Policy Perspectives: Trade and Globalization Can Help Reduce Terrorism
by John L. Manzella
June 1, 2007
“Trade
liberalization has a critical role to play in economic growth by directly
stimulating domestic firms to become more productive.” So says the U.S. Federal
Reserve. As a result, the incomes of ordinary people typically rise.
Which generally leads to an improved quality of life and a better-educated and
politically involved population. In turn, despair and hopelessness,
characteristics commonly found among terrorists or their supporters, slowly
turn to hope. And, since economic growth empowers people to improve their
standard of living, they are more likely to strap on money belts than bombs.
Establishing democracy in the Middle East will be very difficult. But open
economies help. Once markets are liberalized, their political systems follow.
The adage “open markets open minds” is true.
Look at Mexico. Prior to the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, Mexico’s ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, had an
indisputable grip on the country since 1929. Post-NAFTA Mexico elected its
presidents from opposition parties. For years, U.S. trade policy has promoted
economic freedom, access to information, higher living standards and the rule
of law in China. And as the country’s economy has become increasingly market
based, its political system has begun to adapt to the point where the Chinese
government recently approved a law that gives individuals more legal property
protection.
Barriers to trade are barriers to liberty
A
primary economic problem in the Middle East has been its inability to
participate in globalization. The region is replete with totalitarian regimes
that use trade barriers to isolate themselves from the world, as well as each
other. Excluding Israel, this has resulted in virtually no economic growth in
the Middle East and Northern Africa since 1965.
Participation in global markets increases incentives to implement difficult
measures that pave the way for countries to grow rich, the Federal Reserve
says. For example, East Asia and the Pacific—a region that has welcomed global
integration—has generated growth rates that are the envy of the world. Plus, in
the short span of 1990 through 1998, the number of people living in extreme
poverty there decreased 41 percent—one of the largest and most rapid reductions
in history.
Globalization, Poverty and Inequality, published by the Progressive Policy
Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank associated with the New Democrats,
contends that ”no country has managed to lift itself out of poverty without
integrating into the global economy.” Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo
agrees: “In every case where a poor nation has significantly overcome its
poverty, this has been achieved while engaging in production for export markets
and opening itself to the influx of foreign goods, investment and technology.”
Isolation breeds hopelessness
Thomas
Barnett, a former senior strategic researcher at the U.S. Naval War College and
author of The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty First Century,
says that if we map out U.S. military responses since the end of the Cold War,
we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world
that are excluded from globalization’s core.
Barnett argues that regions or countries isolated from globalization or lacking
economic and cultural connectivity with the rest of the world are where you
will find instability, threats to the international system and terrorist
networks. Consequently, Barnett notes that there is a far greater chance that
the United States will be sending forces to these non-integrating regions at
some point as opposed to those that are largely participating within the global
community.
These areas, including the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the
Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, have large numbers of poor young
populations that lack hope as well as economic, intellectual and political
connections with the rest of the globe.
With regard to the Middle East, Barnett comments that it’s not the oil trade
that accounts for the enmity the region has for the United Sates, “it’s the
fact that we don’t have anything but the oil trade.” wt
|