Globalization and the Future of Conflict

By: Noah Johnson
Introduction

She looks up. It is aflame. The entire factory is aflame. Twenty thousand square feet and millions of dollars of US foreign investment are gone in the blink of an eye. As she listens to the sirens close in around her, she cannot help but smile a smile of victory.

Is this the future of violence? Globalization has had an unmistakably positive impact on the amount of peace between states. Globalization, which is the spread of democratic-capitalism throughout the world, has increased the interconnectedness of every state, both social and economically. This will continue in the future; and eventually, all states will lose the incentive to go to war with each other. The wellbeing of a state’s population will become too contingent on the rest of the world, both economically and culturally. International isolation, like in current day North Korea, will be impossible by the year 2050. In the future, liberal peace will overcome ethnic and religious grievances, and states will act more rationally to protect their economic interest first and foremost.

Liberal peace was first theorized shortly after World War 2 as the reason democracies hardly ever fought one another in war (Babst 9). By the year 2050, and about 100 years after liberal peace theorized, almost every major state in the world will be a democracy and even the smaller states that are not democracies will be more democratic. In the future, liberal peace will become a selling point of both democracy and capitalism, and people in developing countries around the globe will put increasing pressure on their government’s to become more globalized. The loss of incentives for states to fight one another will create more international cooperation and communication, which will improve international relations between states future. However, this will not be the end to political violence. Rather, the prevalence of politically motivated violence will shift from state actors to non-state actors. We can already see this trend occur in the present, but by the year 2050 more terrorism and more diverse forms of terrorism will be the dominant force of world conflict, to the point that it is the only internationally relevant mode of conflict. 

The most prevalent terrorist motivation in the world currently, religious extremism (GTI 31), will still exist in the future; though, new motivations for terrorism will emerge and supplant religious extremism as the most prevalent terrorist. Namely, the frequency and ferocity of eco-terrorism will have increased exponentially by the year 2050 as environmental problems, caused by globalization, begin to cause tangible harm to people’s lives. Also, out of the fringe right wing political parties of the globalized world will emerge a resurgence of nationalist terrorism, which will reject globalization and seek to undermine international cooperation in favor of isolationism.

In the future, the structure of terrorist groups will also change as a reaction to globalization. As technology improves, mainly through advancements in surveillance and drone technology, it will no longer be feasible for terrorist groups to exist as paramilitary organization with recognized hierarchies. Instead, vast networks of interconnected independent terror cells and lone wolf terrorists will thrive in the future. Likewise, terrorist will adapt to the increased interconnectedness via the Internet by shift their focus from physical terrorism to cyber terrorism.

Religious Extremism

            Social scientists have long argued that the Muslim world reacted negatively to globalization from the West. As Middle East affairs expert Barry Rubin put it, “ Probably no area in the world resists--at least explicitly--globalization to an extent equaling that of the Islamic Middle East.” (2013) There are numerous theories for why globalization is rejected in the region, but the most succinct argument is that globalization threatens the Muslim world’s cultural identity. Capitalism, in theory, does not intend to impact culture. However, history has shown us that cultural homogeneity is a side affect of capitalist expansion. Consumer goods are cultural. But it’s not the goods themselves that are threatening to Muslim identity, but the way the western world values consumer goods. To an outsider, it would appear as if American and other Western peoples value consumer goods, employment and money over their religion or other aspects of their identity. Whether or not the western world actually has these values is irrelevant. The perception alone is enough for many Muslims, who value their religious and ethnic identities above all else, to reject globalization.

Nonetheless, the rejection of globalization in the Muslim world is failing (Rubin). The recent Arab spring showed the desire for democracy in Northern Africa and the Middle East; and the money from oil production has increased demand for luxury goods throughout the Muslim world. In response to this failure, Muslims have become even more religious as a means of protecting their identity. Islamic fundamentalism is the result of years of rejecting globalization, and then seeing it infiltrate farther into the Muslim world (Griffel). Islamic extremism is the desperate attempt to do what non-violent methods could not, stop globalization.

The relationship between globalization and increased religious fundamentalism will continue in the future. As the Muslim world becomes more globalized, religious polarity will heighten to the point that sides must be chosen. There will be less middle ground for Muslims to exist in. The globalized Muslim world will eventually encompass all of the Muslim world except for religious fundamentalists who have became so religious that they feel threatened by any one who is not also fundamentalist. As a result of polarization, extremist groups will grow in size as more Muslims adapt fundamentalist ideologies.

By the year 2050, the denominational conflict within Islam will look very different tan it does today. The overwhelming majority of Muslims- i.e. those who have chose to take part in the globalized world- will not engage in violence with other denominations of Islam as frequently. This is not to say that religious grievance will not still exist in the Muslim world, only that the grievance will be less important in the future; and therefore not important enough to create violent conflict among globalized peoples. The Islamic extremists, on the other hand, will become even more hostile to other denominations as their beliefs become increasingly radical.

I will finish this section by talking about religious terrorism by non- Muslims how the methods of countering religious extremism will change in the future.

Eco-Terrorism

            By the year 2050, no other motivation for terrorism will have grown in both frequency and damage caused as eco-terrorism. In the present, eco-terrorism has been I decline since the early 2000’s. In 2004, John Lewis, deputy assistant director of the FBI Counterterrorism Division told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front have become the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States,” and that “eco-terrorism matters is our highest domestic terrorism investigative priority” (qtd. in Hirsh & Mudde 587). But in recent years, FBI officials have noted a reduced threat by environmental extremist groups. The FBI theorizes that the reduced threat may be due to a string of felony conviction for members of the ELF in 2007, which had upwards of 13-year sentences (Eliperin). Furthermore, detained activists frequently testified against other members of their groups, relative to other extremists, which may indicate weaker commitment to their cause than other terrorist organization. However, this latter point could soon change if environmental issues start having more tangible effects on people.

For example, if smog from urban factories creates observable increases in respiratory problems and cancer in states like China or India, than the populace of those states will put pressure on their government to reduce emissions. States, who will be looking to maintain a comparative advantage in the international market, will be reluctant restrict emissions in order to maintain economic growth.

Globalization will not necessarily create a “race to the bottom”, but it will narrow the margins from which companies can make profits, which is the result of increased competition in a competitive market. Eco-terrorism will be the response to government reluctance to handle environmental crisis. Caught between increasing violence and economic recession, states with the greatest comparative advantages in production will be more willing to meet the demands of eco-terrorists and implement environmental regulations. In contrast, states with comparative disadvantages will be less likely to create regulations and will therefore be more vulnerable to prolonged eco-terrorism. 

            As a result, the comparative advantage one state will have over other states will exist in the technological infrastructure of the country. In other words, the more technologically advanced countries will have more wiggle room for environmental regulations and will likely experience less eco-terrorism.  This means that current day developing countries, which already experience more terrorism than developed countries, will likely experience higher levels of eco-terrorism.

            Outside of developing countries, intergovernmental organizations will also become targets of eco-terrorist threats. By the year 2050, bodies like the United Nations will have much more enforcement power on non-economic issues. Improved international cooperation resulting from globalization will allow these supranational bodies to coordinate aid more effectively as well as mobilize peacekeeping forces around the globe more efficiently. However, in the future, the UN and other intergovernmental bodies will still lack the power to enforce economic regulations. The only body that will have some economic enforcement power in the future, the IMF, will refuse to create environmental regulations for ideological reasons. The reluctance of the IMF to make environmental regualtions, and the inability of the UN to cooperate over the issue will result in eco-terrorism against these organizations. As a result, eco-terrorism will have an international component as well as a domestic component.  

            More on eco-terrorism against international organizations, I am having a hard time coming up for a justification outside of “this is a global issue and people want international organizations to solve international problems”. I may also expound on eco-terrorism occurring more frequently in developing countries. Professor Shirk- should I predict a level of violence? I don’t have much of a baseline to compare it to.      

Reemergence of Nationalist Terrorism

            Similar to the religious extremism, radical nationalists view globalization as a threat to their identity, due to cultural convergence caused by globalization. As mentioned previously, globalization diffuses consumer goods to state around the world. This alters the culture of states and converges their culture with other globalized states. While this is likely to have a positive impact on international cooperation and communication, it will also result in the loss or the loss of significance in cultural aspects that are unique to certain states. This will not occur without resistance, but the more important aspect of cultural convergence that radical nationalist will take issue with is the fluidity by which people will be able to cross borders. Improved international cooperation and economic interests through the world will reduce xenophobia at a state level, leading to increases in both immigration and temporary residency. Illegal immigration will also increase, but deportation of undocumented people will not increase proportionally. Deportation of undocumented people will become unpopular in mainstream politics by the year 2050 and many immigration laws will change to become more favorable to legal and illegal immigrants. This will be due to the frequent, everyday interaction people will have with one another, communicating and traveling international with much greater ease than they do today. Relationships with people from multiple countries will become the norm in the future. Overall, people will put less importance on their national identity.

            The radical nationalism of the future will look a lot like the far right political parties of Europe today. Most of these groups base their ideology on anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and tie immigration to security threats (Green 345). While consisting of only 6% of the EU parliament membership, political parties with anti-immigration platforms still exist in the mainstream of many European country’s politics. By 2050, mainstream immigration politics will have shifted far enough to the left so that opposing immigration will be considered a form of racism.  

            The combination of the loss of national identity and the increasingly favorable views toward immigration will force hardline nationalists out of meaningful politics altogether. In response to their lack of representation in the mainstream, some far-right political group members will splinter off and form nationalist terrorist cells. Similar to religious extremism, isolation and their lack of power to reverse to tide of globalization peacefully will radicalize these groups further.

            More on whom or what nationalist terrorists will target

Technology and Future Conflict 

By the year 2050, globalization will have lead to significant advancements in information sharing and surveillance technology, and it will change our everyday lives. Internet companies today collect and sell people Internet data to the government and other tech companies. In the future, other business will invest in this information in an attempt to cater their business to individuals and not a general populace. Likewise, state governments will buy data from domestic companies, foreign companies and other governments in order to create profiles of possible security threats. These profiles will be exponentially more detailed than they are today and they will exist before individuals even become threatening. Simply put, governments will have profiles of everyone on earth regardless of whether they are a threat or not. In the year 2050, the public will have knowledge of these surveillance programs, though disagreement between whether or not these programs should exist will still be split. Nonetheless, these programs will be more transparent and infinitely more complex than they are today. While this may seem scary to those who value privacy, this will have a substantial impact on counter terrorism.

Future surveillance technology will make it very difficult for identified terrorists to travel, as security cameras, skin (not just finger tip) imprinting and facial recognition will have improved to the point that a face or and skin pattern can be recognized by software instantaneously. Within seconds of being recognized by software, a terrorist’s location will be known to ever data collecting government in the world. Over the next 35 years, surveillance technology will increasingly threaten terrorist’s ability to congregate and meet face to face. While it is possible the terrorists could adapt to improved surveillance with some sort of technology of their own (maybe a substance that distorts their face and/ or skin), it is likely that technology will improve to mitigate any counter-surveillance strategy relatively quickly. Given that terrorist will not be able to circumvent surveillance technology, terrorists will have to remain out of the public eye at all times.

More on the collection of Internet data Internet and the shift of terrorism from groups to terror cells and lone wolf terrorism as the adaptation of terrorism to improved surveillance.

References

Babst, Dean. Elective Governments-- A Force For Peace. Rep. N.p.: Wisconsin State Department of Public Welfare, 1961. Print.

Eliperin, Juliet. "As Eco-terrorism Wanes, Governments Still Target Activist Groups Seen as Threat." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2012. Web. 03 May 2015. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-eco-terrorism-wanes-governments-still-target-activist-groups-seen-as-threat/2012/02/28/gIQAA4Ay3R_story.html>.

Green, Todd H. "Who Speaks for Europe's Muslims?: The Radical Right Obstacle to Dialogue." Cross Currents 62.3 (2012): 337-49. Web. 3 May 2015.

Griffel, Frank. "Globalization and the Middle East: Part Two." Globalization And The Middle East: Part Two. MacMillan Center, 21 Jan. 2003. Web. 01 May 2015. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalization-and-middle-east-part-two>.

Institute for Economic and Peace. Global Terrorism Index 2014 2 (2014): 12-82. 2014. Web. <http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Terrorism%20Index%20Report%202014_0.pdf>.

Rubin, Barry. "Globalization and the Middle East: Part One." Globalization And The Middle East: Part One. MacMillan Center, 16 Jan. 2003. Web. 01 May 2015. <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalization-and-middle-east-part-one>.

Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler & Cas Mudde (2014) “Ecoterrorism”: Terrorist Threat or Political Ploy?, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 37:7, 586-603,