Crimes Of Globalization

    There is absolutely no question that globalization has promoted crime throughout the world. What are crimes of globalization? Crimes of globalization are crimes that have happened as a result of globalization such as human trafficking, illicit markets, state-corporate crimes and crimes against humanity. The World Bank and IMF are financial institutions that have played a key role in perpetrating global crime. As our world becomes increasingly connected, so does the need for global governance and because of this, these financial groups become stronger, putting the more affluent countries in power.

   Within the IMF and the World Bank, it is clear that more developed nations dominate decision-making as voting power is determined by the amount of money that each country contributes. The disproportionate amount of power, held by more affluent countries means that the interests of corporations from industrialized countries will be put above the needs of the poorer, developing nations; ironically the countries that need the most help. For example, one of the critical aspects of the IMF and World Bank that only seem to promote global crime and deception, are SAPs. The SAPs are loans provided by the IMF and World Bank to countries experiencing economic crises; the impact of SAPs was extremely detrimental on the Philippines. As a result, the Philippines gives almost half of its’ revenue towards debt repayment instead of being invested in a project that would benefit their economy; their corrupt leaders also pocketed some of the money. Overall, there have been massive cuts made within the country, specifically regarding education, food, shelter, and health, all of which are vital to the preservation of their citizens, most of whom now live in poverty. The impact that the IMF and World Bank had on the Philippines can be categorized as one of the crimes of Globalization: Crimes against humanity.

   Globalization has also provided corporations with more consumers, now that their business has “gone global,” and because of this, there has become more competition. One of the most important rules of business is to “maximize profits, and minimize costs”; how is this achieved? Find cheap labor. While globalization has created multinational leaders, we have failed to develop international labor laws and because of these corporations like Walmart have moved their manufacturers to nations with less strict (or no) labor laws. Many consumers would be horrified to know that Walmart exposes their workers to slave-like conditions, paying them the least they possibly could in inhumane conditions. On a similar note, globalization has promoted illicit markets for drugs, antiquities and sadly, humans. Human trafficking and forced labor have been being a sad outcome of globalization. Walmart is an example of one of the crimes of globalization: Corporate crime. These markets have to be run by someone or some group, and it would be absurd to suggest that global leaders are unaware of these markets and have no power to stop them. This is where organized crime comes in; Organized crimes are being planned and controlled by these powerful transitional groups. What is unfortunate, is that too often, states are involved in these illicit markets, or at least have done nothing to stop them. For example, during the fall of the Soviet Union, there became a surplus of guns and weaponry. Rather than nations coming together to dispose of these items, there became a market where a lot of the suppliers were state leaders. This could be categorized as a state crime, yet another crime of globalization.

Definitions of terrorism

Theo Slepski

Blog Post 4

Terrorism is a talked about frequently in international politics. In class discussion, I defined that terrorism is the unlawful acts against a group of people to furthers one’s personal agenda. This differs from organizations like the state department whose definition for terrorism is, “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups/or clandestine agents.” (Lecture 21). I believe that my definition is correct because I am trying to be as broad as possible because I believe terrorism falls under many categories and to limit terrorism to just politically motivated people is unfit.  
Terrorism does not need to always fall under the category of  politics. I believe that someone can still inflict terror among others and it may have nothing to do with a political agenda. In today’s world people commit horrible actions, that cause terror, with no real reason and because of this a lot of attacks are not defined as terrorism. The victims still experienced terror during the actions carried out against them. Because these victims still experience terror I believe that perpetrator should be labeled as a terrorist. Whether politics was involved has no real impact on whether or not this person committed terrorism or not.

            Terrorism is too much of an important topic to have one definition. I believe that there are different types of terrorism. The first type of terrorism is political terrorism. I believe that the state departments definition is perfect for this type of terrorism. It is important to give this label because it is important to know if someone was politically motivated or not. It is important for a state to differentiate these different types because they need to know what political actions are causing terror. I also believe there should be a second type of terrorism called non-political terrorism. I believe that this kind of terrorism is exactly like political terrorism just without politics involved.  

            I believe that splitting the definitions into these two categories is efficient and limits misinterpretation. After the Las Vegas shooting many people made the fact that the shooter was not being called a terrorist in to a race issue. I believe this misconception should never occur and I believe that the definition of terrorist is at fault for this. I believe that defining words is very important and should not be taken lightly.

Trump Is Wrong on the WTO

Jonathan Sullivan
International Politics
Prof. Mark Shirk
November 5, 2017

Trump & The WTO

President Trump has talked about leaving multiple deals that the United States has been in for varying degrees of time, these include NAFTA, NATO, and Paris Climate Accords. While these deals are certainly up for debate another organization he has been discussing about potentially leaving is the WTO, World Trade Organization. Trump talked a lot at length about this topic during the course of his campaign and why he has been hush mostly about it since the election the citizens of the United States should not sit idly and let him say anything he wants. Trump withdrawing from the WTO would be a serious mistake for the United States.
The WTO exists to bring about free trade around the world, (Shirk, Lecture 18) and not only the United States, but the world, benefits from free trade. By remaining in the WTO the United States would show that no one country is above the law of the WTO which is good for maintaining order and stability in the world trading market. Take for example in 1995 the United States tried to ban the import of Costa Rican underwear to the US. However, the WTO ruled in favor of Costa Rica over the United States and while the US appealed they lost. The US set an example for other countries by accepting the WTO's decision showing that not even the most powerful country in the world was above the rule of the WTO. Trump's position on the WTO is that they are not effective enough and not powerful enough to enforce the majority of their rulings. He believes that the United States should make their own trade deals which will mean the US not the WTO sets the guidelines, preferably in favor of the US. However, according to a Forbes.com article this is not a good idea, "Withdrawing from the WTO would be a disaster. Other countries could raise tariffs against us, dump products in our markets, steal our intellectual property and cheat of every which way from Tuesday and our ability to retaliate would be extremely weakened." The United States faces harsh times if Trump withdraws us from the WTO.
The WTO is not perfect but it helps maintain stability and order for trade around the globe. It governs countries with certain rules that cannot be broken or there will be consequences. Countries look the US to be an example with the WTO, as if the most powerful country in the world abides by the WTO than others should follow. Leaving the WTO would, not only hurt the United States with potential tariffs, but also hurt world trade and the global economy. President Trump should keep the United States firmly entrenched in the World Trade Organization.

    Brinkley, John. “Trump May Withdraw The US From WTO.” Forbes, 13 Feb. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2017/02/13/trump-may-withdraw-u-s-from-wto-outside-advisor-says/#2abd61c333bb.      

http://wtocenter.vn/wto/commentaries/costa-rica%E2%80%99s-challenge-us-restrictions-import-underwear                            

The ICC and the US

The ICC was created in 1998 by the Rome Statue to convict war criminals. Since its creation the court has been a failure due to its inability to convict formative war criminals, its failure is a result of the court having to rely upon the country in which the crimes occurred to present the criminals, yet the criminals are mainly the leaders of the attacked countries. Also, the court may have a case referred to it by the UN Security Council but since the members of the council each have a veto, if a case is ever brought to the court against one of the member countries, they will not be convicted. Therefore, although the ICC is launching an investigation into possible crimes committed by American forces in Afghanistan, the US does not have to worry about a conviction because the court has not tried anyone outside of Africa.

Founded in 1998 as a result of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court is allowed jurisdiction over four international including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The ICC characterizes genocide as actions taken to eliminate members of national or other ethnic groups through killing the members. Also, genocide is defined as any action that can impose severe mental and physical injury. Crimes against humanity are detailed in the Rome Statute and include rape, enslavement, and imprisonment all of which are mainly directed at women, apartheid, and sex trafficking. War crimes are noted to be the employment of child soldiers or attacking social edifices such as hospitals, religious centers, or historical sites. A crime of aggression is when one state’s actions violate the sovereignty of another country. The ICC may try a country that has committed one of the four international crimes if the said country has accepted the court or if the UN Security Council refers the case to the ICC as a result of the policies outlined in the UN Charter. Much like the UN, the ICC does not have a standing police force to implement its policies. As a result, it relies upon countries to bring the offenders of crimes to the court. Nations who abide by the court and support it are known as States Parties. Those states that do belong to the court are expected to adhere to the court’s rulings and to be cooperative.   

Many scholars believe that the ICC is a failure, this is because the court is limited in its ability to convict war criminals. The court may only try people whose countries have accepted the Rome Statute. Also, when a case is referred to the court, they fail to convict someone. Of the few cases that the court has initiated, nine of the ten of them have involved countries in Africa. Since the court relies on Security Council to have a case referred to them, the nations on the Security Council such as the US and China, are beyond the court because of their veto power. 

Although the ICC is beginning an investigation into actions committed by American forces in Afghanistan, the US does not have to worry about being convicted because the court has only convicted low tier criminals. One of the events the ICC is hoping to investigate is the supposed abuse of prisoners at a U.S.-run air base in Afghanistan. Another event the ICC will investigate is one that took place in 2002 in which American forces may have killed a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver. The troops brought him back to an American base after it was believed that he was driving men who attacked a U.S. base. After seizing him, the driver died five days later. Another man where named Habibullah died a week before the taxi driver after dying from a blood clot. The US forces attempted to cover up the deaths and displayed them as a result of natural causes. It was later found out, after finding the coroner's report, that the taxi driver's death was ruled a homicide. In the report, the coroner listed a pulmonary embolism as the cause of death. Although the court is meant to prosecute war crimes, US forces will not be convicted because the US never gave way to the court's jurisdiction and because the US' position on the Security Council allows the country to circumvent the investigation.

Meant to convict those who have violated human rights, the ICC has failed to make any substantial convictions. Although it failed due to external and internal factors, those who have been convicted by the court are from Africa, letting many other countries who have committed war crimes such as the US, evade justice. The recent investigation into the US forces in Afghanistan will not lead to a conviction because the US can use its position on the UN Security Council to kill the investigation.

The UN Failure

I will be arguing how the United Nations does not work the way it should. I believe that the United Nations is a very weak and ineffective organization because they work in the self-interests of powerful countries and the smaller countries don’t get paid attention to enough. I will also show how a country like Saudi Arabia who does not believe in human rights leading a U.N. council like the human rights council is very ineffective.

            I believe that the United Nations is very effective for smaller countries that try to wage war against each other. Besides this case I do not believe the United Nations is very useful. Outside of the United Nations I believe that the international community operates in a state of anarchy and a power like the US will wage war against any other country they feel like. Because of this I believe that the United Nations is an organization designed for the bigger countries like the 5 countries with the veto power to act with self-interest on issues. Because of this I believe that the United Nations is an organization that is unfair for countries that are not of self-interest to the larger countries. This makes me believe that the United Nations is not an organization that is fair and effective. One example I find relevant where the United Nations did not act when it should of was the Sri Lankin Civil war. The United Nations did not act in accordance to the civil war breaking out. Because of this over 50,000 civilians were killed in result of this war (Leopold Buzz feed). I believe that the U.N. did not act on the Sri Lankin civil war because the civil war was not of interest to any of the members. Because of this I do not believe that the United Nations is effective.

            Another example I believe the United Nations is ineffective is the fact that Saudi Arabia is a member of the U.N. human rights council.  I believe that this shows how broken the U.N. is because I believe that Saudi Arabia is a major contributor to the worlds human rights problems. Saudi Arabia is a country that believes in capital punishment first. Saudi Arabia executes about 123 people per year and 43 percent of them are nonviolent crimes (Agerholm). The fact that a country like this can be on a council that is very important shows that the United Nations is in effective. I do not believe it is efficient for a country that does not believe in free speech or woman’s rights to lead a council designed to protect rights to be effective.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/sri-lanka-un-security-cou_b_203259.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-death-penalty-executions-capital-punishment-six-killed-one-day-outcry-a7834726.html