Economic globalization Essay

Economic globalization has changed the concept of crime and justice from being unique to one area to now knowing no boundaries. Terrorism is the most recent issue brought before the world and knows no boundaries. Is terrorism a crime that screams for justice? Or a declaration of war? If we use traditional meanings we cannot use the term war because war is started by a state and the terrorist acts of today are by small groups with fundamental ideas. The United States has declared war on terror calling for justice after 911. The world was outraged and shocked. The terrorist attacks were intended to destroy the foundation of western society. The events did not change the world order, but did change the world none the less. Technology that has helped business to go global also enhanced criminal networks to go global also. Global crime begs for global justice. The increase in global crime needs a global response. There has been progress towards global law such as the international criminal tribune that began in the 1990’s for Rwanda and The International Criminal Courts, ICC, created in 1998 in Yugoslavia. These organizations created treaties that were recommended for use by the European Parliament (Delmar-Marty, 287). But the reluctance of the United States to acknowledge a need for global justice has prevented the concept from developing to its fullest potential. How the U. S. defines terrorism conflicts with international interpretation and this fact won’t help to end global crime. International criminal law, on the other hand, would help in global crime. The creation of these global courts would â€Å"guarantee the independence and impartiality of judges, for it recognizes that they represent different legal traditions, including that of Muslim states† (Delmar-Marty, 291). The concept of crime or what is deemed a crime varies from culture to culture, so that fact alone calls for an international court that can accomplish more than relying on each countries law for justice. In the article â€Å"Global Crime Calls for Global Justice†, the author suggests instead of using the word terrorism to decide criminality the term â€Å"crime against humanity† should be used. Giving recognition of universal values that would ensure not only protection of human rights but also dignity of human beings around the globe (2002, 292). So when looking at 911 one should consider it a terrorist act, but instead as a crime against humanity. The global war on terrorism is constricting the flow of financial support to terror groups through Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. To circumvent these measures, transnational terrorist organizations are moving deeper into organized criminal activity. This transition poses a tremendous challenge to states struggling with a threat that has changed significantly since September 11. As terror groups transform into hybrid criminal/terror entities and partner with criminal syndicates, the threat to the United States increasing every day. Over the past few years and increasingly in recent months, leading intelligence and national security minds have noted the growing threat created by the transformation and convergence of transnational organized crime and terrorist groups. While there is some debate as to whether these groups are â€Å"converging† or â€Å"transforming,† it is clear that this growing threat is complex and increasingly difficult to counter with standard law enforcement and military counter-measures. As the United States and other nations adjust to the post 911 world of stubborn problems such as the Iraqi insurgency, Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda, the nexus of organized crime and terrorism, especially between the tri-borders of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil could prolong these challenges and lead to further disruptions and threats to global security and prosperity. Impediments to wholesale cooperation between the two parties remain, but the merging of transnational organized crime and international terrorism in these countries is nonetheless on the rise (Sanderson, 2007). Global economics has truly been the core of crime that is called terrorism. There has been a connection to terrorism and money from oil. In an article by D. Ekman Kaplin he suggests billions of dollars in oil money goes to fund global terror and their networks. The article in U. S. News and World Report showed that I the 1980’s Saudi Arabia’s somewhat official charities became the primary source of funding for the jihad movement that spanned some 20 countries. The money was used to run paramilitary training camps, buy weapons and recruit new members. The charities the Saudi’s had started was in hopes of spreading their fundamentalists ideas globally. The money that was raised went to build hundreds of radical mosques, schools and Islamic centers that supported networks for the jihad movement. This is despite the fact that the United States had knowledge of this since 1996. The U. S. felt that foreign terrorism outweighed fighting terrorism at that time. In 1998, when terrorist struck two U. S. Embassies in East Africa officials in the White House felt a better picture of just how much money and where this money was coming from was needed. This was where the connection was found and it was shocking. The White House enlisted the help of the CIA to answer questions into the funding of Al Qaeda and of the leaders, Osama Bin Laden’s personal finances. Most of the money Al Qaeda had was a direct source of fundraising by Saudi Arabia. An ally to America and the world’s largest producers of oil. Many believed and probably still do today, that Osama Bin Laden’s personal fortune and businesses in Sudan was the source of this funding. William Wechsler, director of the task force NSC (responsible for the investigation), stated that, â€Å"Al Qaeda was a constant fundraising machine† (Kaplan, 18). U. S. officials did not confront the Saudi’s about this fact until after Sept 11, 2001. In 25 years the Saudi’s have been â€Å"the single greatest force in spreading Islamic Fundamentalism. † (20). The Saudi’s unregulated charities have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Al Qaeda cells and jihad groups globally. U. S. Ambassadors, CIA station Chiefs and Cabinet secretaries were encouraged by Saudi’s using billions of dollars in contracts, grants and salaries, to turn a blind eye. When Washington refused to confront the Saudi’s on their part of the terrorist’s network. This was the failure point in sounding the alarm of the rising of the jihad movements globally and of the events of 911. The Saudi’s argued that their charities have done an enormous amount of good work and blames the problems on what they call â€Å"renegade offices† (22). Foreign advisor to the crown prince of Saudi Arabia promises that steps are being taken that will ensure that it never happens again. The fear is that some of the Saudi’s charities played more of a role in terrorist activities. These charities helped to make the more primitive jihadists and insurgents into a more sophisticated global movement. It seems that individuals that were spreading the Wahhabist doctrine, a doctrine held by the Saudi royal family, turned out to be the most radical of the believers in the holly wars. They poured huge sums of money into the newly formed Al Qaeda network. According to a 2002 report Al Qaeda and others jihadists received $300 million and $500 million from Saudi Charities and private donors (Kaplan, 2003). To fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Washington and Riyadh helped with some $3. billion to aid in the fight with soviets. Bin Laden personally helped gain millions from clerics in the Muslim world to aid in this cause. The Saudi charities were able to operate in some of the hottest spots around the globe. There was no control on how the money was spent, U. S. officials said. The charities were perfect front’s organizations. They provided safe houses, false identities, travel documents and arms. All the organization were able to dispense large amounts of cash with little or no documentation. The private foundations were not what Americans would call charities. At the time terrorism was not views as a threat and the link of Saudi Arabia with terrorism was not deem as important and kept on the back burner (Kaplan, 2003). In 1998 the CIA began an investigation in Chicago which led them to over $1. 2 million terrorist gained from a local chemical firm. The money had been sent t Hamas and the source of the money came from a Saudi charity. Saudi’s spread the money through-out Washington by the millions that helped to buy friends and influences. One group, Carlyle Group in particular, made huge amounts of money dealings with the Saudi’s. Top advisors for the group included former President George H. W. Bush, James Baker, his secretary of state and Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense. Saudi investment in America was as much as $600 billion in U. S. banks and stock markets. In 1998 attacks on the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania changed all of that. A Task force on terrorist’s finances was formed and in 1999 the charities were even closer linked to the jihad movement. In June of 2003 Saudi officials finally admitted something had gone very wrong and felt they were not at fault for their shortcomings on how funds from the charities were handled. But in 2003 a lawsuit was filed by the 900 members of families of the victims of 911 totaling over $1 trillion dollars and names Saudi princes, businessmen and charities that handled terrorist responsible for the 911 attacks. Reform for the Saudi’s society will be the ultimate test (Halloran, 2006). Presidents Bush’s military tribunal system is another way of the U. S. is attempting to control crime and terrorism. The system is struggling with issues that range from questions that arise such as, what would qualify an individual as a combatant and are the same rules for war applicable to the war on terror (Waldman, 2006). The United States government has come to another problem with the war on terror. In recent years U. S. anti-terrorism units has been slowly decreasing the assets that were frozen stating the effort to â€Å"lack of urgency† as the reason. President Bush disagrees and believes that in order to stop terrorism the flow of money must stop (Johnson, 2007). Since it is clear that terrorism is here for sometime and funding is a key force to keeping them active and needs to eliminated, it is still clear that international laws governing terror is still another key focus the globe needs to address.