Bernatkova 1 How To Survive the 21

Bernatkova 1
How To Survive the 21st Century: Multi-Stakeholder Policy Networks in Tackling the
21st Century Threats
Lucie Bernatkova
Professor David Martin-McCormick, Advisor
University Honors in International Studies
American University, School of International Service
Spring 2012
1
Bernatkova 2
Abstract
The technological progress that drove the recent wave of globalization has constructed a
completely new setting that has allowed for connectivity among individuals, firms, and
governments. Barriers to trade have decreased as well as the private transaction costs of
transportation and information, facilitating the proliferation of numerous new actors, new
power structures, and new security threats in the global context. The Capstone
recommends the most effective arrangement for global governance – the multistakeholder policy networks. Following an analysis of globalization and its implications
on the security context, the paper explores the characteristics of four global threats environmental problems, nuclear proliferation, illegal drugs, and terrorism – and, based
on it, makes a case for transformation of governance away from state-centric approaches.
It concludes that, multi-stakeholder policy networks represent a system flexible enough to
adapt to new challenges and realities as authority and sovereignty are being dispersed up
and down to multiple agencies in global system.
2
Bernatkova 3
How To Survive the 21st Century: Multi-Stakeholder Policy Networks in
Tackling the 21st Century Threats
Outline:
• Globalization and its implications
• Governing the new context
• The four global threats
§ Environmental Threats
§ Proliferation of WMD
§ Terrorism
§ Illegal drugs
• The Future of Governance: Multi-stakeholder Networks
o Main Actors
§ MNCs
§ Civil Society
§ Intergovernmental Informal Organizations
o Critique of the Multi-stakeholder Networks
The technological progress that drove the recent wave of globalization has
constructed a completely new setting that has allowed for connectivity among
individuals, firms, and governments. Barriers to trade have decreased as well as the
private transaction costs of transportation and information facilitating the proliferation of
numerous new actors, new power structures, and new issues in the global context. The
New World order emerging after the Cold War was thought to be able to lay foundation
for global economic prosperity and global peace leading to proclamations such as the
Fukuyama’s ‘The End of the History’. Nonetheless, the world is far from that. The
emergence of new security threats driven by globalization led to slipping away of this
maxim of post-history.
The ultimate goal of the policy paper is to recommend the most effective
arrangement for global security that would be able to mitigate or eliminate transnational
threats. The paper tackles this by (1) providing analysis of globalization and its
3
Bernatkova 4
implications, with special attention on the characteristics of the new context; (2) making a
case for a transformation of governance away from state-centric approaches; (3)
describing the characteristics of environmental problems, nuclear proliferation, illegal
drugs, and terrorism; and finally (4) outlining the framework of multi-stakeholder policy
networks – the system that is flexible enough to adapt to new challenges and realities and
provides the largest promise in ensuring collective security.
GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
•
•
Globalization: process accelerated after the End of the Cold War
Implications:
o The Retreat of the State; globalization created a governance vacuum
o New Security Context
§ Emergence of new threats:
§ globalization as double-edged sword – it gives individuals and
communities modernizing options but also facilitates the
emergence of series of new security challenges
Retreat of the State and Traditional Notions of Sovereignty
Globalization represents a gradual and advancing growth of interaction activities, forms
of organization, and forms of cooperation outside the traditional spaces defined by
sovereignty. “Activity takes place in a less localized, less insulated way as
transcontinental and interregional patterns criss-cross and overlap one another” (Cha,
2000, pp. 392). As such, globalization challenges the autonomy of individuals and
communities to self-govern themselves and thereby leads to erosion of state and its
power.
4
Bernatkova 5
Retreat of the State
The formation of the world as we know it today
and its capitalist features have been based upon the
construction
of
territorially
limited
entities
‘capable of regulating social and political life and
of monopolizing means of coercion and violence
(Arrighi, 1999, p. 58)’. The emergence of these
entities, states, is linked to their potency to protect
“The powers of most states have
further declined to the point that
their authority over the people and
their activities inside the territorial
boundaries has weakened” and the
multinationals “as non state
authorities … have impinged more
and more on the people and their
activities”
-Strange, 1996, pp.xi
the commons and the ability to provide public goods within territorial boundaries
(Khagram and Waddell, 2007). This served as a basis for sovereignty and represents the
underpinning of today’s multilateral institutions. Nonetheless, the present wave of
globalization undermines and constrains sovereignty.
The standard tale argues that a series of constraints that economic openness places
on the ‘viability and effectiveness of particular national policies – macroeconomic, fiscal,
social and industrial’ (Weiss, 2003, p. 3) has made the state incapable of solving ‘the
control of the financial system, the act to protect the environment and the failure to
preserve the balance between the rich and the powerful and the poor and the weak’
(Strange, 1999, pp. 345). Globalization is as such seen to be intrinsically constraining
because economic ‘openness involves the fall of national barriers to trade, investment and
financial flows, exposure to increasing capital mobility, and also conformity with
intergovernmental agreements requiring, for example, that governments open their
markets to foreign trade’ (Weiss, 2003, pp. 3).
5
Bernatkova 6
Openness, as a consequence of globalization, is therefore seen as a severely
constraining factor in relation to government action as it places demands and puts limits
to what governments can do across a wide range of policy areas. This would seem to
imply ‘an ever-expanding universe of economic interdependency and integration between
national economies (Hirst and Thompson, 2002, pp. 256) will eventually lead to the fall
of national boundaries and as such the overarching conclusion is that it is not just the
state’s policymaking capacities but moreover the state itself as an institution that is being
transformed, ‘downsizing its powers and capacities, and distributing authority to other
political
and
economic
actors
at
local,
national
and
international
level’
(Weiss, 2003, pp.8).
Authority and sovereignty are being dispersed up and down to multiple agencies
in global system. The growth in the authority of non-state actors, such as transnational
firms, has led to the diffusion of authority downwards from states to smaller entities,
erosion of power based on territory, and an
increase in non-territorially based power in
economy, technology, and communication.
Not only that power is shifting
away from the state by global systemic
pressures but also, as Strange (1996)
alleges, the retreat of the state can be
attributed to the erosion of confidence in
political leadership. Politicians are seen as
impotent, incompetent, and corrupt by
“The threats to peace and
security in the 21st century
include not just international
war
and
conflict,
but
terrorism, weapons of mass
destruction, organized crime
and civil violence. They also
include
poverty,
deadly
infectious
disease
and
environmental degradation,
since these can have equally
catastrophic
consequences.
All of these threats can cause
death or lessen life chances on
a large scale. All of them can
undermine States as the basic
unit of the international
system.”
- Kofi Annan (2005)
6
Bernatkova 7
publics and thus unable to deal with the issues, such as unemployment, declining quality
of public services, security. Altogether this implies that the policy-making and regulation
authority have shifted out of control of the state.
The Security Implications of Globalization
The most important security-related effect of globalization is the way it changed the
concept of ‘threat’ both in terms of agency and scope (Cha, 2000). The processes that
create globalization accelerate some dangerous phenomena, such as climate change, or
give power to certain groups, such as organized crime groups or terrorist groups, in an
unprecedented way.
Collective Threats
Although there are multiple global threats and risks that were created or acerbated by
globalization, as Annan states, addressing each of them is beyond the scope of this work.
This work addresses four collective security threats – the environmental problems,
proliferation of WMDs, Terrorism, and Illicit Drugs.
The main two challenges - the only truly global ones – that we face are the
existence of WMDs and the man-made climate change (Cerruti, 2007). These are called
global challenges as they represent the ‘make-or-brake’ threats in the system we live in.
They able to overturn the structure of policy making, as known nowadays, and make
global governance absolutely essential while, at the same time, making it more unlikely
to transpire as it would precondition a transformation in the fundamental political
calculus. It would require the political actors to replace national self-interest (and
maximization of self-utility) for responsibility for future generations as the driving factor
7
Bernatkova 8
behind behavior (Cerruti, 2007). The other threats – terrorism and illicit drugs - are
conceived as ‘risks’ rather than full-fledged global challenges, using Cerruti’s abovedescribed interpretation. Their progression does not have the capacity to destroy the
world for the future generations to come.
GOVERNING THE NEW CONTEXT
• The need for concerted efforts across national borders to address the current
challenges and threats is needed given the contemporary context of increasing
interdependence across nations
• Global problems cannot be solved by any one nation-state alone in the increasingly
interconnected world
• The challenges are beyond the scope of single nation
• The case for transformation of governance
o
Erosion of state
o
New threats
• Multilateral order is no longer inadequate
• Role of state in the new context
The rise of new security threats coupled with the erosion of the state as the sole
governing unit, requires a new form of governance. Clearly, the systems that were created
in the 20th century fail to manage or mitigate the 21st century treats and risks.
The Case for Transformation of Governance
By shifting the power away form the state, globalization processes are begetting a
transformation of governance. This is further compounded by the need for addressing an
increasing portfolio of transnational problems. In fact, in the upcoming decade intense
transformative forces of systemic importance will continue to affect the lives of people.
Driven by globalization, these forces, which are characterized by speed, abundance, and
interconnectivity, will continue to gather to engulf not only countries but also companies,
8
Bernatkova 9
cultures, and other communities. These threats to global stability have been proliferating
and will become more acute.
The gravest threats of these, the ones that, as defined above, can are true global
challenges, could create a context in which the world system as we know it could break
down (Cerruti, 2012). Finding solution to them requires a collective and collaborative
action – something that the states in the multilateral system do not have a strong record of
doing, as seen by the apparent failure to create an effective regime to tackle climate
change
There are inherent limits to supra-nationality and the principles that reinforce it are
unsuitable vis-à-vis the current global challenges. These limits imposed by the national
interest-centered political calculus that underpins the multilateral system and the inherent
tensions between universal values and state sovereignty built into the system, combined,
combined with increasing interdependence and proliferation of non-state actors, have
resulted in the calls for new forms of governance. The transformation to a new form
needs to go beyond a simple reform of the multilateral system that was created postWWII. As Khanna (2011, p. 3) says, it’s the technology and money, not sovereignty, that
resolves who the main decision makers are and who holds the authority. States are no
longer able to restrain the movement of information and technology in the post-sovereign
space (Roseanu 1996). MNCs are.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that states remain an important actor in the
decision-making. Contrary to the past, they are not, however, the only ones running the
show. Their consent is vital to all the efforts in global decision-making. The main
9
Bernatkova 10
problem with this is that they remain to choose self-serving actions, the actions that
correspond to their narrowly defined national interests.
THE FOUR GLOBAL THREATS
The following section of the policy brief is divided into four parts along the lines
of four global threats the challenge of which was intensified by (1) environmental
problems; (2) proliferation of WMD; (3) terrorism, and (4) illicit drugs. Each of the parts
includes an analysis of the treat, considers its impact on international security, lists what
it takes to tackle the issue, and comments on the relevance of state in the solution to the
threat. The ultimate recommendation for the solution of the threats is outlined in the next
section of the paper, titled ‘The Future of Global Governance: Multi-Stakeholder
Networks and Public-Private Partnerships.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
This section focuses on the impact of environmental problems, especially climate
change, on international security and considers the appropriate responses under the
framework of multi-stakeholder governance.
Background & Characteristics of the Threat
What is Climate Change?
Climate change represents one of the greatest, if not the greatest one, challenges facing
the humanity and necessitates urgent policy action. This threat is unique given that this
threat is quite unlikely to turn extremely critical in the upcoming couple years and but
requires immediate action if there is to be any chance of preventing or mitigating it is
10
Bernatkova 11
thus is beyond the scope of regular political process. Climate change, defined as a
phenomenon causing the average global temperatures to increase and leading to increased
frequency in extreme weather. The increased concentration of greenhouse gasses (GHGs)
in the atmosphere, which has grown by more than a third since pre-industrial level, has
generated an enhanced greenhouse effect, trapping heat and increasing temperatures at
the earth’s surface (IPCC, 2007). In the short term will ensue in significant international
problems, ranging from lack of fresh water resources to climate change refugees to.
Eventually, this might lead to the ceasing of the life as we know it.
As the repercussions of the climate change have become more visible, a growing
number of people have understood that the more protracted the reaching of the
agreement, the higher cost the humanity will bear. Many, like James E. Hansen, have
pointed out Governments cannot wait for neither economic better times nor continue
what seems to be the current strategy to deal with economic problems – polluting our
way out of it. The Fourth Assessment Report by IPCC (2007) sets out that, “Warming of
the climate system is unequivocal, as is now from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level.” The consequences of non-action will lead to grave consequences that
include extreme weather, rise of the sea level, and climate change refugees.
The rising emissions of GHGs into atmosphere by anthropogenic activities will
continue to lead to rise in global temperatures. According to the latest projections the
average temperature will increase by about 2oC by 2100 (IPCC, 2007). This will likely
translate into more variability and instability of day-to-day weather in all regions of
world. In fact, most recently, the IPCC (2011) has released a report that claims that the
11
Bernatkova 12
growth in heat waves in “virtually certain” and that extreme weather, such as floods,
droughts, hurricanes, will be more intense in the next century.
Alarmingly, the impacts of climate change will transpire amidst the prevailing
stresses like poverty, weak infrastructure, and high population density (IPCC, 2001). As
Farhana and Depledge (2004, p. 22) point out, the adverse trends in weather will affect
the poor countries and those with limited access to resources to adapt in a
disproportionate manner. Additionally, the existing pressures in natural ecosystems, like
pollution and destruction of habitat, will be intensified by climate change. According to
the WMO (2010), some extremely susceptible natural systems like coral reefs might be
incapable to adjust to the new environment and undergo irreparable damage.
Some of the effects of climate change include: reduction of arable land, shortage
of water, shrinking food and fish stocks, increased flooding, prolonged droughts, change
in rainfall patters. The combination of these might lead, among others, to the following
significant threats to stability of nations and whole regions:
a) Resource conflicts
A decrease in agricultural productivity will lead to food supply security and also
economic pressure will drive the price up. The change in rainfall patterns could further
decrease the available freshwater by as much as 20 to 30 percent in certain regions). All
these will have grave consequences in places that experience demographic pressures.
Combination of these factors can lead to civil unrest or open conflict over depleting
resources, as Schwartz and Randall (2003) of the US Department of Defense say,
essentially creating ‘conflict hotspots’ (cause by shortages). “Desertification could cause
12
Bernatkova 13
a vicious circle of migration, degradation, and conflicts over territory and borders
threatening the socio-political stability of regions and countries.”
Another facet of resource conflicts is the potential for conflicts based on
competition over access to and/or control over energy resources – the hydrocarbons. The
demand for food, water
and
energy
resources
has been increasing by
double digits recently
driven by the emergence
of countries like china
and India. The ensuing
shortages
will
Case Study: The Conflict Over Water in the Middle East (adopted from
Gleick, 1994)
“Water systems in the Middle East are already under intense stress.
Roughly two-thirds of the Arab world depends on sources outside their
borders for water. The Jordan and Yarmuk rivers are expected to see
considerable reduction in their flows affecting Israel, the Palestinian
territories and Jordan. Existing tensions over access to water are almost
certain to intensify in this region leading to further political instability
with detrimental implications for Europe's energy security and other
interests. Water supply in Israel might fall by 60% over this century.
Consequently, a significant drop in crop yields is projected for an area
that is already largely arid or semi-arid. Significant decreases are
expected to hit Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia and thus affect
stability in a very strategic region for many Western nations.”
create
more tensions between the social groups, nations and industries that seek them.
Moreover, as the Polar Regions turn more exploitable following the melting of the ice,
potential conflict might ensue.
b) Politics of Resentment
The inability of the fragile governments to meet the needs of their citizens & provide
protection in face of the climate change could instigate hardship that, in turn, might
trigger frustration, tensions between different ethnic and religious groups. Moreover, this
can fuel politics of resentment between those causing it and those affected by it,
eventually causing political radicalization. Increased fragility associated with this might
destabilize countries and whole regions.
13
Bernatkova 14
c) Climate Change caused migration
According to some estimates, 25 million people were already displaced in the 1990’s.
The number of these ‘environmental refugees’ could affect at minimum 200 million
people by 2050 (Myers and Kent, 1995). Climate change will amplify or trigger
migration within and between countries. This might lead to growth in conflicts in transit
and destination regions. Many of the developed nations can expect significant migratory
pressures.
Solution to the Problem
Why nation state-based solutions inappropriate?
The international diplomatic stalemate on climate policy has led to an abyss-wide gap
between what is being done and what needs to be done on the problem. In fact, the
current multilateral political deadlock that transpired in the Cancun and Copenhagen
Conference of Parties (COP) does not offer much hope for reaching a binding agreement
in Durban. The slow progress in decreasing the GHG emissions by developed nations, a
relatively small financial assistance for adaptation, and lack of technology transfer has
augmented the gap between the north/south divide in the UN system (Farhana &
Depledge, 2004). This dynamics keeps on eroding the unity in tackling the common
challenge and has led some to conclude, “the negotiations have taken on an increasingly
unreal air” (Soros). While the US, as the world leading power and emitter of GHGs,
makes its commitment contingent upon the pledges of the emerging nations, they remain
firmly opposed to accepting a binding mitigation agreement if the US does precede.
14
Bernatkova 15
The countries have abstained from agreeing on legally binding commitments on
mitigation and continue to be vague about funding of adaptation measures to developing
countries, as illustrated in both the Copenhagen and Cancun Accords. Although the two
previous conferences have achieved to save the UN process, they have “failed to save the
planet from climate change” (Khor, 2010). This highlights the main problem with formal
bureaucratic institutions – the emphasis on process over results and the inherent limits of
national interest in solution of collective problems
While the scientific community has made it clear that an urgent action needs to be
taken, the political leadership has not been able to act constructively in response to this.
Given that none of that has been achieved in the past 13 years and in many respects the
previous couple years have seen an actual setback to multilateral negotiation, it is hard to
see anything along these lines happen. To be able to tackle the climate change effectively,
it is vital to rebalance the relative influence of science and politics in environmentaldecision making.
PROLIFERATION OF WMDs
Background & Characteristics of the Threat
Globalization and WMD Proliferation
WMD, as defined by the UN, are ‘weapons capable of mass destruction’ – “… atomic
explosive weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed
in the future which have characteristics comparable in the destructive effect to those of
the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above” (in Carus, 2012). WMDs currently
include nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
15
Bernatkova 16
Following 9/11 and the recognition of the emergence of what Freidman calls
‘super-empowered individuals’, the US National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass
Destruction states, “For [terrorists] these are not weapons of last resort, but militarily
useful weapons of choice.” Thus, terrorist networks gaining access to the technologies to
develop WMDs or acquiring them from a state has become a major threat and national
security preoccupation of the US.
The rise in interconnectedness, the volume of global trade, and the associated
diffusion of technology make it harder to discover the illicit directions or technology and
materials instrumental for development of WMDs (Allison, 2010). This, according to
Allison (2010) made nuclear terrorism a matter of ‘when’, not anymore a matter of ‘if.’
Nonetheless, most of the proliferation experts point to the WMD threat from nonstate actors as exaggerated. Firstly, WMD continues to be under the scope of influence of
nation states. Secondly, producing or acquiring WMD would incur huge costs to the
organization. Thirdly, states are unlikely to either sell or not have their WMD stocks
unsecured as the retaliation by the international community would be destructive.
The Real Threat of Proliferation
The real threat of the WMD proliferation comes from the rogue states in the international
system. The likelihood that rogue states would utilize WMDs to attack other states or
start performing the function of a prime supplier to hostile non-state actors is extremely
low. The real threat goes beyond the sole capacity of it being used. As Sagan (2002)
argues, proliferation (on its own) increases the chance of preventive wars, crisis
instability, and accidental detonation. Also, for instance, the manufacturing of nuclear
weapon by Iran as a deterrent towards its external enemies, primarily the US and its ally
16
Bernatkova 17
Israel, for conventional military coercion, and a way to boost up its hegemony (Bahgat
2006) might trigger a regional domino effect, in which countries like Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and Turkey might seek the same (Kinzelbach 2010). Nuclear proliferation in this
region might bring about the end of the non-proliferation regime. The nuclear nonproliferation regime, centered around the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, has led
to 184 countries, including around 40 that posses the technical knowledge and capacity to
build a weapon, has renounced nuclear weapons and/or discontinued steps towards
building capacities (Allison, 2010). This illustrates the extremely high value of the
regime and the necessity to keep it.
Solution
The appropriateness of using state-based solutions
Given that WMDs continue to be under the purview of nation-states, the solution to the
problem needs to be rooted through multilateral networks. In the case of WMD
proliferation, G-20, as a global forum that reflects the realities of the 21st century, namely
including the rapidly transitioning countries into decision-making, is the actor that should
be at the forefront of tackling the issue.
The most efficient initiatives in preventing or stopping countries from getting
WMD capabilities have been constructive engagement of the international community,
advances in national democracy, and improvement in the regional security environments.
The Case of Iran
Faced with the evolution of the Iranian program, the US decision makers have
opted to continue pursuing the path of isolation, containment, and imposition of
increasingly tougher sanctions. Although this strategy certainly increases the cost of
17
Bernatkova 18
developing a weapon for Iran, the new wave of stringent punitive measures might, in fact,
provide a deeper incentive to Iran to acquire a weapon. This becomes an unavoidable
response to its security situation - the threat to the existence of the regime itself. Given
the US relatively stringent views on the Iranian regime and the problem of not being able
to influence the Iranian domestic debate, the US faces a significant challenge in changing
Iran’s behavior, preventing it from weaponization. This, however, can be effectively met
neither by the current policy nor by the other options on the table. Clearly, the policy the
US has pursued has not only been failing to accomplish its goals. Full involvement of
international community is necessary.
Enticing the Iranian regime to pledge cessation of the nuclear enrichment program
cannot be met by a policy of one state. Proliferation of WMDs is an issue that transcends
borders and might potentially adversely affect each person in the word and thus needs to
be solved by utilizing approaches that recognize this.
ILLICIT DRUGS
Background & Characteristics of the Threat
Scope
Illicit Drugs is a form of transnational crime and one of ‘the Five Wars of Globalization'
(Naim, 2003). This form of illicit activity adversely affects the countries of origin,
transition, and destination, thereby making it a concern for all the countries in the world.
Although there is no consent on the exact value of the drug flows, it is believed that out
of all the illicit flows, it is the most significant one. UNODC's World Drug Report
estimated the value of the drug trade at in 2005 at $320 billion. The more recent Drug
18
Bernatkova 19
Reports do not address the value of the world trade but publish the estimates for the trade
in cocaine and opiates. The global retail value cocaine is $88 billion and the ones of
opiates is $65billion.
Why care?
One of the adverse effects of drug trade is that the criminal networks gain financially. It
transfers economic proceeds to groups that usually participate in multitude of other illicit
activities, such as human trafficking, significant tax evasion, health, safety, and
environment rules violation, and even terrorism. The main implication of criminal
funding is that it perpetuates and advances criminal activities, thereby establishing a
vicious cycle of organized criminal activity that parasites on societies. This is especially
true in countries characterized by an endemic weakness. For instance, of the African
countries have been historically subject to social, economic, and political turmoil that has
led to their current fragility and vulnerability. The degree of this condition, level of state
weakness, facilitates the entry and thriving of illicit activities. In countries with weak
governance local smugglers create an interdependent relationship with state officials
based on corruption. This translates into an inherently corrupting influence on the
political process and facilitates the proliferation of ungoverned spaces. The impact it has
through both direct and indirect associations has a potential not only to destabilize
debilitate economies and societies but also to trigger geopolitical conflicts.
Link between Organized Crime and Money Laundering
In fact, criminals use bribery and corruption not only as a way to facilitate and reduce
risks in the counterfeiting enterprise but also as a part of the laundering process of profits
from the enterprise (Reuter and Truman, 2004). Laundering represents an activity in
19
Bernatkova 20
which criminal incomes are converted into assets that cannot be tracked down to the
primary crime. This process has three phases. Firstly, bribed bank officials and
accountants facilitate the entry of the proceeds to international financial system – the
placement stage. The money is then passed through multiple institutions and jurisdictions
in order to conceal their origin – they layering stage. Finally, in the integration stage the
originally illegitimate funds are completely absorbed into the overall economy. The
quantification of the scope of this activity is hard due to the lack of data available and the
opacity of the international financial system.
Although there is a lack of comprehensive credible data on the scope of money
laundering and the spread across activities and territories, Money laundering that can be
classified as derived from all forms of illicit activities, accounts for around 2-5 percent of
global GDP, based on IMF’s widely cited statistics on the scope of money laundering. A
recent study by UNODC (2011) confirms this figure. Based on its meta-analysis criminal
proceeds represent roughly 3.6 percent of global GDP. According to the UNODC (2005)
report cited earlier, the yield from drug trade amounts to 320 billion dollars. Some of this
money is reinvested and the rest is laundered. This represents as much as 70 percent of
the income (IMF, 2001) - the equivalent of 224 billion dollars using the UNODC’s
figure. Baker (2005) provides a more ‘conservative’ estimate of the cross-border flows of
‘dirty money’ derived from trade in drugs. According to him, these amount to between
120 to 200 dollars, making it the most significant form of illicit cross-border flow.
Production and trafficking of drugs for money laundering creates opportunities for
money laundering. Money laundering based on drug trade is not different than the one
based on other forms of illicit activities. Presumably, criminals use the financial system
20
Bernatkova 21
to launder the proceeds in the same way. As such, the use electronic payments, cash
payments, and bank transfers is preferred to cash money transfers
Solution
Why nation state-based solutions inappropriate?
The governments are ill-equipped to tackle this form of a networked problem. According
to Naim (2003), the inherent rigidity of and the limits imposed by fiscal austerity on
government bureaucracies puts the flexible complex web of criminal networks on the
winning side of the duel. In his opinion, to defeat transnational criminals, “governments
must recruit and deploy more spies, soldiers, diplomats, and economists who understand
how to use incentives and regulations to steer markets away from bad social outcomes."
The solution to the problem entails getting rid of the current strategies and
interfering with the incentive systems of the criminals. Most of the contemporary
strategies focus on the seizures of them and on the interception at shipment as a way to
tackle the crime. However, to address the problem effectively, it is necessary to move
beyond the prevalent approach of using the supply side as the main target. To confront
the problem of counterfeiting the authorities need to follow the money and prevent it
either from entering into the global financial system or make the international financial
system more transparent. This would prevent criminals from being able to use their
profits efficiently and thereby significantly interfere with their incentive system.
The lack of effective money-laundering action across the world essentially
provides incentives to organized crime groups to continue on with their activities. The
financial system represents the main policy pressure point to address the problem of illicit
trade.
21
Bernatkova 22
TERRORISM
Background & Characteristics of the Threat
Following 9/11, terrorism has gained the global stage as the most serious threat.
Terrorism has taken the place of communism as the main adversary of the West.
Demonstrably, the occurrence of cross-border terrorist actions has increased, to name just
few, the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and the Moscow airport bombing in 2011 exhibit this
trend. Allegedly, the suicide bombers who were trained in Al-Qaeda’s strongholds in
Pakistan carried out these attacks (Osborn, 2011). This shows that the ‘flattening of the
world’ brought the endemically weak areas and the threats they harbor from the
peripheries of the system to every state’s neighborhood. Globalization has significantly
enhanced the ability of terrorist groups to organize transnationally, communicate
virtually, as well as utilize their tactics.
Motivations Behind Terrorism
Terrorists long for a romanticized version of the past they allege they want to recreate,
utilize scapegoats to explain the shortcomings of their present efforts, and exhibit
willingness to use extreme form of violence to reach their desired objectives. What they
desire through their actions is what Richardson (2006) points to as the 3Rs: revenge for
perceived injustices; renown by getting the attention of the world; and reaction that
would be disproportionate enough to sustain prolonged moral outrage.
Solution
Clearly, using overwhelming military force to confront terrorism like it was done in the
US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 does not represent the solution to the problem of
terrorism. And neither does confronting terrorists by measures that infringe on civil
22
Bernatkova 23
liberty and involve abandoning of the law. Promotion and continued respect for human
rights as well as trust in the law (Foot, 2007). As the Norwegian Prime Minister said
following Breivik’s terrorist attack in 2011: “Our response is more democracy, more
openness and more humanity.”
Given Richardson’s 3Rs and the fact that this form of crime is largely driven by
exploitation of young adults, who are frustrated by socio-economic, economic, and
political inequalities, advancing social cohesion might represent a potential solution.
Currently most of the counter-terrorism efforts involve two parties – the governments and
the terrorist. Polluting the policy dialogue platform with more actors would be
instrumental.
The Future of Global Governance: Multi-Stakeholder Networks and
Public-Private Partnerships
• characterized as public-private partnerships with coalition of public, private,
civil society and inter-governmental entities
• five characteristics:
o
global in nature
o
focused on public issue
o
inter-organizational
o
promote more effective cooperation between multiple stakeholders
o
are systemic change actors
• Main actors:
o
MNCs,
o
civil society,
o
Inter-governmental informal organizations
So far managing of global problems has been done by voluntary and ad hoc
cooperation by a diverse range of actors. As problems become more transnational, public
23
Bernatkova 24
and private actors enter the governance vacuum created by globalization. In turn, we now
have a global policy sphere that crowded with multiple formal and informal institutions
and policy networks, both formal and informal. None of these seem able to manage or
mitigate these problems.
A new form or networked systems to address global threats is necessary. The
threats can only be tackled effectively if action strategies are designed and implemented
on all levels of political and social organization – local, regional, national and global.
Multi-Stakeholder Networks and Public-Private Partnerships
Finding solutions to the transnational challenges necessitates a collaborative action by
different stakeholders on a coherent, strategic global process. This necessitates
engagement from all the pillars of global society - including private sector, government,
and civil society to leverage the finances and increase the capacity to develop and foster
efficient partnerships down the road. The relevant representatives can create coalitions of
willing – multi-stakeholder networks – (Khanna, 2011, p.28). These groups can mobilize
resources globally and tackle both local and global problems.
Background
Five main characteristics define these networks: a) they are global; 2) they focus on
public good issue; 3) they are inter-organizational; 4) they bridge agents among diverse
organizations; and they focus on systemic change (Khagram and Waddell, 2007)
Although the real emergence of these networks started after the Cold War, some of
what can be considered predecessor organizations were established long before that. For
instance, the International Committee of the Red Cross, now an NGO, was established as
inter-organization network in 1863.
24
Bernatkova 25
The Main Actors in Multi-Stakeholder Policy Networks
•
•
•
•
The role of MNC in globalization
Economic power of MNCs
The global position enables it to exert influence over political process
Economic leverage that serves them as instrument for limiting authority of the
government in the policy-making
MNC & The Rise in Private Authority
The transnational corporation has been at the epicenter of globalization. Some scholars
claim that the rise of the private sector and its economic power led to restructuring of the
state functions and authority transfer from public to private sector (Strange 1996, Sassen
1996). On the contrary some allege that the authority over the policy-making and the
productive resources is still in the hands of the state. The multinationals require strong
institutions that provide policy stability to devise strategic plans instrumental of longterm profitability. Due to this the states ‘hold more cards in their hands’ and still manage
the rules of the game. It is, however, undisputable that the systems of power have
operated in a way that strengthens big corporate transnational firms.
Owing to the rapid technological development and the consequent falling transaction
costs, the corporations have grown and dispersed with strikingly rapid progress and
amassed vast economic power. From the 1950’s to the year 2000 the cost of sea freight
has declined from around 60 to 40 dollars per tone (OECD, 2007, pp. 187) at the same
time as the information revolution tore down the constraints of time zones as well as
distance by enabling access the world market via computer. The astonishing speed of the
integration of the markets is illustrated on the flows of Foreign Direct Investment. In the
25
Bernatkova 26
1980’s the value of inward and outward FDI stock of all economies was 11.5 percent of
the world GDP. By the mid-2000 this figure has raised to almost 50 percent (UNCTAD).
Their role of the main driver of globalization and the embodiment of the simultaneous
transnational transfer of capital, highly skilled labor, technology, and final and
intermediate products (OECD 2010, pp. 156) has made it a major profit-driven
stakeholder and shareholder in the global system.
The multinationals’ position of facilitator of the international exchange and its
positioning in the domestic markets have logically translated into increased political
influence it can exert on the governments of the host countries. National borders
represent little impediment to the TNCs operations. The intra-firm trade flows that
illustrate the reach of the production channels reveal that these transactions account for
expanding portion of total trade of some countries. For example, in the United States the
portion of intra-firm exports in total manufacturing exports of all the manufacturing
affiliates under foreign control has for the past 10 years held steady at 50 percent (OECD
2010, p. 183). The big scope of operations with affiliates located all over the world
suggests that the TNCs are capable of flexibly shifting the production within the
multinational networks based on cost, demand, and economic policy conditions. This
flexibility juxtaposed with the entrenchment of the companies in the individual countries’
market structures, through labor markets and R&D investment, inherently implies a
possible source of tension between a host state and a TNC. It is in a country’s own
interest to pursue policies to maintain them inside to sustain an inflow of R&D initiatives
and stable employment conditions. In other words the TNCs hold an economic leverage
26
Bernatkova 27
that serves them as an instrument for limiting the authority of the government over the
policy-making as well as leverage they hold over governments.
Civil Society – The Third Sector
• Definition of civil society
• Example of successful civil society campaigns as a case for their incorporation
• The existence of the communities of overlapping destiny makes it essential to
empower civil society
Civil society, defined as “the realm of social activity and organizations falling
outside the spheres of government and business; or defined as all sectors and activities
falling outside the public sector, and thus embracing the work of business, voluntary and
community organizations, trade unions, faiths, professional bodies and consumer
organizations” (World Humanity Action Trust, 2000, p. 35). The range of actors that fall
under this, is very wide. It includes, individuals, campaigns, and events.
As the successful civil society campaigns, such as Human Rights Watch and its
activism on getting rid of child labor, Turkish consumers’ campaign against the maltreatment of workers at Burger King restaurants; the boomerang effect generated by the
Chinese NGOs with regard to forcing women to wear metal shoes; show civil society
actors can have an important influence in affecting outcomes of governance and in
shaping public opinion.
Globalization has created overlapping communities of common destiny and
loyalty, making individuals not only inhabitants of their immediate political communities
but also of global networks, thereby possibly reconfiguring their loyalties and alliances.
27
Bernatkova 28
Civil society actors thus needs to be elevated in status, empowered, to become active
participants in all the parts of governance.
Intergovernmental Organizations: G-20
•
•
•
the government leaders and political elite still have an important role and are
currently irreplaceable
the case for informal intergovernmental structures
G-20
State is Not Dead: The Continued Relevance of States in Global Governance:
Although the integration of the markets certainly empowered many actors and
allowed them to exert significant amount of influence over national economies and
policies, it did not erode the preeminence of the advanced nations in the international
system. Majority of the policy-making authority still lies within the state.
Although the increase in private authority has transformed the state sovereignty
and the state itself, the state cannot be proclaimed as ‘dead’ because it continuously
actively participates in this transformation by, among others, choosing venues it chooses
to channel its power (Sassenm 1996). Thus relevance of state cannot be totally
discounted.
The ideal place for state would be through informal governmental mechanisms.
Informal intergovernmental mechanisms are more likely to take place than a
comprehensive reform of formal organizations or creation of new institutions. G-20 - a
leadership club summitry – could play an important role.
The case for G-20
28
Bernatkova 29
G-20 represents a high-level informal forum of representatives of the global major
economic powers. Mirroring the current political and economic distribution of power the
forum includes the heads of government of G-8 (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States) plus South Africa, Mexico, Argentina,
Brazil China, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Australia, and
the EU. In addition, the heads of IMF and WB – the important global organizations participate of important global forums and organizations – IMF, WB.
G-20 - a leadership club summitry - plays an important role by the means of which
nation states can overcome collective action problems and can generate political will by:
a) making the politically sensitive shifts in their governments’ policy stances,
b) setting new normative guidelines and frameworks,
c) and providing impetus for those moves to be carried forward in other multilateral
settings (Hajnal, 2007).
The main strength, although it could be interpreted as a weakness, of G-20 is that it
does not have neither a secretariat nor permanent staff. Moreover, its agreements are not
binding. This dynamic, loose, and not bureaucracy constrained given that it is not a
formal organization structure but rather a dynamic, loose, not bureaucracy constrained,
entity, it does not focus on process over results is less pronounced. Unlike the UN in
which the emphasis on process hinders progress. As a flexible organization, G-20 was
able to absorb the upcoming countries mirroring the shifts in the world economy towards
the east and the south. The involvement of these countries will ensure functional and
legitimate global policy.
29
Bernatkova 30
Reinventing the forum
Clearly the G-20 model needs to be upgraded to the point that it would facilitate
policy moves considered hard within domestic contexts but are essential for the global
common good. G-20 could reinvent itself to tackle the challenges of today and become
responsible for collective security.
Multi-stakeholder Networks: A solution to the 4 Global Challenges?
Multi-Stakeholder Networks in Global Environmental Governance
Due to over politicization of many issues falling under the climate change it is quite
impractical to try to work through the national government channel. Advancing
innovations and/or policy reforms through inclusion of private sector will be more
appropriate. The proposed plan for dealing with environmental problems, especially the
climate chance follows:
• The ultimate goal: the transformation towards carbon neutral systems by the means
of green industrial revolution
o Given the scale of the issue, the plan towards this transformation needs
to be conducted by a policy network that has a balanced representation
of representatives from MNCs and civil society as well as the
governments of G-20
o The main target areas of this policy network should be:
§
Put price on carbon
§
Improvement in energy efficiency
§
Accelerated investment in and deployment of low-carbon
30
Bernatkova 31
innovations and technologies, such as carbon sequestration
§
Abstaining from deforestation
Multi-Stakeholder Networks and non-proliferation Regime
Due to the characteristics of this challenge and the fact that the WMDs remain under the
purview of nation states, states, as represented by G-20 in the multi-stakeholder
governance world, should have the strongest say in the non-proliferation multistakeholder network. Nonetheless, as an advancement to what is currently the established
practice – states should invite coalitions of the willing from civil society and global firms
to the table. In case of proliferation by a rouge state, such as North Korea or Iran, the
participation of multiple global stakeholders could create different sets of incentives and
demonstrate to the ‘proliferator’ that in case of the abandonment of the WMD
development efforts the international community will enable the state’s integration to the
international system. For instance, private firms might offer FDI as a reward for
abandoning the program.
• The ultimate goal: preserve integrity of NPT and prevent proliferation of WMDs
Multi-Stakeholder Networks and Illicit Drugs: Creation Transparent Financial System
A significant reform of the currently opaque and non-transparent financial system would
enable untangling the money laundering schemes and tracking the funds that are being
channeled through the economy, thereby removing the incentive to engage in the illicit
business at the first place. Preventing the ability to freely move and use the proceeds from
the criminal activities might lead to decline in the global illicit trade as one of the main
31
Bernatkova 32
motivations to stay in the business is removed. The current rules that govern the
international financial system are created by a relatively small group of nations and
institutions. This rule-setting system prevents participation from wider number of
communities and individuals who are directly affected by it.
Application of the multi-stakeholder from of governance would make global
financial systems more transparent and effective by involving various actors to in
development of reforms Enhancing the disclosure on transactions as well as promotion of
information sharing among institutions.
•
The ultimate goal: transparent financial system
Multi-Stakeholder Networks and Combating Terrorism
The integrative, inclusive nature of multi-stakeholder networks that address the treatment
of the global commons and issues would create an environment in which less injustice
would be made and more people could realize the benefits of globalization, thereby
removing one of the motivations for terrorism.
With regards to policy countering terrorism, the effort of the participants in the
multiple-stakeholder network should be centered on creating and encouraging extensive
intelligence sharing.
The Drawbacks of the Multi-Stakeholder Networks
The Critiques of Multi-stakeholder Networks
While the potential of the multi-stakeholder networks and process is large, as
outlined above, some allege that networked governance raises important unresolved
32
Bernatkova 33
concerns of effectiveness, accountability, and legitimacy (Backstrand, 2006). The rather
non-hierarchical approach to addressing the issues creates the issue of accountability. As
Khana (2011) says, although the networks “accomplishes the goal of deprivileging the
role of the government in favor of a more plural group of actors, it does not accomplish
the goal of providing a coherent framework for how accountability takes shape in such a
world.”
Nonetheless, as Snyder (2005) pointed out, multi-stakeholder networks connect
(governments), techno-experts (engineers, scientists, social scientists, lawyers, etc.), and
communities (activists, community members). Being such - boundary-spanners that
bridge - the otherwise wide gap between these entities in addressing common issues
enables them to offset the democratic deficit.
33
Bernatkova 34
Works Cited
Allison, G. (2010). Nuclear Disorder: Surveying Atomic Threats. Foreign Affairs,
January/February.
Annan, K. (2005). In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human
Rights for All. Accessed on http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/summary.html
Arrighi, G. (1999). Globalization, State Sovereignty and the Endless Accumulation of
Capital, States and Sovereignty in the World Economy, eds Smith, Solinger and
Topik. Irvine, CA: University of California.
Backstrand, K. (2006). Multistakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development:
Rethrinking
Legitimacy,
Accountability,
and
Effectiveness.
European
Environment, 16, 290-306. Doi: 10.1002/eet.425
Bahgat, G. 2006. Nuclear Proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran. International
Studies Perspectives, 7: 124–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00235.x
Baker, R. W. (2005). Capitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the
Freee-Market System. New Jersey.
Carus, S. W. (2012). Defining ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Occasional Paper.
National Defense University: Center for Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Accessed on
Cerutti, F. (2007). Global Challenges for Leviatha: A Political Philosophy of Nuclear
Weapons and Global Warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Cerruti, F. (2010). Two Global Challenges to Global Governance. Global Policy,
(February). doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00155.x
34
Bernatkova 35
Cha, V. D. (2000). Globalization and the Study of International Security. Journal of
Peace Research, 37:3, pp. 391-403. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
425352
Farhana, Y., Depledge, J. (2004). The International Climate Change Regime: A Guide to
Rules, Institutions, and Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foot, R. (2007). The United Naitns, Counter Terrorism, and Human Rights: Institutional
Adaptation and Embedded Ideas. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, pp. 489-514.
Accessed
on
http://ccw.modhist.ox.ac.uk/publications/foot_un_and_
counterterrorism.pdf
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm.
Gleick, P. H. (1994). Water, War, and Peace in the Middle East. Environment Science
and
Policy
for
Sustainable
Development,
36:3.
doi:
10.1080/00139157.1994.9929154
Hajnal, P. (2007). The G8 System and the G20: Evolution, Role, and Documentation.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Hirst and Thompson. (2002). ‘The Future of Globalization’ ‘Cooperation and Conflict’
37,
Khagram, S. and S. Waddell. Multi-stakeholder Global Networks: Emerging systems for
the
global
common
good.
Accessed
on
http://www.hbs.edu/socialenterprise/pdf/GANsMultiStakeholderNetworks.pdf
Khanna, P. (2011). How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance.
New York, NY: Random House.
35
Bernatkova 36
Khor, M. (2010). Complex Implications of the Cancun Climate Conference. Retrieved
from http://www.ifg.org/pdf/CN122510_Complex_Implications_Martin_Khor.pdf
Myers, N. and Kent, J. (1995). Environmental Exodus: an Emergent Crisis in the Global
Arena. The Climate institute. Accessed on http://www.climate.org/PDF/
Environmental%20Exodus.pdf
Naim, M. (2003). Five Wars of Globalization. Foreign Policy Magazine (January 1).
Accessed
on
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/01/01/five_wars_of_
globalization?page=full
National Research Council. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press, 2002.
IMF. (2001). Financial Crime and Money Laundering Background Paper.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis
Report.
Geneva,
Switzerland.
Retrieved
from
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis
Report.
Geneva,
Switzerland.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2011). Special Report: Managing the Risks
of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
Retrieved from http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
Kinzelbach, K. (2010). One Day We will Wake Up and Iran Will Have Nuclear
Weapons. Global Policy Journal Website. Retrieved from
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/19/07/2010 /one-day-we-will-wake-
36
Bernatkova 37
and-iran-will-have-nuclear-weapons
OECD (2007), "Making the Most of Globalisation", in OECD, OECD Economic
Outlook, Volume 2007 Issue 1, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/eco_outlookv2007-1-39-en
OECD. (2010). Measuring Globalisation: OECD Economic Globalisation Indicators
2010, OECD Publishing.
Osborn, A. (2011). Moscow Airport Bomb: suicide bombers were part of squad trained in
Pakistan.
The
Telegraph,
January
26.
Accessed
on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8281746/Moscowairport-bomb-suicide-bombers-were-part-of-squad-trained-in-Pakistan.html
Reuter, P., and Truman, E. (2004). Chasing Dirty Money: The Fight against Money
Laundering. pp. 1. Paterson Institute.
Richardson, L. (2006). What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy and Containing
the Threat. New York, NY: Random House.
Rosenau, J. (1996). The Dynamics of Globalization: Toward an Operational Formulation.
Security Dialogue, 27:3, pp. 18-35
Sagan, S. D. (2002). More Will Be Worse, In Sagan, S.D. and Kenneth N. Walz, The
Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed. New Yrok, NY: WW Norton
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Schwartz, P., and D. Randall. (2003). An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security. Washington, DC: Environmental
Media Services. Accessed on
www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.
37
Bernatkova 38
html#report.
Soros, G. Seeing REDD on the Climate Change. Project Syndicate. Retrieved from
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soros64/English
Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World
Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strange, S. (1999). The Westfailure System, Review of International Studies, 25, pp. 345354. Accessed on http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097604.
UNCTAD.
The
Foreign
Direct
Investment
Database.
Accessible
on
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=1923&lang=1
UNODC.
(2010).
World
Drug
Report.
Accessed
on
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo
-res.pdf
UNODC. (2011). Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and
Other Transnational Organized Crimes.
Weiss, L. (2003) Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
World Humanity Action Trust. (2000). Governance for a Sustainable Future: A Report by
the
World
Humanity
Action
Trust.
Accessed
on
http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/issues/Governance/whatgov1.pdf
38