Does Globalization Contribute to the Growth of Terrorism?
Globalization has not contributed to growth of terrorism, either it has and is contributing enormously to the economic wellbeing of the world economies. Australia for instance has well positioned itself during the past decade in the globalize environment. Several studies have concluded that nations with open, market orientated economies have recently grown twice as fast as those with closed economies. 21st-century terrorism is an extreme response to globalization.
It has set in motion a vicious circle of exclusion and anxiety. If we are to break out of this we need rethink the meaning and nature of global politics, starting where globalization itself begins – in the locality. Globalization has received surprisingly insufficient explicit attention in globalization theory. In popular academic and political usage, a simple definition of globalization can often be summed up as little more than what globalization is all about.
In the globalization literature, many globalization scholars start with this simple definition and then add, mostly implicitly, some further elements to the definition. By and large, therefore, there is neither any agreement on a more meaningful and complex definition, nor any real explicit debate about how to precisely define globalization. Globalization will be define for the benefits of this topic as internationalization. Here it is viewed as simply adjective to describe cross-border relations between countries. It describes the growth in international exchange and interdependence.
With growing flows of trade and capital investment there is the possibility of moving beyond an inter-national economy, where the principle entities are national economies to a stronger version – the globalize economy in which, distinct national economies are subsumed and rearticulated into the system by international processes and transactions. Globalization is also seen as universalization. In this use, ‘global’ is used in the sense of being ‘worldwide’ and ‘globalization’ is ‘the process of spreading various objects and experiences to people at all corners of the earth’.
A classic example of this would be the spread of computing, television etc. In another way, terrorism is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning, in another words, one man terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happened to be on base, and that is true. But similarly a gorilla group who is blowing up a military vessel may end up killing some civilians also who happened to be on board. So by defining terrorism, a bit of common sense has to be applied.
gGto be on The terrorist act of September 11 has set in train events that will continue to impact on the shape of the global economy. However, Whilst September 11 may not have changed, in my view, the global Complexity and uncertainty in which we live, September 11 did increase Public awareness, in varying degrees, about the threat of terrorism, the spread and simplification of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty, failed states and much else, including, a least by implication and fundamentally, today’s vastly tighter interconnection of our entire globe.
Trevor C. Rowe, of Bond University, in his paper presentations on globalization contributions to a better world stated that Australia enjoyed a much improved economic performance in the nineties. The nineties was the first decade that Australia’s average GDP per capita exceeded that of the OECD’s. This performance owes much to Australian government’s micro economic reforms, including labor market reform, financial market reform and a significant pick up in productivity growth.
This, together with an emphasis on market liberalization, transparency and disinterested regulatory structures, has lead to a more internationally competitive, dynamic and flexible market economy. The explosion, over the past three decades, in world trade, one of the driving and most dramatic forces of globalization, initially largely passed Australia by. However, Australia at the end of the Nineties had increased its export/imports, which during the sixties made up 28% of GDP as against 42% at the end of the nineties.
The world is divided broadly between countries that are well integrated into, and committed to, the evolving norms of the global economy, and countries that are either being left behind by, or may seek to challenge the norms of the emerging global order. The first group is composed of about 80-100 countries that share a Commitment to some form of democracy, open trade and collaborative security ties led by the United States, which economy has long been the most open in the world and the most dynamic and innovative during the 1990’s.
Threats to international trade jeopardize the trend to even Greater globalization – regarded as one of the foundations of the economic miracle over the past half-century. The US needs to and must continue to keep its markets open. The U. S. must demonstrate, by example that it is prepared to take politically awkward steps to uphold free trade; Both Europeans and the United States are beset by issues relating to agricultural subsidies that in their respective Countries are extremely political and are inhibitors to the multilateral trade system.
In the current political climate, Australia and other governments are inclined to give priority to bi-lateral and regional trade agreements. The united states and the European Union have been active in pursuing bi-lateral trade agreements and china, amongst other nations, are concluding number of key bi-lateral trade agreements.. Such bi-lateral and regional trade arrangements could well serve as building blocks for the multi lateral system, however, only if they are consistent with board world Trade Organization principles.
Some five years of disappointing progress on multi-lateral trade negotiations does not appear to have slowed the increasingly powerful world trade dynamic. Perhaps, given trade barriers may already be low enough. The hyper speed of information technology enabled connectivity is a main catalyst to provide multi national corporations with new options to cope with increasingly intense Competitive pressures.
An Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) study on the economic consequences of terrorism concluded that tighter security requirements had raised the cost of transporting goods and caused delays. Also, that study stated that volumes of international trade were acutely sensitive to even Small rises in cost. According to Trevor C. Rowe, the new global obsession with security, in the wake of the September 11 in the United States, the Spanish, Bali and London attacks, could damage long term economic growth, if carried too far.
Vincent koen, senior economist at the OECD, was recently quoted as Saying: “if you want a fortress, if you think you can insulate yourself from terrorism, it will be very costly for the economy and probably not very successful in the end. ” More so, the Organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) report “securing opposition may hurt growth” Also, of course, the increases in public and private spending on Security, risks diverting funds from investment in productive capability, raising the cost of capital and wages and diverting funds and research towards military projects.
This trend could erode, or has already, the “peace dividend” which followed the end of the cold War. Australia and the United States trend productivity surge 3 over the Past decade has not been duplicated in other major industrial Countries. Barriers to reform suggest the productivity gap will persist for the foreseeable future, impacting asset markets and income growth. Perhaps even more striking is the disparity between the Australian and United States performance and the rest of the industrial world, where trend productivity has not accelerated.
This gap likely reflects entrenched difference in regulatory practices and institutions that influence labor, goods and capital market flexibility. As such, it probably will persist, resulting in lasting disparities in income growth, wealth accumulation and asset market performance. Robert Rubin (former secretary of the US treasury) recently pointed out that whilst globalization has, on balance, contributed greatly to economic world well-being; it has also created social, economic and cultural dislocations for many millions of people.
Though the absolute number of those living in poverty worldwide has fallen, he said, it is still vastly too high, and the imbalance often foments resentment, anger, hopelessness, and despair, which may create environments that are hospitable to terrorism. CONCLUSION: We need to reflect on the goods that globalization has impacted in us and become forums for engagement with new realities as the Greek opposition leader George Papandreou has argued in his recent open democracy interview. Terrorism is frightening and dangerous.
Its threats are not to be lightly dismissed. On the contrary, it needs to be taken seriously and not used for short-term political advantage. The challenge is to develop a broad, large-minded and principled response that isolates terrorists and shows them that democracy can deliver. In a nutshell, it is well known that globalization, poverty, terrorism and geopolitical instability are inextricably intertwined, but the significance of their three international comparisons of productivity growth, the role of information technology and regulatory practices.
Correlation has “not really taken hold” and “become truly integral to our thinking. ” in a context of creating a better world through world economies, it may be appropriate for the developed countries, together with, for example, oil exporters, to create a similar plan as to the united States’ marshal plan’ which was implemented post world war ii, to rebuild war torn Europe.
If the well developed industrial nations, oil exporters, etc. , contributed a modest percentage of their GDP for foreign assistance, this could go a long way to having a positive impact on the world’s population, where roughly half the world’s population lives on under two dollars a day, you could provide them with shelter, medical assistance, education, jobs and consequently happy!
philanthropy, for example, the bill and Melinda gates foundation, amongst others, is playing a global role in addressing socioeconomic issues, however, governments need to do more and increase foreign assistance to ensure we create a better world through globalization and that the benefits thereof are equitably shared, instead of seeing globalization as a tool for terrorist attach in the globe. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. In defining “terrorism,” as with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied. “
Terrorism” is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning. “Terrorism” is a word used so often and so loosely that it has lost a clear meaning. Bibliography: 1. Globalization and Terrorism: Articles http://www. globalenvision. org/library/8/703/ 2. Globalisation’s contribution to a better world Trevor C. Rowe Bond University, This paper is posted at [email protected] University. < http://epublications. bond. edu. au/chanc pubs/2> 3. How to define Globalization < http://www. allacademic. com/meta/p98917_index. html> 4. Terrorism Definition < www. therationalradical. com/desp/otheSample Essay of AssignmentExpert.com