acts but it also acts like ripples in a pool of water, spreading economic woes on nations far away from the actual attack. Globalization and terrorism are indeed on both sides of the same coin. That is to say the former aides and exacerbates the latter. Terrorists utilize the technologies of globalization to commit acts motivated by vengeance. They are angered, at least in part, by the influences of other cultures on their own due to the peripheral effects of trade globalization. The extent of the Sept. 11 attacks is financially far-reaching on a global scale as well as on a time-scale. In order to attain and preserve an optimum level of security, world governments as well as corporations and individuals will be forced to pay the costs for an untold number of years to come. The 9/11 attacks exemplify how terrorism has increased due to globalization. There are many examples from which to choose. Global security has lessened exponentially with the expansion of globalization. Works Cited Henwood, Doug (November 21, 2001) “Terrorism and Globalization” The Nation April 15, 2010 Kelbie, Paul. (February 10, 2006). “Rough Trade: Diamond Industry Still Funding Bloody Conflicts in Africa.” The Independent. April 15, 2010 Looney, Robert. “Economic Costs to the United States Stemming from the 9/11 Attacks.” Strategic Insights. Vol. 1, I. 6, (August 2002). Center for Contemporary Conflict. April 15, 2010 Matthew, Richard, and George Shambaugh. 1998. Sex, drugs, and heavy metal: Transnational threats and national vulnerabilities. Security Dialogue 29:163-75. April 15, 2010 Moskow, Michael H. “The Economy After September 11: Fed’s Role and Perspective.” (November 28, 2001). Ft. Wayne, IN: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Forum. April 15, 2010 Noshab, Farzana. “Global Economic Implications of 9/11 Attacks.”  Financial Times. (August 11, 2002). Parry, Robert T. “The U.S. Economy after September 11.” (December 7, 2001). Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter. April 15, 2010 Perry, George L. “Forecasting the Economy and Policy After 9/11.” Brookings Project on Terrorism and American Foreign Policy. (September 27, 2001). The Brookings Institute. April 15, 2010 Porter, Keith (December 31, 2004) “Globalization and Terrorism” Coming to grips with the new shape of the world. Global Envision Mercy Corps April 15, 2010 Shahar, Yuval. 2001. Tracing bin Laden’s money: Easier said than done. International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. April 15, 2010 Read More