In his article "Sinking Globalization," Niall Ferguson discusses the positive and negative effects of globalization. Ferguson mentions that technological innovations have given rise to the reign of the enemies of globalization--terrorists. Now, I keep going back to these terrorists because I believe that mob activity, to a certain degree, is a form of terrorism. Ferguson says that globalization has changed terrorism for it has opened the doors to a more intensive weapons and drug trade. Before the era of globalization terrorists were limited to using "Browning revolvers" (pistol, type of weaponry) and "primitive bombs." However, now they have the ability to obliterate an entire city with a "single nuclear device." Increased technology and communication have made it possible to increase the activity of the arms trade. In terms of the Winter Hill Gang's involvement in the arms trade, there is evidence that Whitey Bulger and his cronies helped to move arms for the IRA terrorist group. This discovery was made after analyzing multiple murders committed by members of the Winter Hill gang. Speculators say Whitey became involved in the arms trade through Pat Nee, a member of the Mullins gang of which Whitey used to be involved in. While the rise of globalization has been attributed to much of the positive growth in the past century, it is important to recognize that Globalization also helps develop the activity of terrorist and gang organizations. To learn more about the arms trade check out the blog, Guns for Money at:
http://gunsformoney.blogspot.com
Another well thought out piece. While I agree with your argument that globalization has furthered gun trafficking, I would like to point out that Whitey Bulger's alleged arms deals are small potatoes compared to the weapons trafficking handled by the US, UK, Chinese, and Indian governments, among others.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while terrorists have certainly become more sophisticated, I believe that the international community devotes too much attention to their nuclear capabilities. First of all, very few terrorist organizations have access to nuclear weapons. Secondly, nine out of ten "conflict deaths" are caused by small arms. While the world has devoted millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars to ensure that nuclear arsenals are safe and "in the right hands," we have somehow overlooked the fact that small arms are the real weapons of mass destruction.
That aside, I totally agree that globalization has inflated the increase in gang and terrorist violence. Without the independent arms dealers and gun running on behalf of the world's most powerful nations, it is highly unlikely that we would be in the present situation.
My solution is for the US to lead by example with a policy of non-intervention (not to be confused with isolation). As the world's largest arms dealer, the US could step forward and declare that we will not be the world's policeman, or a nation-builder, but want to revert to our roots as a friend and commercial partner to all nations. We have spent the past century meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. It's time that we stop. We need to remember the words of our Founding Fathers and the documents they penned in 1776 and 1787. What do you think? Is non-intervention the solution for the United States?
P.S. If you want a good account of the international arms scene following the Cold War with a dash of Hollywood appeal, check out "Lord of War" with Nicholas Cage.
What are some of the specific ties between Irish mob activity in Boston and crime in Ireland? Is there a connection between Bulger and the IRA?
ReplyDelete