VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
SEC/451 Watch Me First: Week 3
ID: 02-VIDEO-55b968badd7d628011be4108
Watch Me First
RECORDED ON
Aug 12, 2015
COPYRIGHT
SEC/451 Watch Me First: Week 3
Transcript
2015
CATEGORY
Speakers: Instructor
Criminal Justice and Security
TAGS
SEC/451, Global Security Issues,
Security, BSSEC, Watch Me First
INSTRUCTOR: Welcome to week three in the discussion of global crime in international
police organizations. Globalization affects all aspects of social life so its influence on crime
should not come as a surprise.
From the perspective of an international criminal organization, globalization offers
opportunities to expand into new markets previously unavailable. Free market economies
are often the biggest victims of international crime.
Whether we talk about counterfeit Gucci purses, fake Rolex watches, or pirated DVDs
found in many back alley markets, the price of international crime burdens the consumer.
International crime is also challenging global human security through the drug trade,
human trafficking, piracy, and the depletion of the world’s natural resources.
The import and export of weapons is big business to numerous countries around the world,
often amounting to billions of dollars in revenue. Arms trading has been the center of more
than one scandal within the United States.
Developing nations continue to be the biggest arms purchasers, ironic since these
developing nations also receive the greatest amount of aid from non-state actors. The
threat of a terrorist group obtaining weapons of mass destruction is deemed by some
security experts as not a matter of if but when they can obtain these weapons.
The battle against proliferation is a central focus for both state and peaceful non-state
actors. Dual use technology, technology which can be used for both commercial and
military uses, further complicates the debate as seen with the Iran nuclear talks.
To effectively combat international crime, nations are placing greater emphasis on police
organizations to leverage the knowledge and resources of the international community.
Domestic law enforcement agencies like the federal bureau of investigation and the drug
enforcement administration are expanding offices internationally for greater coordination,
liaison, and operations.
© University of Phoenix 2015
SEC/451 Watch Me First: Week 3
Page 1
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
The increase in international crime and global threats like terrorism put an immense strain
on security forces. When these public security forces step outside of the domestic arena
into international settings, they often receive scrutiny.
This has been experienced by the CIA and FBI over their extraordinary rendition practices
in combatting international terrorism.
As the threats increase, so does the need for trained personnel to supplement public
security forces. When developing nations require experts to train their local security forces,
guard their leaders, or patrol their borders, many are turning to private security to offset the
increasing demand.
[End of Audio]
© University of Phoenix 2015
SEC/451 Watch Me First: Week 3
Page 2
CHAPTER 6 Weapons Proliferation The proliferation of small arms fuels global conflicts
and global crime and threatens human security.
INTRODUCTION Inextricably linked to wars is the proliferation of weapons. Throughout
history, human beings have used weapons deliberately designed to inflict maximum
damage on their enemies. Ancient warriors regarded the catapult as the ultimate
weapon of mass destruction. It was the sturdy springboard that hurled flaming missiles,
diseased corpses, lethal arrows, and various projectiles over castle walls and into
enemy territory.1 The invention of gunpowder and the cannon marked another
improvement in weapons of mass destruction. Biological weapons, and the terror they
create, were also used during the American Revolutionary War by the British to prevent
the colonies from gaining independence. Smallpox, which killed around 130,000 North
Americans, was deliberately spread by British forces. General George Washington,
aware that the British had infected Native Americans who threatened Fort Pitt,
instructed the U.S. Postal Service to dip letters from Boston in vinegar to kill any germs.
Smallpox devastated the Colonies because most people had not developed immunity to
the disease. Furthermore, dislocations during the war facilitated the spread of smallpox.
Armies going through towns, populations migrating to escape conflict, and demobilized
soldiers became effective transmitters of the disease.2 During the American Civil War,
Dr. Luke Blackburn, a Southern sympathizer, arrived in Bermuda, which was being
devastated by a yellow fever epidemic, claiming to be a specialist on the disease. Dr.
Blackburn secretly collected victims’ clothing, blankets, sheets, and poultices and put
them into three trunks to be shipped to Canada and then to New York. His objective
was to initiate a yellow fever epidemic in Northern cities. The plot was eventually
discovered by spies loyal to the United States.3 Diseases as weapons of mass
destruction have a long history. smallpox Disease that killed approximately 130,000
North Americans during the Revolutionary War; deliberately spread by British forces
National defense has been the largely unquestioned dominant priority of governments
throughout the world, and the development and deployment of weapons of mass
destruction have been routinely justified on the grounds of national security.
Competition among nations engenders arms races that directly contribute to the global
proliferation of the most destructive weapons. As the frontiers of military technology
advance, states attempt to maintain or enhance their relative position in the hierarchies
of regional and global power.4 However, as we pointed out in Chapter 2, the struggle for
primacy among nations is complicated by the forces of globalization. Although weapons
of mass destruction have long been a leading global issue, global terrorism has
heightened concerns about the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons. However, this chapter shows that while such weapons are potentially
catastrophic, small arms and light weapons are actually being used today as weapons
of mass destruction. The chapter concludes with a case study of countries that
abandoned nuclear weapons programs because of the belief that their security and
other national interests would be enhanced without them. THE PROLIFERATION OF
WEAPONS Competition for power among groups and nation-states essentially
guaranteed advancements in military technology and the spread of new and more
destructive weapons. A basic problem with efforts to reduce the proliferation of weapons
is that individuals embrace the Hobbesian worldview, which places the constant
struggle for power and dominance at the center of international relations. Many
countries, especially the dominant powers, champion promoting nonproliferation
regimes, but they generally remain committed to protecting their own national security
interests primarily by developing even more deadly weapons and transferring more
destructive weapons to their allies. Countries such as the United States, Russia,
France, China, and Britain often resist global efforts to restrain their weapons sales.
Nonproliferation efforts are undermined by the globalization of weapons production and
trade. Modern nonproliferation efforts have generally concentrated on weapons of mass
destruction, principally nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Hobbesian worldview
Places the constant struggle for power and dominance at the center of international
relations Reasons for the Proliferation of Weapons In this section we will briefly
summarize the strategic, economic, and political motivations for proliferation. These
include 1. Superpower Rivalry During the Cold War: Geopolitical considerations
influenced the United States and the Soviet Union to transfer weapons to their
respective allies. For example, both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and
the Warsaw Pact justified the proliferation of weapons in terms of collective selfdefense. 2. Military Burden Sharing: Reluctant to engage in direct military confrontation,
both superpowers provided weapons, technical assistance, and arms production
technologies to their allies so that they could defend themselves. An example of this
was the Nixon Doctrine, which supported weapons transfers to Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan, and other Asian countries.5 Nixon Doctrine Approach announced by U.S.
President Nixon in 1969 shifting more responsibility to allies to contribute to their own
defense military burden sharing When superpowers provide weapons, technical
assistance, and arms production technologies to their allies, they can defend
themselves. 3. Regional Balance of Power: Arms sales are often defended on the
grounds that such transfers contribute to regional stability and diminish the likelihood of
war. 4. Political, Military, and Economic Influence: Given the dependence of the United
States on petroleum supplies from the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia in
particular, arms transfers are instrumental not only in bolstering these countries’ security
but also in enabling the United States to gain and maintain access to these countries’
political, military, and economic elites. 5. Economies of Scale: Many countries export
weapons to obtain resources to finance the development and production of more
advanced weapons. 6. Self-Reliance: Many countries develop their own weapons to
preserve or enhance their independence. 7. Economic Factors: Much of the global
weapons trade is motivated by financial considerations. 8. Ethnic Conflicts: Ethnic
conflicts generate demand for weapons transfers. 9. Authoritarian Regimes:
Governments that rule without the consent of the people generally rely on military force
to exercise control. 10. Global Criminal Activities: Terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling,
money laundering, and other criminal activities stimulate demand for weapons. 11.
Cultural Values: Beliefs in using force to resolve conflicts and the right of individuals to
own weapons contribute to the proliferation of weapons. 12. The Disintegration of the
Soviet Union and the Fall of Communism. Many countries in the Soviet bloc reduced
their armed forces and have excess weapons, especially small arms. The Proliferation
of Small Arms Although nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons pose catastrophic
threats to global security, small arms and light weapons are now instrumental in mass
destruction in many countries around the world. Roughly 300,000 to 500,000 people are
killed every year by small arms and light weapons globally. Small arms and light
weapons, many of them supplied by France, were used in the Rwandan genocide.
Although the United States, Russia, and China are the dominant manufacturers and
exporters of small arms and light weapons, it is estimated that one thousand companies
in ninety-eight countries produce such weapons and that there are 380 million civilian
owners of these weapons worldwide. In practical terms, distinguishing small arms from
light weapons is not very useful. As we mentioned earlier, machetes and other crude
weapons are used to kill people in conflict around the world. In 1997, the United
Nations, realizing the futility of trying to formulate precise definitions of small arms and
light weapons, simply described them collectively as weapons that can be carried by an
individual or transported in light trucks. These weapons include handguns, assault rifles,
machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars, and shoulder-fired missiles. Throughout the
world, the Automat Kalashnikov (AK-47) is the favorite light weapon of governments,
rebel groups, criminals, and terrorists. Designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in the Soviet
Union in 1947 for the Soviet military, the AK-47 has many advantages over the Israelimade Uzi and the U.S.-made M-16. It is relatively inexpensive, widely available, has
only nine moving parts, weighs roughly 10 pounds, has a range of more than 1,000
yards, and fires thirty rounds in just three seconds. The disintegration of the Soviet
Union left many Eastern European countries with large stockpiles of AK-47s, which
found their way onto the global market. These are the weapons most widely used by
both terrorists and Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan.6 Confronted with escalating violence
along the U.S.–Mexico border, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed
that America’s inability to stop U.S. weapons from being smuggled into Mexico fueled
the violence. President Barack Obama was reminded by Mexico’s President Felipe
Calderón that roughly 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico come from the
United States. A U.S. ban on assault rifles expired in 2004, thereby enabling the
virtually unrestricted sale of lethal weapons. The basic argument advanced by the U.S.
National Rifle Association and opponents to laws regulating the sale and ownership of
guns rests on America’s belief that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. In addition to roughly 78,000
gun dealers nationwide, individuals are also permitted to sell assault rifles. Many of the
military-style rifles used in Mexico are sold by dealers in Texas, Arizona, and New
Mexico.7 Although land mines and cluster bombs are often overlooked in discussions
on weapons proliferation, they cause widespread suffering even after wars have ended.
Thousands of innocent civilians are killed each year by these weapons. In fact, both
weapons are deliberately deployed to inflict maximum physical damage and
psychological terror. Millions of land mines have been laid in approximately sixty-two
countries. Advances in technology have made land mines cheaper to produce but
harder and more expensive to find and remove. Global opposition to land mines
culminated in the 1997 Ottawa Treaty that banned land mines. However, major
countries, including the United States, rejected banning these weapons. Although
roughly 111 countries agreed to ban the use of cluster bombs, which are fired from
aircraft and artillery and contain hundreds of bomblets that remain lethal long after the
conflict, the United States, Israel, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and other
military powers have not agreed to ban them. Cluster bombs were used by the United
States and Britain during the invasion of Iraq, by Israel in its conflict with Lebanon, and
by Libya against prodemocracy groups in 2011.8 There are several distinguishing
characteristics that make small arms and light weapons attractive.9 These include 1.
Low Cost: These weapons are relatively inexpensive to produce because of
economies+ of scale and their relatively low level of technological sophistication. 2.
Easy Availability: As we mentioned earlier, there are one thousand companies in ninetyeight countries producing them. 3. Lethality: These deadly weapons provide sufficient
firepower to enable their users to effectively engage military forces and law enforcement
agents. 4. Simplicity and Durability: They often require little training to be used
effectively, are easy to maintain, and are very reliable under difficult environmental
conditions. 5. Portability and Concealability: As you have seen many times, terrorists,
rebel groups, criminals, and others are able to hide these weapons until they decide to
use them. 6. Dual Usage: Small arms and light weapons in many countries are available
to both military and police forces and ordinary civilians. Small arms and light weapons
are transferred in four basic ways: (1) governments transferring weapons to other
governments, (2) government-sanctioned commercial sales, (3) covert deliveries by
governments or private firms with the assistance of governments, and (4) illicit sales.10
Discussions of the nonproliferation of weapons also generally ignore transfers of
conventional weapons, such as heavy artillery, missiles, tanks, aircraft, ships,
submarines, and armored vehicles. Conventional weapons are widely regarded as
acceptable for use in conflicts and are responsible for mass destruction in many
countries. Given the lethality of both conventional weapons and small arms and light
weapons and their routine use in conflicts, separating them from potentially catastrophic
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons is largely a matter of semantics. conventional
weapons Regular weapons used in military conflict, including heavy artillery, missiles,
tanks, aircraft, ships, submarines, and armored vehicles THE PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS As the brutal war raged across the Pacific between the United
States and Japan, scientists at the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico were
developing the first atomic bomb. By July 16, 1945, the bomb was successfully tested
near Alamogordo, New Mexico. The destructive power of this weapon, clearly
recognized by its creators, became a reality when the American B-29 bomber, the Enola
Gay, piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets, dropped the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little
Boy, on Hiroshima, Japan, at 8:16 A.M. on August 6, 1945. A blinding flash of white light
was followed by a huge fireball of several million degrees centigrade that vaporized
people and buildings. Radioactive “black rain” and fires left roughly 130,000 people
dead or injured and 70,000 buildings (out of a total of 76,000) destroyed or severely
damaged. Three days later, a much more powerful atomic bomb, nicknamed Fat Man,
was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, killing or injuring around 100,000 people.11 The
nuclear age revolutionized warfare. These weapons of mass destruction could literally
destroy our planet. America’s nuclear monopoly was challenged by the Soviet Union,
which developed its own atomic weapon in 1949. Britain became a nuclear power in
1952, followed by France in 1960 and China in 1964. Hiroshima Japanese city on which
the United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb, killing 130,000 people and
causing unprecedented destruction. The nuclear age was accompanied by the
emerging Cold War, a reality that underscored the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The
Soviet Union began building long-range bombers that could reach the United States.
Concerned about the bomber gap between the two superpowers, America escalated its
own military build-up. It successfully tested a new and more powerful weapon, the
hydrogen bomb (also known as a thermonuclear bomb), only to be followed by the
Soviet Union nine months later (in 1953). Taking advantage of captured German
technology on rocketry and German scientists, the Soviets began mass production of
medium-range ballistic missiles in 1955. In 1957, the Soviet Union shocked the world in
general and the United States in particular with the launching of Sputnik, the world’s first
artificial satellite. Using the same rocket engines that shot Sputnik into orbit, the Soviets
fired an intercontinental missile over a range of 5,000 miles,12 clearly demonstrating the
Soviet Union’s ability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. The United
States, determined to close the missile gap and to prevent the Soviet Union from
gaining nuclear superiority, developed a wide range of nuclear weapons. This nuclear
arms race created what Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill called a mutual
balance of terror. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could launch nuclear
weapons against the other without suffering catastrophic consequences itself. The
awesome destructiveness of nuclear weapons actually deterred countries from using
them. The concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) emanated from the reality that
a nuclear exchange between the superpowers would be suicidal.13 bomber gap During
the Cold War, the Soviet Union began building long-range bombers that could reach the
United States; the United States did not yet have this capability. Sputnik The world’s
first artificial satellite created by the Soviet Union mutual balance of terror Situation
during the Cold War nuclear arms race in which neither the United States nor the Soviet
Union could launch nuclear weapons against the other without suffering catastrophic
consequences itself MAD The reality that a nuclear exchange between the superpowers
would be suicidal In addition to providing security through deterrence, nuclear weapons
are also perceived as enhancing a country’s global status, strengthening its sovereignty,
and enabling it to intimidate other countries. A major concern about nuclear proliferation
is that the larger the group of countries possessing them, the more likely it is that some
countries will deliberately or accidentally start a nuclear war. A hallmark of the Cold War
was the restraint exercised by the superpowers. They emphasized deterrence and the
development of a system of command and control. The major exception to this was the
Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. When the United States discovered that the
Soviet Union had nuclear missiles in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy implemented a
naval blockade of Cuba and demanded that the Soviet Union withdraw its missiles. The
crisis ended October 28 when the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Premier Nikita
S. Krushchev, agreed to withdraw the missiles immediately in exchange for ending the
blockade, a U.S. pledge to not invade Cuba, and the removal of U.S. missiles from
Turkey. By contrast, nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan have not implemented
institutional safeguards to prevent accidental nuclear war. Furthermore, unlike the
United States and the Soviet Union, which were allies in two world wars, India and
Pakistan have engaged in military conflicts since their creation in 1947. In the following
section, we will briefly discuss examples of nuclear proliferation. Cuban missile crisis
Soviet missiles in Cuba took the world to the brink of nuclear war between the
superpowers China and Japan America’s use of nuclear weapons against Japan and
the subsequent nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union
influenced China to develop its own nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attacks and to
inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy. China’s policy of minimum deterrence called
for potential retaliatory strikes against large value targets, such as major cities. Unlike
global powers, such as the United States and the Soviet Union, China perceived itself
more as a regional power that had to develop sufficient nuclear power to be taken
seriously by the major countries. Most of its nuclear weapons are short and medium
range, which are suitable for use in Eurasia. However, China has developed a smaller
number of intercontinental nuclear weapons that are capable of hitting targets in the
United States. It accepted international restraints on its nuclear weapons activity in 1996
by signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which limits the right of countries to
conduct nuclear weapons tests. minimum deterrence Calls for potential retaliatory
strikes against large-value targets Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Treaty that limits the
right of countries to conduct nuclear weapons tests Several factors have contributed to
China’s decision to become a more robust nuclear power. As we saw in our discussion
of the rise and fall of great powers in Chapter 2, economic success often fuels military
growth and changes how countries perceive their position in the global system relative
to that of dominant powers. China’s rapid economic growth is undoubtedly influencing it
to acquire greater military power. From the perspective of power transition theory,
discussed in Chapter 2, China is likely to challenge the United States for global
leadership. Another factor contributing to China’s modernization of its nuclear weapons
is the nuclear capability of both the United States and Russia. China would like to have
an effective nuclear deterrence against both countries, especially in light of America’s
efforts to build a missile defense system that would lessen its own vulnerability to
nuclear attacks while leaving other countries vulnerable to nuclear attacks. An important
component of China’s concerns is the United States’ strong support for Taiwan. These
concerns were diminished following the election of a more pro-China government in
Taiwan in 2008. Furthermore, China’s reassessment of its nuclear capabilities is
influenced by the emergence of India and Pakistan, neighboring countries, as nuclear
powers.14 power transition theory Stresses that the distribution-of-power changes in
countries will rise and fall Although Japan, the only country against which nuclear
bombs were used, does not have nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation in Asia, among
other factors, has heightened concerns about Japan’s rise as a nuclear power.
Influenced by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and forced demilitarization by the
United States as the occupying power, Japan adopted a policy of pacifism, which
rejected owning, producing, or allowing nuclear weapons to be placed on its territory. In
fact, the Japanese Constitution, written by the United States during the occupation
(1945–1952), prohibits Japan from having an army and from using military force to
resolve disputes. However, Japan’s emergence as a global economic and technological
power has enabled it to acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Japan, which
relies heavily on nuclear energy, has enough plutonium and uranium to construct
thousands of nuclear weapons. Japan’s space program enables it to rapidly convert its
rockets into missile launchers. North Korea’s decision to test a ballistic missile that flew
over Japan in 1998, China’s rising military power, the nuclearization of India and
Pakistan, and growing doubts among Japanese leaders about America’s commitment to
Japan’s security have all contributed to increased public support in Japan for developing
nuclear weapons.15 However, nuclear radiation from the nuclear power plant that was
damaged in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami reminded many Japanese of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki and reinforced their ambivalence about building nuclear weapons. policy
of pacifism Japan’s decision to not own, produce, or allow nuclear weapons on its
territory India and Pakistan Although India’s disputes with Pakistan played a pivotal role
in its development of nuclear weapons, to understand the emergence of the second
nuclear age in Asia we need to briefly examine India’s perception of its position in
contemporary global society. As we discussed in Chapter 1, an earlier period of
globalization that was marked by European expansion into Asia, the Americas, and
Africa heralded what many developing countries, including India, perceived as an
unequal distribution of power. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Asian countries
represents a direct challenge to the world order constructed by Europeans. It is widely
believed that both India and China, with combined populations representing a third of
humanity and rapidly growing economies, are rising powers that view military strength
as an essential component of global power. Based on their historical as well as
contemporary experience, these countries have concluded that military might enables
Europeans and Americans to shape the global economic, cultural, and political system.
When the Portuguese, led by Vasco da Gama, arrived in India in 1498, Indians began
their long experience of colonization by Europeans who had superior military
technology. India’s status as a nuclear power marks what has been called a post–Vasco
da Gama era.16 Vasco da Gama Portuguese explorer who arrived in India in 1498
Fueled by nationalism and a determination to reject the virtual nuclear weapons
monopoly enjoyed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, India
believes nuclear nonproliferation is not in its national interest. From India’s perspective,
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and
other similar agreements are not really about nuclear disarmament. Instead, they are
designed to ratify the nuclear status quo.17 Shortly after gaining independence in 1947,
India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, advocated ending all nuclear testing. In
1962, China and India briefly fought each other over a disputed border. As we
mentioned earlier, China became a nuclear power in 1964, a development that
influenced India to focus on becoming a nuclear power. Although India declared its
continued commitment to nuclear disarmament, it refused to sign the nuclear NPT. By
1974, the world learned that India had conducted its first nuclear test. Jawaharlal Nehru
India’s first prime minister; advocated ending all nuclear testing Pakistan, a country
formed in opposition to India, was clearly worried by its rival’s nuclear capabilities and
was determined to counteract India’s power by developing nuclear weapons. As we will
discuss in Chapter 11, global migration contributes to the globalization of scientific
knowledge. In an effort to develop their own enriched uranium for their nuclear power
industry and lessen their dependence on the United States, several European
countries—Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands—concluded the Treaty of Almelo in
1970. This agreement led to the establishment of the Uranium Enrichment Company
(Urenco) in 1971 in the Netherlands. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist, was
employed as a metallurgist by Physics Dynamic Research Laboratory, a subcontractor
working with Urenco. Khan had access to top-secret information. Following India’s
nuclear test, Khan stole the blueprints of the world’s best centrifuges, hollow metal
tubes that spin very fast to enrich natural uranium into bomb fuel, and returned to
Pakistan to develop a nuclear bomb.18 Known as the “father” of Pakistan’s bomb, Khan
admitted helping Iran, North Korea, and Libya obtain centrifuge parts, thereby
contributing to nuclear proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program was aided by
China and essentially condoned by the United States. In 1998, the world faced the
dawn of the second nuclear age as India, followed shortly by Pakistan, detonated
nuclear bombs in underground tests. Both countries remain committed to building more
sophisticated nuclear weapons. By June 2004, India and Pakistan retreated from their
belligerent positions, which had brought them to the brink of war in January 2002, and
held talks on ways to diminish the possibility of an outbreak of a nuclear war between
them. Significant steps have been taken to reduce tensions, including cricket matches,
bilateral talks, and encouraging transportation links between parts of Kashmir controlled
by the two countries. However, growing political unrest in Pakistan raises global
concerns about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the dangers posed by
terrorists’ access to them and to nuclear material. Furthermore, increased nuclear
cooperation between the United States and India, on one hand, and a growing nuclear
cooperation between China and Pakistan, on the other hand, cannot be assuring.
Treaty of Almelo International agreement that led to the establishment of the Urenco in
1971 in the Netherlands The Middle East The proliferation of nuclear weapons as well
as efforts to obtain nuclear weapons in the Middle East cannot be separated from the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in
1952, built its nuclear arsenal preemptively but also sought to counter the conventional
military power of the neighboring Arab states that threatened to destroy it.19 In other
words, nuclear weapons are viewed by Israel as a deterrent. Although Israel is widely
recognized as a significant nuclear power, with roughly two hundred nuclear weapons, it
has not ratified the nuclear NPT, which allows the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) of the United Nations to monitor nuclear weapons activities. Israel, India, and
Pakistan have not committed themselves to pursuing negotiations to end the nuclear
arms race or to move toward nuclear disarmament because of their refusal to ratify the
NPT. Unlike India and Pakistan, which are declared nuclear powers, Israel, under its
policy of nuclear ambiguity, does not confirm or deny its nuclear capacity. Israel
confirmed this position during a visit to that country in June 2004 by Mohamed
ElBaradei, the director of the IAEA, as part of a larger effort to move toward a nuclearfree Middle East. However, Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician who
worked on Israel’s nuclear weapons, revealed the extent of Israel’s nuclear arsenal in
1986 when he provided photographs and details of Israel’s reactor near the town of
Dimona to the Sunday Times of London. Lured by a female agent of the Mossad,
Israel’s spy agency, to travel from London to meet her in Italy, Vanunu was kidnapped
by the Mossad, transported to Israel, and held in solitary confinement for most of the
eighteen years he was imprisoned. Following his release from prison in April 2004,
Israeli officials continued to be fearful that Vanunu would disclose new details of Israel’s
nuclear program and draw attention to it. In April 2008, Ben-Ami Kadish, an American,
admitted that he had leaked between fifty and a hundred secret U.S. government
documents on nuclear arms, missiles, and fighter jets to the Israeli government during
the early 1980s. Israel is a nuclear power.20 NPT International treaty allowing the IAEA
of the United Nations to monitor global nuclear weapons activities policy of nuclear
ambiguity Israel’s decision to not confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons Mossad
Israeli spy agency As we have seen so far, nuclear proliferation is often fueled by fear of
countries that already have nuclear weapons or have the technological capability to
produce them. Jonathan Schell pointed out that “every nuclear arsenal is linked to every
other nuclear arsenal in the world by powerful ties of terror and response.”21 Iraq, Iran,
and Libya have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, partly due to the security
dynamics of the Middle East, just as India developed nuclear weapons out of concerns
about China’s military power. Iranian officials, for example, justify their efforts to secure
nuclear weapons on the grounds that Israel, India, and Pakistan have the nuclear bomb.
Iran, while allowing the IAEA to conduct limited inspections of its nuclear facilities, in
accordance with the NPT, remains committed to pursuing nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. However, Iran’s ability to produce its own enriched uranium was
generally perceived as enabling it to become a nuclear power.22 Furthermore, Russia’s
involvement in building nuclear facilities in Iran and Iran’s ability to purchase weapons
designs, technical knowledge, and sophisticated technology on the global market
strengthened its capacity to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea Widely known as
the Hermit Kingdom because of its largely self-imposed isolation from the global
community, North Korea emphasizes building a strong military to protect its interests. As
we mentioned earlier, North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile over Japan in 1998,
clearly demonstrating its ability to launch a military strike against that country.
Furthermore, North Korea remains a Communist state and continues to concentrate its
military power along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that divides the Korean peninsula.
Despite North Korea’s admission that it is a nuclear power, the United States refrained
from attacking it. In light of America’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq, North Korea’s
leader Kim Jong Il stressed his country’s nuclear capability to deter the United States
from taking military action against it. North Korea, with close ties to China, has long
been regarded as having nuclear ambitions. It has also played a significant role in
weapons proliferation by providing ballistic missile technology and missiles to Iraq, Iran,
Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. North Korea has also received nuclear technology
from Pakistan. Hermit Kingdom Label given to North Korea due to its largely selfimposed isolation from the global community Kim Jong Il Current leader of North Korea
North Korea’s determination to produce nuclear weapons created a crisis with the
United States in 1993–1994. American officials considered the option of bombing North
Korea’s nuclear facilities but decided that the consequences of doing so would be
catastrophic for both North Korea and South Korea. Instead of taking military action, the
United States negotiated an agreement with North Korea that required North Korea to
cease operating its plutonium reprocessing plant. In exchange, the United States and its
allies agreed to put two light-water reactors in North Korea and to provide enough heavy
fuel oil to compensate for lost energy from its nuclear production power plants while
these reactors were being constructed.23 In January 2003, North Korea restarted its
nuclear power plants, terminated inspections by the IAEA, and asked the inspectors to
leave the country. North Korea’s production of plutonium for nuclear bombs and its
rejection of the nuclear NPT occurred at the height of America’s global efforts to prevent
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Partly due to pressure from China,
Japan, Russia, and South Korea, the United States decided to negotiate with North
Korea to resolve the conflict over nuclear weapons. In exchange for dismantling its
plutonium and uranium weapons programs, permitting international inspectors to
examine suspected nuclear sites, and dismantling and shipping its nuclear technology
out of the country, the United States, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea would
supply North Korea with heavy fuel oil, retrain the scientists involved in nuclear
weapons programs, and lift economic sanctions, and the United States would agree not
to invade the country.24 North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear program and to
comply with the NPT. In exchange, the United States and the other countries agreed to
provide energy assistance to and promote economic cooperation with North Korea. The
United States also agreed to refrain from attacking North Korea and to normalize
relations. Despite these efforts, negotiations ended, and North Korea continues to build
nuclear weapons and to test long-range missiles. AMERICA’S NUCLEAR RESPONSE
TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION As the war against terrorism intensified and as
countries such as India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya demonstrated an
interest in strengthening their nuclear capabilities or acquiring nuclear weapons, the
United States increased its efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Simultaneously, however, the Bush administration sent Congress its
Nuclear Posture Review, in which it advocated a revitalized nuclear weapons complex
capable of designing, developing, manufacturing, and certifying new nuclear warheads
in response to emerging global threats. In sharp contrast to the traditional reluctance to
advocate actually using nuclear weapons, the United States embraced the
unprecedented view that nuclear warheads could be used preemptively against
potential or actual adversaries. Specifically, the Pentagon regarded the development of
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, a nuclear weapon capable of hitting reinforced
concrete bunkers as deep as 40 feet underground, as an effective deterrent against the
development of weapons of mass destruction by countries as well as terrorist groups.
Such a response to nuclear weapons proliferation is widely perceived as fundamentally
undermining global efforts to prevent other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons to
deter an attack by America. Furthermore, critics of America’s nuclear response believe
that using any type of nuclear weapon “will breach the firewall between conventional
and nuclear war and pose a new threat to world security.”25 Nuclear Posture Review
Bush administration document that advocated a revitalized nuclear weapons complex
capable of designing, developing, manufacturing, and certifying new nuclear warheads
in response to emerging global threats Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Nuclear
weapon capable of hitting reinforced concrete underground bunkers; used as an
effective deterrent against the development of weapons of mass destruction by
countries as well as terrorist groups While the United States pressures countries
regarded as having hostile military intentions not to develop nuclear weapons, it has
pursued an essentially selective policy, ignoring allies such as Israel, Pakistan, and
India that possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the United States’ current nuclear
posture remains basically as it was during the Cold War. The United States seems
oblivious to the fact that its unwillingness to significantly reduce the size of its own
nuclear arsenal in light of the new strategic environment engendered by the end of
military competition with the Soviet Union creates insecurity among vulnerable states.26
Robert S. McNamara, a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, argued that keeping such
large numbers of weapons and maintaining them on hair-trigger alert are potent signs
that the United States was not seriously working toward the elimination of its arsenal
and raised troubling questions as to why any other state should restrain its nuclear
ambitions.27 This perception was challenged by President Barack Obama’s agreement
with President Dmitri A. Medvedev in July 2009 to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear
arsenals by at least one quarter. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, New
START, between the United States and Russia in 2010 cut strategic nuclear warheads
(for both countries) from 2,200 to 1,500 and the number of deployed missiles and
bombers to 700 each. New START The United States and Russia agreed to cut
strategic nuclear warheads, deployed missiles, and bombers CHEMICAL AND
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS Although chemical and biological weapons are often referred
to as though they are indistinguishable, in this section we will discuss them separately.
Chemical weapons are extremely toxic and can be dispersed as a gas, vapor, liquid, or
aerosol or absorbed onto a fine talcum-like powder to create “dusty” agents.28
Chemical weapons are generally classified based on their effects. Categories include
chemical weapons Weapons that are dispersed as a gas, vapor, liquid, or aerosol or are
absorbed; generally classified based on their effects 1. Checking agents, which destroy
lung tissue, such as chlorine phosgene; 2. Blood agents, which interfere with cellular
respiration and include toxins such as hydrogen cyanide; 3. Blister agents, such as
mustard gas, which cause severe burns to the skin and lungs; and 4. Nerve agents,
such as sarin gas, that disrupt nerve impulse transmission and cause death by
respiratory paralysis.29 Chemical weapons cause damage within minutes or hours.
Some chemical agents, such as sarin gas, disperse relatively fast, whereas others, such
as sulfur, mustard, and VX nerve agent, continue to be highly toxic for days or weeks.
Contrary to general assumptions about the ease with which chemical weapons can be
used by terrorist organizations and countries, most chemical agents are extremely
difficult and dangerous to work with and relatively hard to weaponize. Nevertheless,
chemical weapons have been used, and several countries have them or are attempting
to acquire them. Viruses from research labs could be used by terrorists. SARS
specimens are used here at the Special Pathogens Branch of the Center for Disease
Control. Although countries have attempted to use chemicals in conflicts throughout
history, chemical weapons were introduced into modern warfare on a massive scale by
Germany during World War I. The Germans used chlorine gas against the allies in 1915
and mustard gas later on. But both sides soon realized that the consequences of these
chemical weapons were extremely difficult to control. Wind speeds and wind direction
determined the dispersal of chemicals on the battlefields, rendering it virtually
impossible to predict which side would suffer greater casualties from their usage.
Experiences with chemical weapons during World War I restrained Europeans from
using them in World War II, despite large stockpiles that were developed by both sides.
In Asia, however, Japan employed chemical weapons against China. As part of the
arms race between the superpowers, chemical weapons were produced on a massive
scale by the Soviet Union, the United States, and other countries. Contemporary
debates about weapons of mass destruction often obscure the role of the superpowers
in accelerating the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The
United States used Agent Orange, an extremely toxic chemical spray, to defoliate
forests in Vietnam in its war against the Vietcong forces. As we will discuss in Chapter
12, the United States routinely uses chemicals in Colombia and elsewhere in South
America to destroy coca crops as part of its war on drugs. Usage of these chemicals
that poison the environment and threaten public health is strongly opposed by many
groups and members of the European Union. Agent Orange Extremely toxic chemical
spray; used to defoliate forests in Vietnam in its war against the Vietcong forces Far
more controversial is America’s role in enabling Iraq to acquire chemical weapons.
During the Iraq–Iran war (1980–1988), the United States and pro-American countries
such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan viewed Iraq as a bulwark against the spread
of radical and militant Shiite fundamentalism from Iran. Consequently, the
administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the
sale of toxic chemicals to Iraq that were weaponized to strengthen Iraq’s defenses
against “human wave” attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. It was widely known that Iraq,
under Saddam Hussein, routinely used chemical weapons against the Iranians, the
Kurds, and others.30 In the context of instability in the Middle East, the United States
perceived Iraq as a valuable ally and ignored Hussein’s chemical warfare until Iraq
invaded Kuwait in 1990. As we mentioned earlier in this chapter, using biological
weapons in conflicts has deep historical roots. Biological weapons are composed of
living microorganisms and toxins that are capable of causing fatal diseases such as
smallpox, plague, and hemorrhagic fever. Anthrax spores delivered to U.S. government
offices through the U.S. postal service shortly after the terrorist attack in 2001
underscored the threat posed by biological weapons. In response to threats posed by
anthrax, the U.S. government passed legislation in 2004, known as Project Bioshield, to
provide funding for American drug companies to enable them to develop a vaccine
against anthrax. Although biological agents such as anthrax cannot be transmitted from
an infected person to others, smallpox, as we discussed earlier, is highly contagious
and could be easily spread around the world, thereby creating a pandemic. Although
biological weapons agents can be developed by a country or nonstate organization that
produces vaccines, antibiotics, feed supplements, and fermented beverages, there are
only two significant cases in which they were used in the twentieth century. These are
the German efforts during World War I to infect livestock and contaminate animal feed
to be exported from neutral countries to Allied forces and Japan’s deployment of
biological weapons against China during World War II.31 The globalization of
biotechnology and endemic military conflicts combine to influence countries to acquire
biological weapons. Russia, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Israel, and Syria are among the
countries suspected of having such weapons. Until the 1991 Persian Gulf War,
companies in the United States and France were instrumental in enabling Iraq to
develop tons of biological weapons. Specifically, the American Type Culture of
Manassas, Virginia, and the Pasteur Institute in Paris provided germ samples to Iraq.32
biological weapons Weapons composed of living microorganisms and toxins capable of
causing fatal diseases Project Bioshield U.S. legislation provided funding for American
drug companies to develop a vaccine against anthrax NONPROLIFERATION
REGIMES For more than fifty years, the global community has cooperated to construct
a nonproliferation regime, which is defined as an interlocking network of treaties,
agreements, and organizations designed to prevent the spread or use of weapons of
mass destruction.33 Although building the nonproliferation regime is clearly a global
effort, the United States, as a dominant power after World War II, provided
indispensable leadership. However, inconsistent and outright contradictory American
foreign policies often undermine attempts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. For
example, the United States has largely ignored nuclear ambitions of allies such as Israel
and Pakistan. Furthermore, American embrace of unilateralism has weakened its
commitment to supporting international arms control agreements, even as it places a
greater emphasis on developing new weapons and a missile defense system.
Nevertheless, counterproliferation remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. During
the Clinton administration, the U.S. Department of Defense stressed what it called the
“8 D’s” of the nonproliferation regime: dissuasion, disarmament, diplomacy, denial,
defusing, deterrence, defenses, and destruction.34 Dissuasion is an attempt to
convince countries to refrain from acquiring unconventional weapons in exchange for
security guarantees. Disarmament involves agreements to prevent proliferation, such as
the NPT. Diplomacy is instrumental in convincing countries to terminate their weapons
programs. Diplomacy has been successful in many cases, including Belarus, Ukraine,
Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and Libya. Denial deals with enforcing stricter
international controls on exports of sensitive technologies and materials. Defusing
concentrates on preventing hair-trigger alert postures and securing weapons.
Deterrence is based on the threat of retaliation. Defenses range from providing
chemical suits, inhalation masks, and vaccines for the population to missile defense.
Destruction of weapons facilities and weapons is a preemptive act. Nuclear
Nonproliferation Realizing the destructiveness of the bombs dropped on Japan in World
War II and aware of the military and strategic stalemate engendered by the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, the United States and the Soviet Union, the dominant nuclear
powers, collaborated with Britain, France, and China (the other nuclear powers) to
develop a nuclear nonproliferation regime. An underlying assumption of this regime was
that risks of nuclear war would be diminished by limiting the acquisition of nuclear
weapons to this small group of countries that already possessed them. However, given
the competitive nature of nations, this nuclear monopoly would be challenged. As
George Perkovich observed, to persuade the rest of the world to relinquish its
prerogative to acquire nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons possessors had to do the
following: 1. Promise to abandon their nuclear weapons eventually. 2. Pledge not to use
their weapons to threaten countries that did not possess nuclear weapons. 3. Help
countries that renounced nuclear weapons and accepted international monitoring to
acquire and use nuclear technology for civilian and peaceful purposes. 4. Enhance
global security by ensuring nonnuclear states that their neighbors would be prevented
from becoming nuclear powers.35 These objectives are clearly reflected in the
nonproliferation agreements signed by American presidents. For example, President
Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed creating the IAEA to promote the peaceful uses of
atomic energy. President John F. Kennedy signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty to
terminate nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. President
Lyndon B. Johnson negotiated the nuclear NPT, designed to limit the transfer of nuclear
weapons, nuclear technology, and nuclear materials to other countries, and Presidents
Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan concluded various agreements to
reduce the number of nuclear weapons possessed by the superpowers. As we have
seen, despite progress on nonproliferation between the United States and Russia,
countries such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea became nuclear powers.
Furthermore, in a significant departure from the traditional approach that embraced the
eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, U.S. President George W. Bush concentrated
on preventing enemy nations from acquiring nuclear weapons while ignoring nuclear
ambitions of friendly nations. In December 2001, Bush announced that America would
withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the development, testing,
or deployment of antiballistic missile systems capable of defending entire territories from
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attacks in order to enable the United States to
build a missile defense system. Table 6.1 shows significant nuclear weapons
agreements. Bush advocated developing and preemptively using small nuclear
weapons, known as bunker busters. A nuclear arms agreement signed by President
Bush and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in May 2002 essentially provided the United
States and Russia flexibility to retain as many nuclear weapons as they want. The only
significant restraint on them was that they had to reduce their nuclear warheads to
between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012. At that point the treaty would have
expired, enabling both sides to increase their nuclear weapons. In April 2010, President
Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev signed a New Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty to reduce American and Russian strategic and nuclear arsenals by one third.
The new treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2010.36 Antiballistic
Missile Treaty International treaty prohibiting the development, testing, or deployment of
antiballistic missile systems Curbing Chemical and Biological Weapons An important
component of the nonproliferation regime in relation to chemical weapons was the 1925
Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of biological and chemical weapons in war.
Due partly to the leadership of President Nixon, the United States eventually ratified the
Geneva Protocol in 1975 (during the Ford administration). In 1933, the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the development, acquisition, transfer,
stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons, was signed and ratified by more than 125
countries, including Russia and the United States. The CWC also mandated the
internationally monitored destruction of all chemical stockpiles by 2007. Apart from the
fact that several countries refused to sign the agreement and continued to produce
chemical weapons, most of Russia’s massive arsenal of chemical weapons remain in
storage, partly because Russia lacks adequate resources to destroy them. 1925
Geneva Protocol International treaty that prohibited the use of biological and chemical
weapons in war TABLE 6.1 Major Nuclear Weapons Agreements Date Signed
Agreement August 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. Prohibits nuclear explosions in the
atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. July 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Prohibits countries from transferring nuclear weapons or helping other countries
acquire them. May 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT1). Limited strategic
nuclear missile launchers and missile firing submarines. July 1974 Threshold Test Ban
Treaty. Limited U.S. and Soviet Union underground nuclear weapons tests. December
1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Dismantled all Soviet and American
medium- and short-range land-based missiles. July 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (STARTI). Reduces the number of U.S. and Soviet long-range nuclear warheads
from 11,000 to 6,000. January 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTII).
Requires U.S. and Russia to reduce nuclear warheads and bombs to 3,500 by 2007.
September 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Prohibits all nuclear weapons test
explosions. (Not ratified by the U.S. Senate.) May 2002 U.S.-Russian Nuclear Arms
Treaty. Commits each country to reduce nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200
by the end of 2012. December 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New
START). Cuts strategic nuclear warheads (for both countries) from 2,200 to 1,500, and
the number of deployed missiles and bombers to 700 each. Sources: U.S. State
Department, U.S. Congressional Research Services, and New York Times. The
international regime concerning the nonproliferation of biological weapons began with
the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Although the Protocol abolished the use of biological
weapons in warfare, it enabled many countries to make reservations, attachments to
treaties that allow states to be excluded from the legal effects of certain provisions of
the agreement.37 The Protocol also made compliance with the ban on biological
weapons conditional on reciprocity. President Nixon laid the foundation for
strengthening the nonproliferation regime when he announced in 1969 that the United
States would unilaterally and unconditionally renounce biological weapons and
subsequently ordered the destruction of U.S. weapons stockpiles. Nixon negotiated the
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), an agreement prohibiting the development,
manufacture, and stockpiling of biological weapons.38 The treaty was signed in 1972.
BWC 1972 agreement negotiated by President Nixon prohibiting the development,
manufacture, and stockpiling of biological weapons The 2010 New START between the
United States and Russia was an important step in nuclear nonproliferation by reducing
the countries’ strategic nuclear arsenals by one-third. Signed by President Barack
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Prague castle, it is a successor
to the previous START treaty, which expired. CASE STUDY Countries That Abandoned
Nuclear Weapons Programs Given the reality of mutually assured destruction (MAD)
during the Cold War, when there was intense military rivalry between the United States
and the Soviet Union, both superpowers refrained from using nuclear weapons and
supported nuclear nonproliferation. As more countries acquire nuclear weapons, there
is a greater probability that these weapons will influence neighboring states to also
acquire nuclear weapons for security and other reasons. Under these circumstances,
the likelihood of nuclear war increases, thereby destroying these countries’ security as
well as global security. This problem forced many countries to rethink the logic of
proliferation. Seventeen countries decided to abandon efforts to acquire or retain
nuclear weapons. Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Iraq, Italy, Libya,
Romania, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and Yugoslavia ended their research and
development programs, stopping before they produced nuclear weapons. Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine acquired nuclear weapons as part of the Soviet Union. South
Africa actually had six nuclear weapons but dismantled them when the country ended
apartheid and transitioned to democracy. The end of the Cold War and the
disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 enabled presidents George H.W. Bush and
Bill Clinton to negotiate with Russia and the various countries of the former Soviet Union
to dismantle more than four thousand strategic nuclear weapons. Under the NunnLugar-Domenici Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, named after senators Sam
Nunn, Richard Lugar, and Pete Domenici, the United States provided financial and
technical assistance to these new states to help them denuclearize. Brazil began its
nuclear weapons programs when it was ruled by military dictators in the 1970s. A major
motivation for acquiring nuclear weapons was its historical antagonism with Argentina,
which also had a nuclear weapons program. As the dominant country in South America,
Brazil also saw having nuclear weapons as a way to be recognized as a global leader
and to enhance its international status. Brazil, like other countries that attempted to
acquire nuclear weapons, was threatened with U.S. sanctions. Furthermore, there was
growing emphasis on improving Brazil’s economy. As Brazil transitioned to democracy
and improved relations with Argentina, both countries decided that their security and
international ambitions could be best secured without nuclear weapons. They signed
the Treaty of Tlatelolco, committing them to peaceful nuclear programs and creating a
binational verification program.39 The case of South Africa illustrated how global
developments, ending apartheid, and transitioning to democracy radically altered
perceptions about national security and the utility of nuclear weapons. In an effort to
perpetuate a system of rigid racial separation, discrimination, and white rule (known as
apartheid), South Africa engaged in clandestine relations with other countries to acquire
nuclear weapons. The Cold War and Soviet-Cuban expansion in Africa in support of
countries and groups opposed to the apartheid regime convinced the white minority that
their security would be enhanced with nuclear weapons. Due to unrelenting mass
demonstrations, global pressures, the attention paid to South Africa by the global
media, the end of the Cold War, and new progressive leaders such as F.W. de Klerk,
South Africa ended apartheid through negotiations between the African National
Congress (ANC) and the white minority regime. Nelson Mandela (who had been
imprisoned for twenty-seven years for opposing apartheid) was released, and
democratic elections that brought about majority rule were held. Mandela became South
Africa’s president in 1994. Prior to the transfer of power, the apartheid regime
dismantled six nuclear weapons, partly because it did not want the new black majority
government to have them. South Africa’s integration in the global economy and the
dependence of the white minority on black labor enabled the anti-apartheid groups
around the world to use economic sanctions effectively. Although racial segregation was
central to apartheid, the reality was that blacks and whites interacted daily. Nuclear
weapons could not be used against blacks without destroying whites. Given the
unconventional nature of the armed struggle against apartheid, nuclear weapons were
essentially useless. Faced with a changed global, regional, and domestic environment,
South Africa concluded that it was more secure without nuclear weapons. SUMMARY
AND REVIEW This chapter addressed the dangers of the proliferation of conventional
weapons and weapons of mass destruction. It focused on recent developments in the
proliferation of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. First, we
looked at the dangers involved in the proliferation of specific conventional weapons. We
identified many reasons for the proliferation of conventional weapons, such as
superpower rivalry during the Cold War; government concern with political, military, and
economic influence over other states; the growth of ethnic and national conflicts
throughout the world; and the growth in authoritarian, repressive regimes. Next, we
elaborated on the development of various unconventional weapons, including biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons. In this debate over nuclear weapons, we identified
emerging nuclear powers, such as Israel, North Korea, and Iran. We also identified
many of the efforts made to control the spread and development of all forms of
unconventional weapons (biological, chemical, and nuclear), including the Limited Test
Ban Treaty, the nuclear NPT, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the Geneva Protocol, and
the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions. A major factor influencing other
countries, such as Iran and Korea, to acquire nuclear weapons is America’s reluctance
to reduce its own nuclear weapons. Furthermore, many analysts believe that the United
States pursues a selective policy on nuclear proliferation, ignoring its friends with
nuclear weapons and punishing its enemies who are attempting to acquire weapons. A
major concern is the availability of nuclear weapons materials in parts of the former
Soviet Union.
CHAPTER 12 Global Crime
India’s rapid economic growth has contributed to government corruption by
providing more money and opportunity. For example, due to the theft of billions
of dollars, facilities for the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi were poorly
constructed and not completed on schedule. A woman in India walked past
a poster for the games.
INTRODUCTION
Global crime is intricately intertwined with revolutionary technological, financial,
communications, economic, cultural, and political changes that characterize
globalization, and it is increasingly difficult to separate criminal activities from legitimate
global transactions. Wars and ethnic conflicts create an environment in which crime is
prevalent. When armies are reduced and militias are disbanded after conflicts end,
crime continues. The wars in Central America contributed to the rise of violent gangs
and drug trafficking.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union contributed to the strengthening and unleashing
of criminal organizations that have constructed global networks involved in drug
trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, illegal arms sales, and other criminal
activities. Global crime is also linked to global poverty and inequality, failed states,
global migration, growth of global cities, the expansion of free trade, rapid
communications and computer technologies, and easy global financial transactions.
Criminal activities of government officials facilitate global crime. This chapter examines
the globalization of crime, the perpetual global drug problem, the global smuggling of
migrants, contemporary slavery and human trafficking, criminal gangs and kidnapping,
illegal trade in exotic animals and plants, cybercrimes, piracy, and various global
responses to crime. It concludes with a case study of government corruption in India.
The Globalization of Crime
Global crime has existed with legal commerce for centuries. In fact, crime has been an
integral component of human society. By diminishing the significance of geographic
distance, globalization enables criminal networks to grow alongside legal global
activities and to establish connections within many different countries. As we will
discuss, alliances are common among criminal organizations involved in trafficking in
humans, drugs, weapons, and various illicit products.
Although globalization has contributed to increased economic equality among and
within nations, as Thomas Friedman argues in The World Is Flat, it is widely perceived
as contributing to more inequality. To an unprecedented degree of poignancy,
globalization heightens the awareness of the economic and social disparities between
the rich and the poor within nations and between rich and poor countries. Not only do
poor people perceive themselves as losers in the process of globalization, they have
little incentive to adhere to rules that they perceive to be adverse to their interests. For
example, convincing coca farmers in Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia that they should not
participate in illegal drug production has been difficult. Similarly, small farmers in
Afghanistan continue to produce poppies used to make heroin. The insatiable demand
for illegal drugs in the United States, Western Europe, and elsewhere perpetuates
efforts by drug traffickers to supply drugs. Although organized crime imposes excessive
burdens on society, particularly the poor, many criminal groups, in order to gain political
influence and legitimacy, invest in social services, athletic facilities, housing, and
medical services. These areas have been largely neglected by many governments as
part of the privatization process required by economic globalization. Ultimately, global
crime is integrated into the fabric of these societies and enjoys significant official and
unofficial protection. In some cases, weak institutional capabilities have prevented
governments from reducing global crime. Consequently, there has been an
unprecedented escalation in crimes such as trade in pirated goods, illegal arms, human
trafficking, and illegal drugs.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most important
developments contributing to the emergence and growth of global crime. Rapid political
and economic changes in Eastern and Central European countries further enhanced
opportunities for widespread criminal activities. Exploiting the weakness of the Russian
government, organized criminal groups consolidated their power domestically and built
strategic alliances with global criminal organizations in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Russian criminal groups proliferated throughout Central Europe, in countries
such as the Czech Republic, as successful revolutions against Communism ushered in
social disorganization, poorly guarded national borders, free-market economies, and a
willingness of young people to experiment with drugs. Furthermore, as we discussed
in Chapter 1, the expansion of the European Union (EU) into Central and Eastern
Europe and the removal of many national barriers to the movement of people and
products facilitated the growth of criminal activities.
THE GLOBAL DRUG PROBLEM
From Shanghai to San Francisco, from London to Buenos Aires, in Christian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist societies, in small towns and big cities, and in rich and
poor countries, the use of illegal drugs is a serious problem. Illegal drug use is one of
the most important global issues. No society has managed to escape the consequences
of the global drug trade, largely because the global drug problem is so closely
intertwined with other areas of globalization. The foundations of the contemporary
global drug problem were laid during an earlier period of globalization that was marked
by European expansion, colonization, and trade.
The discoveries of tobacco in the Caribbean, chocolate in South America, coffee in the
Middle East and Africa, and tea in Asia marked the beginning of a global trade that
eventually included opium. The growth of the opium trade was influenced partly by
China’s huge trade advantage with Portugal, Holland, and Britain. Whereas China had
silk, teas, pottery, and other items that Europeans wanted, Europe had little to trade
with China, thereby creating a trade deficit in China’s favor. Europeans, who had
trafficked in opium in parts of Asia, decided to sell it to China in order to reduce the
trade imbalances.1 The British East India Company, for example, paid Asian farmers
to produce opium, which was then sold to independent wholesalers. Opium cultivation in
India grew steadily, and the British pressured China to import it. Chinese resistance to
the importation and consumption of opium ultimately led to the Opium Wars with Britain
in 1839 and 1842, in which Britain forced China to import opium, despite an already
horrendous drug addiction problem in China. British military power was instrumental in
the legalization of opium in China in 1858. The Portuguese, French, Spanish, and Dutch
also participated in the trade, creating opium addicts in their colonies as well as in
Europe. The Spanish, for example, promoted the use of coca leaves to enable enslaved
Indians to endure harsh physical labor. Miners in Peru, for example, continue to chew
coca leaves before going to work. Coca leaves also are widely used legally in Bolivia.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the demand for opium in Europe and America
was on the rise due to several factors. These included
British East India Company
British company that dominated Indian trade
Opium Wars
Fought so that the British could force the opium trade onto the Chinese people
•
•
•
•
•
•
1. The advancement in medical practices, especially the discovery of morphine and
heroin (both obtained from opium) and the invention of the hypodermic needle to
administer them;
2. Significant cultural and economic changes that resulted from the Industrial
Revolution, particularly the consumption of natural stimulants;
3. The migration of Chinese, many of whom used opium, to America and elsewhere;
4. The growth of global trade;
5. The rise of mass consumption habits, influenced by marketing and mass
communication;2 and
6. Military conflicts, including the U.S. Civil War, which increased the demand for
drugs to diminish pain.
Globalization combined with major cultural changes worldwide—especially in the United
States, Canada, and Europe—is driving the global drug trade. Most experts agree that
widespread use of illegal drugs in Western societies during the 1960s and 1970s
created a global demand for drugs, which in turn stimulated worldwide illegal drug
production. Heroin was smuggled in from areas that cultivated opium poppies, primarily
the Golden Triangle countries (Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos) and the Golden
Crescent countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran). Cocaine came primarily from
Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and other South American countries. Marijuana, now
increasingly grown within consuming countries, came primarily from Mexico, Jamaica,
Colombia, and Thailand. Global trafficking networks quickly developed or were
expanded to produce, distribute, and sell illegal drugs. Global commerce and migration
have helped to consolidate the global drug trade. For example, Mexican drug traffickers
take advantage of the growing number of Mexican immigrants in U.S. cities to turn
those areas into distribution centers for methamphetamine and other drugs. Industrial
countries are now themselves major sources of illegal drugs. Nightclub crowds
worldwide routinely use Ecstasy, a euphoria-producing psychedelic drug that was
initially used in Europe around 1912 as an appetite suppressant. What’s more,
distinctions between legal and illegal drugs are diminishing as more people abuse
prescription medications. The abuse of prescription drugs accounts for by far the largest
component of the drug problem in the United States.
Golden Triangle
Countries that cultivate opium poppies (Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos)
Efforts to Control the Drug Problem
The reality of the global drug trade and the inability of governments to prevent drugs
from entering countries have spawned essentially two different approaches to dealing
with the drug problem. The first approach, the war on drugs, stresses supply side
control and harsh treatment of drug users. The second approach, drug prevention and
harm reduction, emphasizes the need to keep drugs out of society and to treat drug
abuse as a disease. The first approach is strongly embraced by the United States; the
second approach is widely practiced in Europe. Before discussing these two strategies,
we will briefly examine historical efforts to control the use of illegal drugs. Drugexporting countries usually become major drug-consuming societies. As we saw earlier,
European countries openly and aggressively built a global drug trade. By the beginning
of the twentieth century, the widespread use of cocaine-based tonics, heroin, opium,
and other narcotics in Europe, the United States, Japan, and China raised concerns
about their negative impact on public morals. Religious groups, temperance societies,
and others in Britain and the United States advocated ending the opium trade. As the
United States expanded its power into Asia, especially after the Spanish-American War
in 1898 (which resulted in the end of Spain’s empire and America’s acquisition of the
Philippines), Americans became more concerned about drug abuse. The Philippines
had many drug addicts.
war on drugs
Stresses supply side control and harsh treatment of drug users
Partly because of its interest in gaining greater influence in China, the United States
collaborated with China to persuade other countries to participate in an international
conference designed to convince drug-exporting countries to reduce their production of
drugs. The conference, held in Shanghai in 1909, created the International Opium
Commission. Although the twelve countries involved agreed to gradually suppress
opium smoking in their territories, very little progress on controlling drugs was made.
The Hague Convention of 1911 broadened the drug-fighting effort by including
morphine and cocaine and committed the signatories to reducing their production and
distribution of drugs. However, the Hague Convention was ineffective, partly because
some countries—such as Germany, which at the time was the world’s largest cocaine
producer—insisted that the implementation of the treaty be made conditional on its
worldwide acceptance.3 Given the lucrativeness of drugs, few countries were willing to
comply with the restrictive agreements. A turning point in the effort to control the drug
trade was America’s enactment of the Harrison Act in 1914, which required distributors
and medical prescribers of specified drugs to be registered and pay taxes. Britain and
other European countries enacted similar legislation. The League of Nations (1919)
helped to consolidate drug-control efforts by stressing the development of mandatory
international controls to be supervised by international organizations. The Opium
Control Board was established by the League of Nations to monitor countries’
compliance with international agreements on controlling drugs. The rapid spread of drug
usage in the 1960s and 1970s influenced the United Nations (UN) to sponsor the
International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Traffic in 1987 to discuss strategies
for dealing with the problem. In 1988, strongly influenced by America’s emphasis on the
war-on-drugs approach, the global community signed the UN Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This convention stressed
sharing law enforcement evidence, providing mutual legal assistance, controlling the
sale of chemicals used in producing drugs, and escalating the eradication of drug
crops.4 Founded in 1990, the UN International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) stressed
the need for both demand reduction and alternative development. In 1998, the UN
General Assembly Special Session on Drugs had advocated the goal of a drug-free
world by 2008. Obviously, this goal has not been achieved.
Hague Convention
Broadened the international drug-fighting effort by cracking down on morphine and
cocaine
Harrison Act
U.S. act requiring distributors and prescribers of drugs to be registered and pay taxes
Opium Control Board
Established under the League of Nations to monitor countries’ compliance with
international drug agreements
Confronted with the rapid rise in drug abuse, the United States mobilized financial, law
enforcement, and military resources to combat the problem. The war on drugs
concentrates primarily on reducing global drug trafficking and drug use by eliminating
supplies and implementing punitive drug laws. It is estimated that between 50 and 80
percent of Americans who are imprisoned have committed a drug-related offense. The
United States has cooperated with governments throughout Latin America to eradicate
drug crops, implement crop substitution programs, and destroy trafficking networks. In
2000, for example, the United States and Colombia launched Plan Colombia, an
antidrug program that had the goal of reducing Colombia’s coca crop in half by 2005.
The plan involved aerial spraying, promoting crop substitution, destroying cocaine labs,
and disrupting transportation routes. The United States allocated $1.3 billion to Plan
Colombia. Given how lucrative the drug business is, the war on drugs has not
significantly reduced the drug trade. Drug production increased in Bolivia, Mexico,
Central America, and in the United States. Poverty and tradition motivate many small
farmers in Latin America and Asia to grow drug crops. The money they earn from crop
substitution is only a fraction of what they can earn from drug crops. Ironically, success
in removing drugs from the market increases the demand for declining supplies, thereby
driving up prices. This, in turn, influences people to cultivate drug crops. Corrupt law
enforcement officials worldwide also undermine the war on drugs. Most importantly, the
war on drugs largely ignores the demand for drugs within the United States, Europe,
and elsewhere. Coca production in Colombia was not significantly reduced, despite the
more than $6 billion pumped into that effort by the United States. Homicides have
escalated at the U.S.-Mexico border as drug cartels fight to dominate the illegal drug
trade. More than forty thousand Mexicans have been killed since 2007. The drug war
and weapons sales became a major issue in U.S.-Mexican relations. In an effort to
diminish violence and reduce drug sales, the United States began sending drones over
Mexico to locate traffickers and follow their networks.5 “Fast and Furious,” an
undercover operation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, became a scandal after Americans learned that the operation, in hopes of
following weapons purchased illegally in the United States to Mexican drug bosses, lost
track of many weapons that were later used to commit crimes in Mexico. Also,
concerned about increasing murders, many Mexicans demonstrated and called for an
end to the drug war and for the legalization of drugs.
Plan Colombia
U.S.-sponsored antidrug campaign implemented to eradicate Colombia’s cocaine
production
By contrast, Europeans concentrate on treating drug addiction more as a medical
problem while supporting efforts to reduce drug supplies. Harm reduction
approaches acknowledge the weaknesses of the war-on-drugs approach. Holland
became a pioneer in implementing the harm-reduction approach. It decriminalizes
possession and use of small amounts of “soft” drugs (such as marijuana), provides
“safe injection rooms” so that addicts can avoid public places, distributes sterile syringes
to reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS, and supports medical treatment for drug addicts.
harm reduction approaches
Aim at drug prevention and drug treatment
Drug violence is escalating in Mexico. How can the United States help reduce crime
there? Mexican forensic specialists work in a mass grave where they found eight
bodies, murdered in drug violence.
GLOBAL SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS
The global economic recession of 2008–2009 significantly diminished the demand for
migrant workers. In fact, as we have seen, return migration is now the global trend.
However, desperate people continue to be smuggled to areas where they perceive
economic and social opportunities. In June 2000, British customs officials discovered
the bodies of fifty-eight illegal Chinese immigrants in a sealed compartment of a Dutchregistered tomato truck. They had been smuggled into Dover after a five-hour journey
across the English Channel from the Belgian port of Zeebrugge. France is also a transit
point for illegal immigrants who pay global smuggling operations to get them into Britain
and, in many cases, eventually to the United States and Canada.
The extensive U.S.-Mexican border provided smugglers with a relatively easy way to
get migrants to the most popular destination. Increased U.S. border control activities
have contributed to reduced illegal immigration. Immigrant communities along the
border, the existence of criminal organizations that operate between the countries, the
well-established drug trade, and the flow of people and products across the U.S.Mexican border facilitate the successful smuggling of migrants from around the world.
But the tragic deaths of nineteen migrants who were being smuggled across the border
in May 2003 refocused national attention on the illegal and brutal nature of global
smuggling. At least seventy-seven migrants were packed into an unconventional tractortrailer without water for a 325-mile journey across the scorching desert. Some who
survived had body temperatures as high as 105 degrees. Many migrants become
victims of traffickers and drug gangs. In 2010, the Zetas, a Mexican drug-trafficking
gang, killed seventy-two migrants from Central and South America when they refused to
get involved in smuggling drugs into the United States.6 An additional 145 bodies were
found in ten mass graves in the same area in 2011.
Chinese global smuggling organizations are generally regarded as the most
sophisticated and most brutal. Many migrants come from the Fujian province in
southern China and take advantage of connections with family members and friends
already established in the United States, Canada, and European countries. Chinese
communities worldwide, especially those in large cities, provide extensive networks of
connections that enable global smuggling operations to be efficient and lucrative.
Chinese migrants pay smugglers between $30,000 and $60,000 to be transported to
Europe, the United States, and Canada. They travel across many countries or across
nine thousand miles of the Pacific Ocean for five weeks in unsanitary, unseaworthy
ships. Many of them land in Central America and make a long and perilous journey
across Mexico and into the United States, where they find employment in Chinese
communities to repay their debt for being smuggled. Often, they pay an initial 10
percent of the smuggling cost, and relatives pay the rest once the migrants arrive at
their destinations.7
CONTEMPORARY SLAVERY AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Human trafficking (i.e., the forced or coerced movement of people across national
borders as well as within countries) is probably as old as human civilization. Throughout
history, human beings have enslaved each other and forced each other to work under
the most inhumane conditions, justifying this exploitation in many ways. Contemporary
slavery is the transporting of victims under false pretenses from one nation, or
province, to another, where they are subjugated to forced labor or
prostitution.8 Compared with the global drug trade, human trafficking receives much less
attention. Nonetheless, it is a growing problem. Although the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency estimates that almost a million people worldwide are enslaved each year,
including twenty thousand in the United States, it is impossible to know how many
people are actually trafficked.9
human trafficking
Forced movement of people within or between countries
contemporary slavery
Transporting people from one area to another, where they are subjugated to forced
labor or prostitution
The exponential growth in contemporary slavery and human trafficking is inseparable
from increasing levels of economic and cultural globalization. Global inequality and
demographic factors contribute to the rapid growth of labor migration, a development in
which most countries participate. Migrants are employed to do the most strenuous and
undesirable jobs in most countries, including the United States. Globalization and
changing attitudes about women have led to a dramatic increase in women migrants.
Many women are employed as domestic helpers in service industries and as dancers,
strippers, and sex workers in the entertainment industry. This feminization of
migration (i.e., the increasing percentage of women in the migrant population)
complicates the human trafficking problem.10
feminization of migration
The increasing percentage of women in the migrant population
Despite the global emphasis on women and girls being trafficked for sexual exploitation,
the International Labor Organization (ILO) found that of the estimated 9.5 million victims
of forced labor in Asia, less than 10 percent were trafficked for commercial sexual
exploitation. Globally, less than half of all trafficking victims are involved in the sex
trade.11 Women and girls are generally perceived as replaceable commodities by
human traffickers. Although virtually all societies have experienced human trafficking for
sexual purposes, this practice seems to be more prevalent in several Asian countries.
Prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917, Russian and Eastern European women were
trafficked into China and Argentina. Between the 1970s and today, there have been four
distinct waves of sexual human trafficking, all of which are manifestations of increasing
globalization. The first wave began in the 1970s and was primarily composed of
trafficked women from Southeast Asia, particularly Thailand and the Philippines.
The second wave started in the early 1980s and involved trafficked women mostly from
Africa, especially Ghana and Nigeria. The third wave, from the 1980s to the 1990s, was
made up of Latin Americans, with most of the women coming from Colombia, Brazil,
and the Dominican Republic. The fourth wave, which mirrors the rapid expansion and
growing complexity of globalization, is closely connected to the demise of the Soviet
Union. The women are coming from Eastern and Central Europe.12
Although women are trafficked globally, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, the United
Arab Emirates, Israel, Greece, South Korea, Turkey, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, the
United States, and Canada are the principal destinations. Criminals collaborate to
maximize their profits from human trafficking. Groups in the Russian Far East cooperate
with Japanese and Korean organized crime to transport women to China, Japan, Korea,
Thailand, and other countries of the Pacific Rim. Groups in the Caucasus collaborate
with human traffickers in Turkey to transport women to brothels in Turkey, Cyprus, and
countries in the Middle East. Women from Kazakhstan are trafficked to Bahrain, where
the Muslim links of the traffickers provide women for this free-trade zone.13
Most trafficked women are forced into prostitution. Many young women worldwide are
seduced by romantic images of the West to take risks that often result in their sexual
exploitation. Poverty has usually been a major factor influencing human trafficking.
Radical economic changes that accompanied the fall of Communism in the Soviet
Union and the transition from a centralized economy to a market-based economy
undermined economic security for many women, even as these changes provided the
impetus for increased globalization. Women became more vulnerable to trafficking as
they attempted to find employment in other countries to support their families.
Although trafficking across national boundaries for sexual exploitation is a significant
component of global crime, most trafficked women and girls remain within their
countries or regions. In India alone, for example, more than half a million girls are in
brothels, more than any other country in the world. The rapid growth of sex tourism in
Asia and elsewhere reinforces the sexual exploitation of women and girls within their
own societies. What’s more, the AIDS pandemic is influencing human traffickers to find
younger women and girls, especially virgins, because customers believe they are less
likely to be infected with HIV and AIDS.14
The global response to human trafficking has largely been ineffective. Several efforts to
address this problem have been made at both national and global levels. In 1989, the
European Parliament adopted a resolution that called for tough measures to eradicate
human trafficking. Meeting in Beijing at the Fourth World Conference on Women and
declaring that women’s rights are human rights, delegates from 189 countries
unanimously adopted a platform for action, which called on governments to dismantle
criminal networks engaged in trafficking women. In response to the unprecedented
growth in human trafficking, the UN Protocol Against the Trafficking in Women and
Children was adopted along with the UN Convention on Transnational Crime in 2000.
At a world summit on organized crime in 2000 in Palermo, Italy, leaders from eighty
countries signed the UN protocol. Also in 2000, a coalition of Democrats, Republicans,
feminists, and evangelical Christians pressured the U.S. Congress to enact the Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act to prosecute traffickers in the United
States and to take action abroad against this global crime. This law recognized human
trafficking as a federal crime and requires the U.S. Department of State to publish an
annual report on the state of human trafficking globally.15
Fourth World Conference on Women
Called on governments to prevent trafficking in women
UN Protocol Against the Trafficking in Women and Children
Global effort in 2000 to address growing trafficking problem
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act
Requires the United States to prosecute human traffickers and to publish an annual
report on global trafficking
While the global community was responding to the problem of human trafficking, several
countries were legalizing the sex trade, which consists predominantly of foreign women
in most European countries. For example, roughly half a million women are trafficked as
prostitutes in Europe every year. In Germany, three out of four sex workers are
foreigners, and in the Netherlands, one out of two sex workers comes from another
country. In 2000, the Netherlands legalized prostitution, which is a billion-dollar-a-year
industry and represents roughly 5 percent of that country’s economy. Germany
legalized prostitution in 2001. The sex trade contributes approximately $4.5 billion to
Germany’s economy.16 Very few traffickers are prosecuted and convicted. Furthermore,
the illegal immigration status of trafficked women becomes an impediment to punishing
criminals involved in trafficking. Some success in efforts to reduce human trafficking
came in 2006 when John R. Miller, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, persuaded Japan to reduce the number of entertainment visas for
women from the Philippines from eighty thousand to five thousand a year. 17
Criminal Gangs and Kidnapping
The same communications and technological revolutions that drive globalization also
help gangs to grow. The Internet enables them to form alliances, to learn from each
other, and to terrorize. Repeated exposure to cultural globalization—especially violent
television programs, movies, video games, and magazines—reinforces their violent
behavior. Ethnic conflicts and civil wars, combined with easy access to guns, provide
fertile ground for gang violence to flourish. Aspects of globalization—especially global
migration, global inequality, and fewer government-provided public services due to
privatization and trade liberalization—contribute to the growth of gangs. Demographic
factors also play an important role. Young people between the ages of sixteen and
twenty-four tend to commit most of the crimes, especially in densely populated areas.
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, poverty and the decline of social services often
combine to influence parents to abandon their children, making them vulnerable to
gangs. Gang violence threatens peace and security, increases political instability,
weakens democratic institutions, increases human rights violations, and impedes
economic development. Kidnapping is often an integral component of gang violence.
Gang violence usually generates counterviolence by vigilante groups, the military, and
police officers.
Foundations for rising gang violence in Central America were laid during the civil wars
that devastated the region in the 1980s, driven partly by military and political rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War in Central America was
accompanied by widespread human rights abuses, rape, torture, extrajudicial
executions, kidnappings, and drug production and trafficking. In Guatemala alone, more
than two hundred thousand people were killed or missing (out of a population of 14
million) during these conflicts. Civil wars also bring with them the proliferation of
weapons. As we discussed in Chapter 11, violence is a factor that pushes people to
migrate. Many Central Americans came to the United States and settled in the ghettos
of Los Angeles and other major American cities. Many young migrants soon became
involved in street gangs, committed violent crimes, including murder, and participated in
drug trafficking. When the U.S. Congress decided to enact very punitive immigration
laws in 1996, noncitizens who were sentenced to a year or more in prison could be
repatriated to their country of origin. Foreign-born U.S. citizens who committed felonies
could lose their American citizenship and be expelled from the country after serving
their sentences. Consequently, roughly twenty thousand young Central American
criminals were seventy thousand gang members in Central America. Gang members
recreated their violent lifestyles in Central America. Drug trafficking escalated. Central
America has the world’s highest murder rates. As the United States escalated its war on
drugs in Colombia, drug-trafficking organizations moved into Central America and used
drugs to pay gang members. Central America is a bridge between Colombia, the world’s
largest producer of cocaine, and Mexico, which is the transit point for the United States,
the world’s largest consumer of cocaine and other drugs.18 Gang members routinely
force residents of poor neighborhoods to pay what they call protection fees, demand
war taxes from businesses, and often murder individuals who refuse to or cannot pay
them. Rapes of young women have increased, homes are robbed, schoolchildren are
turned into drug addicts, and kidnappings occur frequently. During his visit to El
Salvador in 2011, President Obama pledged $200 million to reduce gang violence.
Previously, most victims of kidnappings were wealthy individuals who could arrange to
pay large ransoms. Today, however, ordinary individuals are being kidnapped for a
variety of reasons. Terrorists have used kidnappings as bargaining chips and to create
widespread fear. Islamic terrorists in the Philippines routinely kidnap foreigners,
especially Westerners, to extract money to finance terrorism. Kidnappings are an
integral component of violence and drug trafficking in Colombia. Colombia is by far the
world’s leader in kidnappings, despite an increase in kidnappings in China. Colombia’s
president, Juan Manuel Santos, threatened to expel foreign companies that paid
ransom to kidnappers. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia routinely kidnap
prominent Colombians.19 In Mexico, Brazil, Kenya, and other places, most kidnappings
are fueled by glaring economic inequalities and poverty. These crimes are very
lucrative, generating hundreds of millions of dollars each year in ransoms.
ILLEGAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED ANIMALS AND PLANTS
The illegal trade in endangered species coexists with legal transactions, thereby
making it difficult to ascertain the magnitude of the problem. Nevertheless, there is
general agreement that many of the factors we discussed earlier about the globalization
of crime combine to sustain and expand both the legal and illicit aspects of this trade.
Local and individual decisions directly affect trade in endangered animals and plants.
These decisions have significant global conseque...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment