I completely agree with Glennon in his claim that there is a
need for a new paradigm with which the issue of terrorism, inarguably the biggest
security threat of today, can adequately be addressed. Glennon argues that terrorism
does not fit within the traditional frameworks of crime (police) or war
(military) due to the fact that it is perpetrated by transnational groups, the
victim is both the state as well as individuals, and it is difficult to
determine what exactly constitutes a victory and whether the endgame can be
reached (A world free of organized terrorism as an instrument of societal
change? A global environment in which terrorism can never again flourish?).
Furthermore, the Rodin and Coady pieces both bring up issues of defining
terrorism (are we fighting a technique? an ideology?) that can certainly impede
the fight against terrorist organizations, if not completely sabotage it.
In
my opinion, what is missing from the preceding discussion of terrorism is a consideration
of its crucial globalization aspect that presents vast implications for the
possible paradigm. Organizations such as Al Qaeda have established a worldwide
network of operatives with links to other terrorist organizations that provide
support and assistance. This network has further developed links with organized
crime, drug trafficking, state sponsors and companies and corporations
sympathetic to its causes. Globalization has certainly acted as an enabler
through liberalization of cross-border transactions involving labor, capital,
ideas, technology and profit with minimal government interference or oversight.
The goals of terrorist organizations now extend beyond a single society or
nation, and their broad endeavors certainly warrant a new framework as
championed by Glennon. Though Glennon states that freedoms and security will be
at odds, I think the fight on globalized terror will also involve economic costs
and losses in profitability through a tightening of the liberalization described
above; thus, states might be making not only domestic trade-offs but trade-offs
within the roles they play in the international realm as well. Furthermore, I
find the divide in the U.S. and European strategies discussed by Glennon to be problematic,
as I believe that a successful "war on terror" will require a
cohesive effort and an unprecedented amount of worldwide cooperation, especially amidst Al Qaeda's proclamation of the entire Western world as its enemy. This point
is especially important because even though countries might decide their
counterterrorism policies independently, the outcomes of their decisions may be
interdependent, as terrorists can respond to security upgrades in one country
by finding less-secure venues or opportunities in another. Considering the
globalization aspect of this struggle definitely paints a more holistic picture
of the characteristics of terrorist organizations, the new global dynamics at play, the types of sacrifices that
might need to be undertaken as well as the scale of the "war on
terror" which will certainly affect Glennon's concept of a possible
emerging paradigm.
I like the point you make about the globalization of terrorism and how it applies to Al Qaeda and the Western world. I agree that in order to successfully fight this war on terrorism, there needs to be tradeoffs from all nations that are threatened by this terrorist organization, especially in each nation's policy towards addressing terrorism. While I believe that shifting towards addressing globalized terror is potentially a paradigm that would be successful, I unfortunately don't see this cohesive effort from all these nations occurring anytime soon, since most nations still lean towards particularism, and seek only to compromise knowing they gain the most benefit.
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point about how terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have began to take part in activities such as drug trafficking. I feel that many people view many organized terrorist as groups instead of the organizations that they actually are.
ReplyDeleteTo what degree then, can we rid the world of Al Qaeda while keeping the goodies of globalization? Are they so tied to together that if one goes the other will as well?
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily think that in order to fight global terror we will need to resurrect the "Leviathan" and revert to the all-encompassing state sovereignty of the past. The current global interdependence may even be partly irreversible, especially as countries have tasted the fruits of global trade. However, I certainly think countries and their respective governments will AT THE VERY LEAST need to provide more oversight or monitoring of cross-border transactions. It is important to remember that how much de-liberalization will ensue depends on the course of the War on Terror- as Glennon pointed out, the trade-offs will be bigger if within the next few years a series of devastating attacks occur in the big cities of Europe and the U.S. A current example of the de-liberalization I was referring to can be found in terms of traveling- after 9/11, countries have tightened security at borders and airports, monitored foreign travelers and thus raised the costs of travel and movement.
DeleteI don't think Al Qaeda is a by product of globalization. Fundamentalist ideals have been around as long as religion itself. Globalization certainly bolsters Al Qaeda's abilities to reach parts of the world, but it is possible to be rid of the group while keeping the benefits of globalization.
ReplyDelete