Globalization, economic inequality, and international terrorism in the Gaza Strip

Rapid innovations in technology, particularly telecommunications and transportation, have accelerated the globalization process in recent years, and a number of positive outcomes have been associated with these trends, including increased levels of international commerce and improved cross-cultural understanding and communications. Despite these significant positive outcomes, the same globalization processes have also further exacerbated existing economic and political inequalities between developed nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom. These glaring disparities between the very rich and the very poor have also been cited as a major contributor to the incidence of international terrorism, making the need for informed and timely approaches to resolving these inequalities more important than ever before in human history. To this end, this dissertation/thesis provides a review of the relevant literature concerning political and economic inequalities that are attributable to globalization and how these inequalities have contributed to international terrorism in recent years, and a case study of these issues as they relate to the Gaza Strip. A summary of the research and important findings are presented in the study's concluding chapter.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Globalisation, Inequalities and Terrorism

Political Inequalities

Economic Inequalities

Contribution of Inequalities to International Terrorism

Chapter 3: Case Study of the Gaza Strip

Chapter 4: Conclusion

Definition of Key Terms

GINI

This is a measurement of the income distribution of a country's residents

GNI

Gross national income

IDA

International Development Association

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Per Capital Income Growth for Average Income of the Poorest One-Fifth

(percentages)

Figure 2. Numbers of NGOs having Members in Low Income, Middle Income and High

Income Countries 1991-2001

Figure 3. Global GNI per capita (2001)

Figure 4. Global population required to subsist on $2 a day or less: 1984-2001

Figure 5. Regional percentages of population living on less than $2.00/day

Figure 6. Comparison of regional poverty rates using $1.25- and $2.00-a-day cutoffs

Figure 7. Gini Inequality in Africa

The Inequalities Caused by Globalisation that Promote International Terrorism

Chapter 1: Introduction

The process of globalization is certainly not new, and many of the processes that are shaping the world today have been at work for thousands of years. The processes of globalisation began to gain momentum during the mid-19th century as the impact of the Industrial Revolution created a global search for markets and raw materials (Jones 2005). During this latter period in human history, imperialism managed to overcome any resistance to the spread of globalization, and by the early 20th century, an integrated global economy had already been established (Jones 2005). Following the outbreak of World War I, though, this initial global economy was devastated by a series of political and economic shocks and the Russian Revolution further eroded the economic structures that had fueled the globalized process up until this point in time (Jones 2005). Despite these setbacks, the process of globalization quickly picked up pace thereafter. For instance, according to Jones, "Barriers to the mobility of people were erected which have never been removed. Barriers to investment and trade grew to dramatic heights. Multinationals proved flexible. Many existing organizations remained intact, although there was not a great deal of new investment during the 1930s and 1940s" (2005: 40).

Following the end of World War II, the forces driving globalization became the focus of the international community once again. In this regard, Farazmand notes that, "With the emergence of the Soviet reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who called for global restructuring, openness, a new way of global thinking, peace for all, superpower cooperation, and an end to the Cold War, the concept of a new world order reemerged" (1999: 509). Likewise, after the Helsinki Summit in September 1990, then-U.S. President George Bush also employed the term "new world order" to describe the emerging globalized marketplace (Farazmand 1999). Not surprisingly, the issue of globalisation has also become the focus of an increasing amount of research in recent years (Farazmand 1999).

The concept of globalization remains controversial, though, and there remains a paucity of agreement concerning precise definitions. In this regard, Bierema, Bing and Carter define globalization as being "the crossing of financial, technical, and cultural boundaries to facilitate a global flow of goods, information, and services. Terminology aside, many companies have developed a global presence in the past two decades through technological advances and eroding trade barriers" (2002: 70). Not all of the effects of this increasing globalization have been negative, of course, and the positive effects of globalization include increasing international commerce, cross-cultural understanding and communications (Bierema et al. 2002). Despite these positive effects, a wide range of negative outcomes for emerging nations in particular have also been attributed to the process of globalization which also formed the focus of this study discussed further below.

Statement of the Problem

Although the processes are not new, Jones (2005) emphasizes that the forces driving globalization have become increasingly accelerated in recent years as a result of innovations in technology, particularly telecommunications as well as transportation. As noted above, there remains a lack of a consensus concerning what globalization means to different people, but Kiggundu (2002) suggests that irrespective of the definition that is used, the adverse effects of globalization remain firmly in place. In this regard, Kiggundu emphasizes that, "Globalization is multidimensional and, therefore, means different things to different people across time and space. Globalization is about transformational change with intended and unintended adverse effects" (2002: 17). Many of the adverse effects of globalization, of course, are economic in nature. For instance, according to Held (2004), "It is now almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or listen to the news without either being confronted by the word 'globalization' or being faced with issues relating to its economic impact" (86). Moreover, Held (2004) suggests that even as the processes of globalization have intensified in recent years, the ability of national governments to address the inequalities it produces has declined and international bodies increasingly lack the authority to enforce agreed policies. Indeed, Friedrichs and Friedrichs report that, "International financial institutions such as the World Bank are key players in an increasingly globalized capitalist system. [In fact], the policies and practices of international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund can only be understood in the context of the notion of 'globalization'" (2002: 13). Furthermore, Kiggundu also emphasizes the inexorable and irresistible qualities of globalization, particularly for emerging nations and suggests that because they are at the mercy of international trade, they have no real choice in the matter but to hang on as best they can in the globalization process. For instance, "Because the key drivers of globalization come from industrialized countries," Kiggundu notes, "individual developing countries have no realistic option but to participate in the globalization process" (2002: 17). The adage that "a rising tide raises all boats" may be applicable in some ways to the processes of globalization. For instance, poor people may be able to benefit from societies growing richer as demonstrated by two World Bank economists, David Dollar and Aart Kraay, who studied 40 years of income statistics from 80 countries and found that growth benefits the poor just as much as the rich. According to Dollar and Kraay, "With 1% growth, the incomes of the poor rise by 1% on average; with 10% growth, they rise, on average, by 10%. Not always and not everywhere -- there are exceptions and variations -- but on average" (80). Dollar and Kraay illustrate their finding in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Per Capital Income Growth for Average Income of the Poorest One-Fifth (percentages)

Source: Norberg 2003, p. 79

The harsh realities for hundreds of millions of other global citizens that do not reach this "average," though, is the inequalities that globalization has further exacerbated. In this regard, Hammer reports that, "In a world where a few enjoy unimaginable wealth, two hundred million children under five are underweight for lack of food" (2003: 108). Not only do hundreds of millions of people lack enough to eat in a world of otherwise-plenty, fully two-thirds of the world's citizens do not have access to clean drinking water on a regular basis (Hammer 2003). These fundamental inequalities, though, represent just the tip of the inequities iceberg, making the purpose of this study particularly timely and valuable and this purpose is discussed further below.

Purpose of Study

The overarching purpose of this study was to use a political economy approach to analyze the inequalities that have been caused by globalization and the effect of these inequalities on promoting international terrorism. By identifying opportunities to address these inequalities, policymakers, nongovernmental organisations and other interested actors may be able to help eliminate the fundamental causes of terrorism and provide a framework in which further progress can be achieved in the future.

Importance of Study

Although the precise causes of international terrorism are multifaceted, many authorities cite the political and economic inequalities that exist between major industrialized nations and emerging nations that are being caused by the processes of globalization as being a proximate cause. For example, Hurrell and Woods emphasize that, "Within weak states globalization and widening inequality are eroding the capacity of governments to deal with an increasing set of social, economic, and political conflicts" (1999: 2). At the regional level, the inequalities being generated by globalization are creating instability and the further marginalization of the already impoverished (Blank 2007). At the global level, the implications of the inequalities being caused by globalization are even more severe. In this regard, Hurrell and Woods add that, "As globalization creates sharper and more urgent problems for states and international institutions, increasing inequality reduces their capacity to manage these problems effectively. In this context, it is unsurprising that the sense of unease about globalization has increased and that political and media attention has come to highlight its negative consequences" (1999: 2).

Rationale of Study

Notwithstanding its importance, the implications of globalization remain unclear and understudied (Kiggundu 2002). In fact, to date, there has not been a unified theoretical or conceptual framework developed that can even adequately explain globalization; rather, various authorities have advanced different models (Fine 2002; Bartelson 2000; Held 2000 and others), a trend that has only further contributed to the complexity of the analysis as well as confusion concerning what globalization means to different peoples (Fine 2002; Kiggundu 2002), causing some observers to question whether such a unified theory is possible. What is known with some degree of certainty, though, is that the processes of globalization are challenging the bases of order in profound ways including exacerbating inequalities both within and among states and by diminishing the ability of traditional institutions to respond to new threats to national security (Hurrell & Woods 1999).

Description of the Study Approach

This study used a combination of two methodologies, a qualitative review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly, governmental and nongovernmental organizational literature together with a case study approach, to achieve the research purpose described in the introductory chapter. This approach is highly congruent with numerous social researchers who emphasize the need to review what is known about a given topic prior to formulating opinions and drawing conclusions. For instance, Fraenkel and Wallen report that, "Researchers usually dig into the literature to find out what has already been written about the topic they are interested in investigating. Both the opinions of experts in the field and other research studies are of interest. Such reading is referred to as a review of the literature" (2001: 48). Likewise, Wood and Ellis (2003) suggest that one of the most important outcomes of a well conducted literature review is the opportunity to identify gaps in the existing body of knowledge.

The second part of the study approach consisted of a case study of the Gaza Strip. According to Thomas, a case study is "...a general term widely used, especially in the social and behavioural sciences, to refer to the description and analysis of a particular entity (object, person, group, event, state, condition, process or whatever). Such singular entities are usually natural occurrences with definable boundaries, although they exist and function within a context of surrounding circumstances" (2004: 128). This description of a case study suggests that this research approach was highly suitable for the purposes of this study. Moreover, other authorities also confirm the value of a case study approach for social research applications. For instance, according to Neuman, the case study approach is "research in which one studies a few people or cases in great detail" (2003: 530). The ability to develop an in-depth analysis of a specific topic also makes the case study methodology a highly suitable technique for the purposes of this study. As Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg point out, "The study of the single case or an array of several cases remains indispensable to the progress of the social sciences" (1991: 1). There are some distinct benefits to the use of a case study approach as well. For example, Feagin et al. add that, "The case study offers the opportunity to study these social phenomena at a relatively small price, for it requires one person, or at most a handful of people, to perform the necessary observations and interpretation of data, compared with the massive organizational machinery generally required by random sample surveys and population censuses" (1991: 2). Taken together, the combination of a critical review of the relevant literature and the case study approach represented a useful framework for developing the research needed.

The data-gathering method used for this study proceeded in a step-wise fashion, beginning with a general review of globalization, followed by more focused research concerning the effects of globalization on creating inequalities in the political and economic spheres. Similarly, the case study component also proceeded in this fashion, beginning with a general overview of the situation and its historical antecedents, followed by increasingly focused research concerning inequalities in the political and economic spheres.

Overview of Study

This study used a four-chapter format to achieve the above-stated research purpose. Chapter two of the study delivers a critical review of the relevant and peer-reviewed literature, and chapter three provides a case study of the Gaza Strip. Finally, chapter five presents a summary of the research and the study's conclusions.

Chapter 2: Globalisation, Inequalities and Terrorism

This chapter provides a review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly, governmental and nongovernmental organizational literature concerning the political and economic inequalities that have been associated with the process of globalization, followed by an analysis concerning how these inequalities have contributed to the incidence of international terrorism in recent years. A brief summary of the research concludes this chapter. In spite of its worldwide implications, the processes that are driving globalization must be interpreted and explained as they affect people at the local level (Kiggundu 2002). Modern economic definitions provide some indication of how the globalization processes are playing out at the local level, but these are insufficient to provide the robust analysis needed to understand how the inequalities being produced can be resolved (Fine 2002). In this regard, Kiggundu emphasizes that, "The key actors, who are predominately, though by no means exclusively, found in the industrial triad, drive globalization: the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. These countries, which form the G8 group, account for more than 80% of the capital, technology, and markets that drive globalization. These countries form the central core for globalization and try to ensure that the 'rules of the game' are favorable to their domestic constituencies" (2002: 18). Although the emerging economic powerhouses of the so-called "BRIC" countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) remain influential in the globalization process and such influence will continue to increase in the future, at present, the United States remains the most powerful driver of globalization (Kiggundu 2002). In fact, Kiggundu stresses that, "One cannot understand globalization without understanding the United States: its economy, drive for scientific innovation and competitiveness, capital markets, global corporation and business management acumen, geopolitics and international relations, the military, domestic politics, and popular culture" (2002: 18). While some economists project China's economy to outpace the United States in the next decade or two, at present, the U.S. remains the key player involved in the process of globalization. As Kiggundu concludes, "In the twenty-first century, the United States is well positioned for globalization -- what the United Kingdom was for the Industrial Revolution about 250 years ago. Every globalizing developing country, therefore, must understand its relationships with the G8 countries in general and the United States in particular. Likewise, Americans must understand better how the rest of the world lives and works and is governed" (2002: 18).

The experiences with globalization to date have made it apparent that the processes are inextricably interconnected with various types of extremes. In this regard, Kiggundu emphasizes that, "Winners have tended to 'take it all' by accumulating wealth, assets, opportunities, income, and political and economic power as well as control of and access to technology. Losers, on the other hand, have tended to lose it all: income, assets, economic and political power, and dignity as well as control and access to opportunities such as education and training, technology, and government services and subsidies" (2002: 18). Consequently, political and economic inequalities have become more severe and their adverse effects felt far more significantly in some regions of the world than others (Kiggundu 2002). Because peoples' lives and the quality of life for their families are at stake, it is little wonder that these inequalities have become a global sore spot that have implications far beyond their effect at the local level. In this regard, Kiggundu emphasizes that globalization "causes economic, social, political, and cultural discord, especially for societies in which equality, egalitarianism, and social justice are core values. While most developing countries have always experienced inequalities, globalization makes them more pronounced and transparent" (2002: 18). The responses needed to these political and economic inequalities demand an informed and enlightened approach that has thus far eluded policymakers in the developed nations of the world, but which is an absolute necessity in order to prevent further erosion of the ability of the developing nations of the world to join the international community in meaningful ways while contributing to the incidence of international terrorism. According to Kiggundu, "It is therefore important for every globalizing country, organization, or community to develop a strategy for managing these inequalities without, at the same time, destroying the incentives that drive competitiveness" (2002: 18). Formulating effective strategies for better managing political and economic inequalities resulting from the globalization process, though, requires not only an informed approach but the political will to do so -- and this will has largely not been evident to date. Indeed, the positive effects together with the political and economic inequalities resulting from the processes of globalization are a dual-edged sword that demands new approaches and new strategies that can contribute to the former while attenuating the latter. In this regard, Kiggundu points out that, "As it presently exists in the world today, globalization is an asymmetrical and imperfect system. To be committed to globalization is to understand its lack of symmetry among the players and its inherent imperfections. Therefore, globalizing countries, governments, businesses, institutions, and communities must commit themselves to work toward its improvement" (2002: 19). While the major industrialized countries of the world have an important role to play in reshaping the inequitable effects of globalization, emerging nations as well must do their part. As Kiggundu notes, "For developing countries, this means, among other things, not to promote globalization as a panacea for all problems, but to build the necessary institutional capacities and competencies for the defense and improvement of globalization for the greater benefit of all citizens" (2002: 19).

On a final note, Kiggundu (2002) reports that notwithstanding the growing importance of the role being played by the private sector in fueling the processes of globalization, the role of the nation-state and governments continue to be driving force as well. Therefore, the manner in which the governments of emerging nations manage the effects of globalization on their own citizens, including the administration of domestic as well as international resources, developing strategies for implementation and action, and taking advantage of best practices from the private and public sectors, will all have a direct impact on how the processes of globalization will play out in the future (Kiggundu 2002). As this authority points out, "Globalization must be managed as a complex transformational change permeating all levels of society and institutions. In the past twenty-five years, most developing countries have had experiences with similar transformational changes" (Kiggundu 2002: 19).

During the closing decades of the 20th century, many of these emerging nations took steps to effect the structural changes that were needed to take advantage of the processes of globalization, including reform of their civil service and other public sector agencies and to provide more democratic institutions. Those emerging nations that took these initiatives rather than simply sitting back and allowing the processes of globalization to overwhelm them have fared far better (Kiggundu 2002). In this regard, Kiggundu adds that, "The same is true with globalization. Those countries or societies with the political will, institutional resources and capacities, and individual motivation and competencies to manage it as a strategic opportunity will benefit more from globalization and protect themselves from some of the extreme adverse affects better than others" (2002: 19). Taken together, the negative effects of globalization are profound and broad-based, but this does not mean that the adverse outcomes must be accepted as the ultimate outcome of globalization, but it does mean that action must be taken sooner than later to help address the political and economic inequalities that have resulted from these processes.

Political Inequalities

Throughout history, nations have experienced political inequalities to be sure, and these inequalities have frequently led to conflict and war. Today, political inequalities between the developing nations of the world and emerging countries have become even more pronounced as a result of globalization. For instance, according to Hurrell and Woods, "Inequality has long been a defining feature of world politics. Immense and increasing disparities of wealth, of power, and of security shape the world in which we live. Economic liberalization is exacerbating the gap between rich and poor within virtually all developing regions" (1999: 1). Concomitantly, other aspects of globalization are also creating further inequalities in political power and influence, as well as stressing new features of these inequalities. In this regard, Hurrell and Woods report that, "For one group of countries globalization is eroding the cohesion and viability of the state. However, other countries and actors are empowered by processes of globalization, since they are better placed to adapt and exploit its new opportunities. Equally, the disparity of power among states is becoming more marked and more visible as an increasing volume of ever more far-reaching rules, rights, and values are being asserted and imposed at the global level" (1999: 1). Since the end of the Second World War and the subsequent creation of several international institutions we have been witnessing the emergence of a global politics with their foundation in the 19th century, in which interests are articulated, decisions are made by the structures of global governance - States, International Organizations and public and private agencies- the function of which is to regulate the problems of humanity. These new networks are emerging due to the inability of States to deal with the new international problems; international crime, drugs cartels, terrorism. Global governance is determined by multiple actors which have responsibility for the formulation and implementation of global rules to regulate international activities. We have now a "Post-Westphalia" order: where politics have been globalized there follows a reordering of power relations between States, international organizations and agencies (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2008: 20-27).

As a consequence we have multiple centers of National and extra-national governance located within the international organizations of world governance. The World Trade Organization regulates trade (WTO), the World Bank (WB) intervenes mainly in developing countries concerning loans and implementing policies of good governance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on writing economic reports for the developed countries and granting loans as part of its structural readjustment programs. In the nongovernamental organizations perhaps the most important given their impact on the world economy are the credit rating agencies such as Standard's and Poors, which effectively determine the cost of State loans. These organizations have a huge interventionary power in the domestic affairs of the Nation-States.

These new power relations are a result of globalization. However, there has been a tendency for these new international relations and there corresponding organizational forms to reproduce and maintain pre-existing asymmetries between countries, resulting in the significant politicization of the new global concerns. In substance the problem is that these organizations, especially the United Nations (UN), a key actor of global governance, are a product of the balance of power immediately after the second world war especially as far as the victorious nations are concerned a consequence of which is that they assume a leading position in those institutions over and above other countries. So, we have an international system suffering from a huge democratic deficit in global governance, in the leading institutions. This can be seen in the unequal allocation of votes in the international institutions. For example, on the one hand, the voting system of World Bank is divided between the largest shareholders, the United States, Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom with 40% of the votes; on the other hand the forty two sub-Saharan countries have only 5.2%of the votes. Also in the IMF where twenty four industrial countries hold ten seats on the executive board and forty two sub-Saharan countries have only two seats. Issues of peace and security are determined by only 15 members of international society, and only five can exercise the power of veto. If there was a conflict and two hundred countries decided for an intervention, the veto of any one will block any solution (Held & Macgrew, 2000: 181-190).

There are huge asymmetries of power and authority at the global level, the group of seven (G7) has a great influence on the governing boards of the international institutions, excluding the voices and influence of the developing countries, in shaping global policy. As shown in Figure 2 below, the differences between actors that have a seat in non-governmental-organizations and those who do not are alarming, and represent a clear indication of the huge gap between the affluent and impoverished and their influence on global politics (Held & Kaya 2007).

Figure 2. Numbers of NGOs having Members in Low Income, Middle Income and High Income Countries 1991-2001

One criticism of this system of global governance is that there is a lack of justice and morality in the global governance institutions and that global politics is shaped by the interests of individual States in pursuit of their own agenda at the expense of the others, instead of pursuing the common good for global society. So we can conclude that national interest of each State is much more important than any international morality, their having manipulated the international institutions as a strategy to maintain their hegemony, their raison d'etat (Held 2004: 92). This was recently demonstrated in the Copenhagen summit where the States refused to accept any binding resolution to fight climate change, their national interests put above the common good.

Despite the enshrining of various principles of global governance in treaties, international law and trade rules, there is not yet in the international system a single power that can aggregate all these networks. The U.S.A. could, in concept, provide a valuable service by taking the institutional leading role on the global level and promote greater peace and prosperity to the world; however, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. has been preoccupied with pursuing a more unilateralist policy in many areas. For instance, in the economic field is printing more dollars (quantitative easing) to recapitalize their economy which is leading to inflation and the export of inflation exacerbating even further the inequalities between rich and the poor countries. In the field of defense their unilateralist position in the Iraq war has lead to an upsurge of violence worldwide (Held & McGrew 2000: 182).

Globalization brought enormous disparities between States, cementing inequalities between winners and losers especially for those who have the capacity to make the rules, metapower. The international system need to be reformed, be more democratic, but the problem is that the established powers will resist any reform in the institutions which they dominate, so we should say we do not have true global politics, but instead a distorted global politics because those who have the power, shape the policies in their favor, colonialist power reestablished in the world institutions. It is clear we do not have a supreme authority to rule the world. Rather the international system is compounded in favor of who have the power to make rules (Held & McGrew 2000: 387).

Taken together, it is clear that the negative effects of globalization are being concentrated in a few key regions of the world, including Africa, India, parts of Asia and Oceania. Moreover, beyond the foregoing, the processes of globalization have also introduced changing systems of norms and rules regarding national security, investment, responsibilities for appropriate environmental management, and social structures; by and large, these changes are being imposed by the movers and shakers of globalization, rather than the emerging nations that must tag along in the process (Hurrell & Woods 1999). According to Hurrell and Woods, "Less powerful states are, even more than in the past, becoming 'rule-takers'. Equally, technological advances, far from creating more equality among states and other groups, are in fact widening gaps among states and regions" (1999, p. 1). Although these processes are affecting a broad-based array of human factors, national security issues have been placed at the forefront of many countries' ambitious as a result of the regional and local destabilization caused by terrorism. As the United States continues to seek hegemony among the world's nations, it is reasonable to suggest that increased military spending by the U.S. And other countries with little or no historical track record of massive military investments will become the norm. In this regard, Hurrell and Woods also note that, "In the military sphere, advanced technologies and the so-called revolution in military affairs may be leading to a recentralization of military and coercive power around the United States and its core allies. Overall, then, globalization is exacerbating inequalities of resources, capabilities, and, perhaps most importantly, the power to make and break rules in the international arena" (1999: 1).

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, these issues became even more pronounced as the United States and its allies sought ways to counter these non-state actors that defied conventional military solutions. The asymmetrical warfare that has characterized the conflicts between Western countries (for the most part, but certainly not entirely) and developing nations since that time is not necessarily new, but like the other forces at work in the globalization process, they became far more pronounced after September 11, 2001. In this regard, Apostolov emphasizes that, "The challenge that the global system of states faced in September 2001 was not at all new. There were clear signs in the Christian-Muslim frontier zone, during the last decades of the twentieth century, that the construction of a global network of nation states was not going unchallenged" (2004: 37). One clear indication of how the political inequalities that have become especially pronounced as a result of globalization can be seen from Apostolov's observation that, "State institutions in [developing nations] had simply fallen apart under pressure from imploding communal strife. Political extremists in various countries, affected by communal conflicts in the zone of contact, capitalized on the historical animosity between Christians and Muslims" (2004: 37). Likewise, political inequalities in other regions of the world have been fueled by globalization in ways that have not been witnessed in the past. For instance, Apostolov also notes that, "Political entrepreneurs within the intermingled confessional communities struggled over the distribution of territory and political influence. They used popular fears of the cruelty of 'the other' who lived next door. These fears were deeply seated in the historical memory of the different communities" (2004: 37).

Overriding all of these factors is the ugly fact that many people are making a lot of money from geopolitical inequalities, and these powerbrokers have little incentive to see things changed. In this regard, Fine (2002) emphasizes that, "Far from simply being the victims of globalisation, some nation-states promote and benefit from it" (17). The military-industrial complex is well-known to benefit from strife, and these issues are cited time and again among marginalized people as being a major source of unrest, discontent and even terrorism. After all, what do people who are having drones attack them have to lose by fighting back? In sum, then, the political inequalities that have become exacerbated by the process of globalization have also contributed to an enormous array of negative outcomes, the full consequences of which remain to be seen. Adding further fuel to these fires are significant economic inequalities that have been caused by globalization, and these issues are discussed further below.

Financial liberalization and economic instability

Over the last decade, the International Monetary Fund and World Rank have pressured countries to remove restrictions on capital flows. The deregulation of the financial sector has made it much easier to move money into developing countries. In much of Asia and Latin America, and in Russia, foreign investment funds have poured money into short-term investments in various financial instruments. Capital flows to developing countries rose from approximately $2 billion in 1980 to $120 billion in 1997, a jump of 6,000%.

Debt

The developing countries collectively owe $2.3 trillion to foreign creditors. Sub-Saharan African nations owe more than $200 billion to foreign creditors. Developing countries must pay interest on these loans and pay back the principal.

Elevated interest rates

In an era of globalizing financial markets, the very high interest rates pursued by the U.S. Federal Reserve in the 1980s meant that the rest of the world would be forced to adopt high interest rates as well. Although rich countries have steadily reduced interest rates over the last decade, globalized financial markets have led developing countries to maintain high rates. Given the greater risk in developing countries, free-flowing capital demands a higher rate of return. Particularly in the wake of financial crises or near-crises, developing country interest rates have risen to extremely high rates - all in an effort to keep capital from fleeing. On top of these market demands comes pressure from the International Monetary Fund on developing countries to maintain high interest rates, and not to take steps that could stem capital flight while enabling interest rate reductions. Under such pressures, the new Brazilian government of Lula is maintaining interest rates of 26%. The impacts of high interest rates on inequality - both between and within countries - are severe.

Trade liberalization

Trade liberalization has heightened differences among wage earners. Unskilled workers in developing countries and industrialized countries alike have been particularly hard hit by international competition. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reported in its 1997 Trade and Development Report that "in almost all developing countries that have undertaken rapid trade liberalization, wage inequality has increased, most often in the context of declining industrial employment of unskilled workers and large absolute tails in their real wages, of the order of 20-30% in some Latin American countries. The growing gap in wages between skilled and unskilled workers maybe explained in part by extremely intense global competition to perform unskilled work (think of the apparel and shoe companies that switch from sweatshops in Mexico to El Salvador to Indonesia to Bangladesh and China in constant search of cheaper labor).

Agricultural dumping and agricultural trade liberalization

Grain-trading companies from rich countries are increasingly flooding developing countries with below-production-cost food exports. Companies such as Cargill benefit from market arrangements (especially highly concentrated markets among the trading companies) that drive prices below the cost of production, and enable them to buy and export grains at super-cheap prices to poor nations. Sometimes the trading companies benefit from subsidies that are targeted just to exports.

Source: Weissman 2003, p. 10

In sum, then, irrespective of their differing views concerning the causes or implications of globalization, there is a growing consensus among economists that "global poverty is now the defining issue" (Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard 2004, p. 12) and the effect of these trends is discussed further below at it applies to worsening the incidence and severity of international terrorism.

How Inequalities Fuel International Terrorism

The product of the inequalities created by globalization is the widening gap between the rich and poor and the powerlessness of States to solve the problems of their society. As a consequence sections of such populations turn to new entities to solve their problems and start to shift their loyalties with the objective of changing the political situation. The problem is the States are unable to control the fundamentalist movements that emerge in response to a dynamic political situation. During the period from 1968 to 1989, there were 1,673 terrorist actions per year, from 1990 to 1998, this number rose to 4,389 terrorists actions per year. There is a clear correlation between the spread of globalization and the increase in terror attacks (Rand Corporation). These trends also demonstrate that terrorists are now capable of inflicting asymmetrically harmful attacks on their enemies (i.e., the Western nations and their allies), causing Booth and Dunne to suggest that, "We can conclude that the terrorism of the twenty-first century is a manifestation and a reaction to the unequal processes of globalization" (2002: 22).

The individuals that commit these acts have nothing to lose but they are not necessarily poor or uneducated. Since the end of the 1990's until now we have seen more educated people recruited by the terrorist organizations committing attacks especially suicide attacks, a recent example was the failed attack on a plane by a Nigerian citizen that had a degree from a British university. A study conducted by the Rand Corporation compares the characteristics of suicide martyrs recruited from Hamas and the Islamic jihad from Gaza and the West Bank that found that more than 60% of the terrorist's attacks during the second intifada were led by people with a high school education, compared with less than 15% of the population at large. The study shows that the skill level of the average terrorist rises when economic conditions are poor, and high unemployment rates enable terrorist organizations to recruit more educated people.(Economist 2010). Moreover, suicide terrorists of high quality are associated with more complex terror attacks, more important targets, and better outcomes for the terror organizations. It is also interesting to note that terrorists previously detained in Israel travel shorter distances to commit a suicide attack. Undoubtedly economic conditions affect the frequency and severity of future suicide terrorists (Economic conditions and the quality of suicide terrorism).

According to Bueno de Mesquita there is a correlation between economic conditions and the frequency and severity of the types of terrorism that can be expected in the future. Individuals have to choose to work in a market economy or to be absorbed by a terrorist organization. They are more likely to become a terrorist because of the decline of the State and industrial sector, which leaves them with no opportunities (de Mesquita). Global market capitalism contributes to the erosion of local economic structures, this translates to a lack of income; inability to marry, and so on. Consequently their existence becomes more fragile and they are more readily corrupted by the terrorist organizations. Involvement in such organizations gives them meaning in their lives (Kaldor 2003). In this regard, Apostolov emphasizes that, "Uneven development around the world may have been the factor that allowed extremist political entrepreneurs to mobilize support for their operations. Even if many terrorists are not directly driven by poverty, the inequalities of globalization feed a general anti-Westernism that is a seedbed for Islamism" (2004: 140). Finally, according to Hammer (2003), the terrorist attacks in recent years can be viewed as being a direct manifestation of the disparities created by globalization, but it is important to keep in mind that terrorism is viewed differently by its proponents:

These events have provoked widespread discussions that have circulated problematic and restricted definitions of terrorism which conceal and ignore its multidimensionality in regards to violation of individual and global human rights, including multiple forms of violence directed at massive numbers of disenfranchised peoples, especially women, children and the elderly. Moreover restricted definitions of terrorism generally fail to recognize that it often finds its basis in patriarchal codes which permeate and organize a variety of political, social, economic and cultural relations of everyday life. (Hammer 2003: 108)

Summary

The research showed that the innovations in telecommunications and transportation that have fueled the processes of globalization have also worked to further exacerbate existing economic disparities between the world's richest and poorest citizens. Many authorities were shown to believe that these disparities have been intentionally created and sustained through international economic policies that favor the West at the expense of the Global South. Finally, the research was consistent in showing that most observers believe that the incidence and severity of terrorism will continue to increase in the future unless and until these fundamental disparities are recognized and resolved by the international community.

Chapter 4: Case Study of the Gaza Strip

Background and Overview

The Gaza Strip is about 28 miles (46 forty-six kilometers) long and about 6-1/2 miles (8 kilometers) wide. The region's total area consists of only 360 square kilometers, with the Gaza Strip being bordered by Israel to the north and the east and Egypt to the south; the Mediterranean Sea border the strip to the west (Gordon, Gordon & Shriteh 2003) (see political map of the Gaza Strip in Figure 5 below).

Figure 5. Political map of the Gaza Strip

Source: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48800000/gif/_48800170_gaza_strip3_ map466.gif

A high fence completely surrounds the Gaza Strip, with Israeli troops patrolling the northern and eastern borders on a 24-hour basis, the southern border being patrolled by Israeli and Egyptian troops (also on a 24-hour basis) and with Israeli Dabur gunboats patrolling the Meditarrean Sea (Gordon, Gordon & Shriteh 2003). Access to the Gaza Strip is highly regulated. For instance, Gordon et al. report that, "There are only five official entrances to the Gaza Strip. Karni passage is for transferring goods to and from Israel. Palestinians can use only the Erez entrance in order to enter Israel and the Rafah entrance in order to enter Egypt. The other two entrances are for Israelis, mainly settlers" (2003: 3). Furthermore, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli security service (the Shabak) have sole discretion concerning which Israelis and Palestinians are allowed access through these entrances, including the entrance to Egypt (Gordon et al. 2003). The population in the Gaza Strip is relatively young, with more than half (50.4%) being under age 15 years reflecting a high dependency ratio in the region (Tabutin & Schoumaker 2005). Furthermore, the Gaza Strip also has one of the world's highest birth rates. According to Tabutin and Schoumaker, although estimates by the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics indicate a modest decline in the birth rates in recent years, the Gaza Strip remains one of the most estimates densely population areas in the world with a birth rate of about 4.5% annually (Tabutin & Schoumaker 2005).

With respect to residential localities in the Gaza Strip, the three predominant forms are: (a) rural (villages), (b) camps, and (c) towns; currently, there are eight refugee camps, 14 villages, and four towns situated in the Gaza Strip, with the respective population for these regions being grouped as followed:

1. 9% of the general population lives in rural areas (villages),

2. 3% live in semi-urban areas,

3. 53% live in urban areas (towns), and

4. 35% live in refugee camps, where Palestinian families immigrated after the 1948 catastrophe (Thabet & Vostanis 2005).

The origins of the Gaza Strip are traced to 1948 when the region was created as a political and geographical entity after the end of the first Arab-Israeli war that resulted from the creation of the Israeli state (Gordon et al. 2003). One of the major sticking points in the ongoing efforts to forge a lasting peace in this region of the world has been the stated goal of many residents of the Gaza Strip to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth, a commitment that was made early on and has remained firmly in place since that time (Gordon et al. 2003). For instance, Gordon and his associates report that the first Arab-Israeli war:

. . . was a result of the decision of the Arab nations bordering Palestine and of many of the Arabs living in Palestine to fight against the United Nations decision to establish a Jewish State on part of the land that had been the British Mandate in Palestine. These nations notified the world that they would annihilate the Jewish State if it were established when the British Mandate terminated. True to their word, five Arab armies began to invade Israel on May 15, 1948, when the British Mandate in Palestine ended and the British troops evacuated the area. These invading armies were supported by some of the Palestinian Arabs living in Palestine. (2003: 3)

Following its seizure by the Israeli Defense Forces, the Gaza Strip was administered by an Israeli military governmental authority, an act that carried inevitable and predictable consequences. For instance, Gazit reports that, "The imposition of a military government was required both by international law and by the need to prepare for the inevitable resistance of the population, which would emerge sooner or later. The end of fighting in the war did not end the state of hostility between Israel and the Arab world" (2003: 45). The origins of terrorism as a tool of change in the region during these formative years can be easily discerned from Gazit's observation that, "On the contrary, Israel had to rule over a hostile Palestinian population, which was immediately subject to provocations by political and military parties. Both the Arab States and the Palestinian organizations beyond the border strove to renew the armed struggle in order to thwart any Israeli attempt to encourage co-existence and orderly life in the Administered Territories" (2003: 45).

Despite the overwhelming logistical, social, political and religious obstacles that were involved, the Israeli-imposed military government did manage to succeed in addressing the majority of these issues due in large part to the following:

1. The physical damages of the war were not severe. The economic infrastructure and the service infrastructure were hardly damaged, and the short duration of fighting (less than 72 hours in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) prevented damages stemming from a prolonged disruption of routine civilian life. The dearth of damages had a lot to do with the nature of the local economy, which was largely based on primitive agriculture. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip there was hardly any industry and dependence on the import of raw materials, machines and spare parts was minimal. The local use of electricity was limited and there was hardly any foreign trade. The local economy was based mainly on providing its own needs, and as such adjusted quickly to the Israeli administration.

2. The local population showed a willingness, out of fear or out of habit, to cooperate with the new Israeli administration and return to its routine.

3. In the Gaza Strip (where more than 200,000 Palestinian refugees lived), the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency) (UNRWA) played an important role in quickly resuming food distribution and other services to the population.

4. Because of the short length of the war and the minimal physical damages to the infrastructure and the economy, it was not hard for Israel and the IDF to divert efforts and resources to handling the administrative and economic problems in the Territories.

5. Many of the commanders who served in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip at the time were resourceful and had the ability to improvise. Thanks to them, urgent problems were solved without the need to take them before higher echelons to get their instructions.

6. The minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, who quickly took practical and formal responsibility for administering the Territories, had clear and coherent views on the nature of the desirable military administration and the proper policy for handling problems that came up. Thereby precious time that could have been spent on long discussions to formulate a policy was spared (Gazit 2003, p. 6).

Economic Links between Israel and the Gaza Strip

Following the end of the Six Day War in 1967, there were a number of views advanced concerning what types of economic links should be implemented between Israel and the Gaza Strip (Reuveny 1999). One perspective advanced by the Israeli finance minister supported economic separation; another contrasting perspective advanced by the defense minister favored economic integration between the Gaza Strip and Israel (Reuveny 1999). According to Reuveny, "Supporters of integration won the debate, and by 1972 Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip were highly integrated. On the eve of the Palestinian uprising (Intifada), nearly 90% of Palestinian trade was with Israel. Furthermore, nearly 40% of Palestinian labor worked in Israel, generating about 35% of Palestinian national income" (1999: 37).

During the 1990s, the debate concerning what type of economic relationship should exist between Israeli and the Gaza Strip, segregation vs. integration, characterized by three fundamental views:

1. Some analysts support Israeli-Palestinian integration, believing that integration promotes peace since it is beneficial to both sides; others reject separation, arguing that it could damage the Palestinian economy.

2. Proponents of the second position do not overrule economic cooperation, but promote only partial integration, warning that the two economies are not compatible; others supporting this position argue that full integration would benefit Palestinians more than Israelis.

3. Yet another group warns that historically tight economic links of some countries have not necessarily been associated with peace. Supporters of the third position promote economic separation, arguing that integration perpetuates an already distorted Palestinian economy centered on low-paying, low-tech, labor-intensive sectors, with a low level of industrialization and a poor standard of living (Reuveny 1999).

By the 1990s, Arab states were conscious of Israel's economic superiority and feared that Israel would use its power to promote its own interests.

Moreover, there were demands to hold back cooperation with Israel until the peace process, particularly regarding the Palestinians, was complete (Ben-Porat 2006). The New Middle East (NME), written by Shimon Peres sometime before the Oslo Accords, provides an exemplary liberal blueprint for peace based on economic rationality, interdependence, and mutual gain. For the vast majority of Palestinians NME was even less convincing. Peace dividends were insufficient to make significant changes in everyday life and when Israel responded to Palestinian terrorism by imposing closures on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Palestinian economy, heavily dependent on the Israeli labor market, plummeted. Measured against the advances made by other states in the region, argues Roy, the Palestinian economy was weaker than it was in 1967. Under these terms, opposition to the peace process rapidly grew. The religious Hamas movement maintained a steady opposition to the peace process based on the belief that not an inch of Palestine could be ceded to Israel or any other non-Muslim entity and, therefore, that "Palestine" was a non-negotiable value. While initially the Hamas support base was relatively narrow, as the peace process seemed to lead nowhere - much because of Hamas' terrorism - and economic hardships remained, support for Hamas widened (Ben-Porat 2006, p. 312).

A recent study by Benmelech, Berrebi and Klor (2010) examined the relationship between economic conditions and the quality of suicide terrorism during the period between 2000 and 2006. These researchers cite the extant literature that indicates that poverty and economic conditions are not specially correlated with the quantity of terror, but speculate that poverty and poor economic conditions may affect the quality of terror (Benmelech et al., 2010). According to these researchers, "Poor economic conditions may lead more able, better-educated individuals to participate in terror attacks, allowing terror organizations to send better-qualified terrorists to more complex, higher-impact, terror missions" (Benmelech et al., 2010, para. 1). Based on their analysis of Palestinian suicide terrorists against Israeli targets during the period 2000 to 2006, Benmelech and his colleagues (2010) provide evidence concerning the correlation between economic conditions, the characteristics of suicide terrorists and the targets they attack. Based on their findings, Benmelech et al. conclude that, "High levels of unemployment enable terror organizations to recruit more educated, mature and experienced suicide terrorists who in turn attack more important Israeli targets" (2010, para. 2). The terror organizations that may employ such tactics may be the more well-known political entities such as Hamas (notwithstanding its assertions to the contrary) as well as other, less visible organizations that may form and re-form as the exigencies of the political dynamic demand.

Summary

While the respective strengths and weaknesses of the foregoing perspectives of the Israelis have been intensely debated by the international community, they tend to ignore the stated goals of the Palestinian people who occupy the Gaza Strip, including statehood and the destruction of Israel in the process (Apostolov 2004). The economic disparities that have been generated and sustained through the lack of meaningful reforms while the endless debate over what types of relationships should exist between Israel and the residents of the Gaza Strip continues has only made matters worse, and the Palestinians themselves are uncertain concerning how best to proceed. What the Palestinians do know for certain, though, is that they sincerely believe they are suffering at the hands of their Israeli overlords who they view as occupiers rather than peacemakers. According to Apostolov, the piecemeal fashion in which the Gaza Strip has been administered over the years has adversely affected its ability to establish a sense of nationhood and these frustrations have been manifested in acts of terrorism and escalating violence between these two peoples. In this regard, Apostolov emphasizes that, "By 1996 Israel had withdrawn from 60 per cent of the Gaza Strip and 5 per cent of the West Bank. A Palestinian National Authority was established in these areas, but the fragmented autonomous areas remained ringed by Israeli-occupied belts. This situation seriously impedes Palestinian state building, and contributed to the explosion of the second intifada in 2001" (2004: 37). Unfortunately, little has changed in the intervening decade and the newspaper headlines only need to have the date changed to reflect the lack of progress in the region. Indeed, according to Thabet and Vostanis, "Since September 2000, the peace process has unfortunately collapsed in the area (Al Aqsa Intifada). In the Gaza Strip, there were 1,151 deaths and in West Bank 1,441 deaths. The total number of casualties was 36,299. In Gaza Strip there were 11,407 casualties and in West Bank 25,092 casualties, approximately 40% of them were children under 18 years" (2005: 85). High levels of unemployment, a clearly discernible sense of lingering desperation and adults witnessing their children suffering in this political malaise are also evident in the literature. For instance, Thabet and Vostanis add that in the Gaza Strip, "Children and families have been exposed to a variety of traumatic events, ranging from hearing of killing, to bombardment by helicopters in the entire Gaza Strip. The current conflict differs from the previous Intifada, in which events such as night and day raids were common occurrence. A number of studies have found an increase in level of trauma and PTSD" (2005: 85). In sum, the residents of the Gaza Strip and Israel remain firmly entrenched in their respective politically oriented ideologies in ways that adversely affect economic development and the incidence and severity of international terrorism.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

The review of the literature showed that the processes that are fueling globalization are as ancient as humankind itself, but these processes have been accelerated over the past century and a half, particularly in the last 20 years or so as innovations in technology, particularly telecommunications and transportation, have contributed to enormous increases in international commerce. On the one hand, there have been some positive outcomes attributed to globalization, including these increases in international commerce (but not necessarily to the benefit of developing nations) as well as improved cross-cultural understanding and communications, but on the other hand, there have been some truly poignant negative outcomes associated with globalization as well. These negative outcomes have included most especially a further widening of the gap between the world's very rich and the very poor, with a few hundred Americans earning as much every year as all of the nations of Africa combined.

The research also showed that the political and economic inequalities that are being widened every day are contributing to the increase in the incidence of international terrorism. Although international terrorism cannot be explained in whole by these responses to political and economic inequalities, the research was consistent in showing that these inequalities were a proximate cause and helped created an environment where many marginalized people feel they have no recourse but to take violent actions against their perceived oppressors, especially the United States and its allies abroad, most especially the United Kingdom and Israel. As the so-called Arab Spring continues to reshape the Arab world, it is becoming increasingly apparent that these responses will likely continue well into the foreseeable future as people around the world seek to gain their fair share of an ever-shrinking pool of global resources.

Finally, the research showed that perhaps nowhere else in the world are such political and economic inequalities concentrated to such an extent as the Gaza Strip. In this, one of the most densely populated regions of the world, can be found every permutation of inequity but there is plenty of blame to go around to be sure. Given their circumstances, the Israelis are concerned about allowing the Palestinians to formally create a new state as their neighbor given the consistent and unrelenting attacks on their citizens over the years pursuant to the stated goal of many residents to destroy Israel, but the draconian measures that Israel has taken in response have not made them many friends in this community. The manner in which the political and economic inequalities that characterize this two-sided relationship are resolved -- if they are -- may serve as a useful framework for other countries faced with the same types of problems.

In many ways, the world is already straining at the seams as six billion inhabitants struggle to earn a living, find enough food and fresh water for themselves and their families, and provide a secure, safe place to live. By the middle of the 21st century, this number will have increased to nine billion people with the same basic needs as today, but with far fewer resources to go around. This scenario is further complicated by the fact that fossil fuel sources are being rapidly depleted and some experts predict that peak oil will be reached by 2050 as well. The existing inequalities between the world's very rich and the very poor will only be deepened as these processes unfold in coming years, and the implications for the international community are profound. The current levels of political and economic inequalities are already causing dissension and strife in many regions of the world and some religious fundamentalists are responding with violence in the form of international terrorism.

Certainly, Osama bin Laden has been eliminated but the Al-Qaeda organization he founded lives on with a new leader and plenty of fresh troops ready to take up where he left off. International terrorism is an enormously destabilizing force in a world being driven by globalization and this clash of civilizations represents a significant threat to not only the United States and its allies abroad, but to the European Union, the Middle East, Asia and Northern Africa as well. As noted above, complex problems, of course, require complex solutions and history has rarely presented a set of circumstances to equal the complexity of this "perfect storm" of powerful forces coming to bear on humankind at a single point in time. Historians in the 21st century (if there are any left) may well look back on this period in human history and either applaud the enlightened and informed approaches that were taken in response to inequalities being produced by globalization or shake their heads in wonder that so little was done in response given the enormous implications of failing to act. Eliminating the global economic disparities that fuel terrorism may not end the bloodshed, but it is reasonable to conclude that it represents a viable place to begin the process.