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