1. Concept Essay SOC326 – Jacob Druce (3445987)
If interdependence isirreversible, and if globalisation facilitates
global terrorism, then does it mean that social transformationshave
to co-exist and adapt with global terrorism? In analyzing this claim,
the concept of global interdependenceforming throughglobalisation
will be unpacked. Followed by the conceptthat globalisation
facilitates global terrorism. Finally analyzingthe trend of increased
state powersand security laws that have evolved with global
terrorism will be explored in relation to Australiapost September
Eleven.
Global interdependence asan irreversible force will be
analysed by examining economic globalisation. Unpackingthe notion
of a state of cooperation under anarchy, highlighting the two
prominentarguments, liberaland realist. Finally finishing with some
risks associated with economicglobal independencies.
Within the processof globalisation interdependencieshave
been created on a global scale. On the political frontthere is a
consensusthat democracy wasnot only the best but also the only
legitimate way of organising modern politics(Khan, 2001a). On the
economic front, the globalisation of the economy wasa forgone
conclusion as nations scrambled to liberalise their economies in
order to live up to the standardsset by the World TradeOrganisation
(Khan, 2001a).
Economicglobalisation refers to this increasing
interdependenceof world economiesas a result of the growingscale
of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of

2. internationalcapital and wideand rapid spread of technologies
(Shangquan, 2000 p2). Reflectingcontinued expansion and mutual
integration of market frontiers; this is an irreversibletrend for the
economic developmentof the world as a whole. The rapid
globalisation of the world’seconomies in recent yearsis primarily
based on the rapid developmentof science and technology.
Developed throughincreasing cross-boarder divisionsof labour that
providesatrickle down effecton production chainswithin
enterprisesof differentcountries(Shangquan, 2000 p3).
As the power of economic interdependencegrew international
theorists began to theorize what would happen to the anarchic
natureof global politics with the increased economiccooperation
between nations(Khan, 2001a). Liberalsargued that creating
internationalinstitutions to facilitate global cooperation and manage
global interdependencewouldeliminateanarchy. The realists
however argued that economic cooperation was not a guarantee for
the success of security (Khan, 2001a). Thereforewewould livein a
world that was economically orderly butpolitically anarchic. Both
parties agreed to describe this condition as a state of cooperation
under anarchy (Khan, 2001a).
The participation of developingcountriesin the globalisation
process can enable them to better utilize their comparative
advantages, introduceadvanced technologies, foreign capital and
managementexperience (Shangquan, 2001 p3). Nevertheless, while
providingmore developmentopportunitiesfor developingcountries,
the globalisation processis also posingenormousrisks. Economic
globalisation has in fact expanded rather than reduced the gap
between the Global North and South. This division of wealth can be

3. shown through variousstories or statistics on wealth concentration.
The richest 10% of adultsworldwideown 85% of global household
wealth. Flippingthis, the poorest 50% of the global population own
roughly 1% (George, S. 2010 p145). Secondly, economicglobalisation
has developingcountries at risk of being impacted by unfavourable
external factors. (Shangquan, 2000)notes
“ With continuousinnovation of financialinstruments, rapid
expansion of financial assets and the trend of privatization of
internationalcapital, a large volumeof internationalfloating
capital has brought along enormousimpactson the economic
safety and financialstability of developingcountries…(p5)”
It would appear the high level of international dependencies
we rely on economically isn’t going to change anytimesoon. Although
risks to human security in the futuremay alter this perception, for
now the independencieson the internationalcommunity created
through globalisation have been and remain irreversible.
Globalisation is a recent phenomenon, as to is global terrorism.
The relationship between these two concepts are intertwined and have
shifted and altered together throughout history. Therefore outlining the
different types of terrorist groups highlights the historical importance and
active role globalisation plays in facilitating current trends of global
terrorism.
Audrey Cronin (2002, p.39, cited in Kiras, 2013 p.372)outlines
four typesof terrorist organisations currently operatingaround the
world. Cronin categorises these groupsin terms of motivation. They
also portray the changing natureof terrorism over the modern era.

4. Left wing terrorism isintertwined with the Communistmovement
and Right wing terrorism isportrayed throughthe lens of fascism.
The third group, ethno-nationalist/separatistterrorism isreflected
through the waveof decolonisation initially experienced after World
War Two. And finally, religiousor sacred terrorism, aform Cronin
argued was becoming the mostprevalent(Kiras, 2013 p.372).
However the critique within categorizing formsof terrorism lies in
the fact many terrorist groupshave enjoyed amix of motivating
ideologies, for example, someethno-nationalist groupshave been
comprised by variousreligious characteristics or agendasbut usually
one ideology or motivatingfactor dominates (Kiras, 2013 p.372).
Such categorising does show the historical shifts that terrorism has
madein the past.
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw patterns
of terrorism targeted within national boarders(Kiras, 2013 p374).
Starting in the late sixties, terrorism began to shift, facilitated by the
adventof commercialair travel and televised world news, terrorism
moved to become transnational(Kiras, 2013 p374). The1972 Lod
airportmassacre in Israel highlights this transnationalshift (Sloan,
2006 p.50). Throughoutthe seventies, terrorism was findingits feet
within the expandingglobal village. Less attacks were carried out,
however there was a growingsense of sophistication, where by
attacks that were carried out werenow targeting a larger crowd and
inflicting greater casualties (Kiras, 2013, p375). Presently welivein a
globalised hyper-connected world wheremilitant Islamic terrorism
reflects (Cronin, 2002 p.39)thecurrentform of sacred or religious
terrorism. Modern Islamicterrorism is not only driven by clashes in

5. ideology, but also in the consequencesestablished within our new
global village. Cultural, economicand technological changes
embraced through the processof globalisation have facilitated
currentformsof global terrorism.
Culturally, the success of globalisation has hinged on a western
capitalist model. Bulldozingitsway through less wealthy and
powerfulsocialsystems and cultures. Such a model playsa role in
perpetuatingthe wealth gap both on international and domestic
levels. Creatinga stiff division between the winnersand losersof
globalisation (Kiras, 2013, p376). Thewesthas managed to bombard
the rest of the world with a ‘culturaltsunamiof western products
and materialism’ (Ganor, 2005, cited in Kiras, 2013 p378). Much
opposition to the west rejects this, and ultimately grows to resent
capitalist, western ideologies. Leading to alienation within the global
community (Kiras, 2013 p376).
Economically, financialaspects can play a motivating role in
the production of global terrorism. Globalisation has linked our
global goodsand service markets under aperceived form of western
economic imperialism (Kiras, 2013 p377). TheGlobalNorth
compromisingof the United States of Americaand the post industrial
states of western Europeset standards, exchange rates and
determinefiscal polices, controlled through The World Bank. Some
argue these actions and polices have misrepresented developing
nations of the Global South and perpetuatethe wealth gap (Di Muzio,
2012 p380).
Technological influencehas played perhapsthe biggest role in
facilitating global terrorism. Shifts in formsof proselytisingand

6. increases in coordination and security representjust a portion of the
waystechnology has facilitated global terrorism. Through the use of
the Internet, mobile devices and wireless technology, terrorists can
now portray a virtualpresenceto influenceand spread its beliefs
Kiras, 2013 p379). Thisform of propagandacan be seen reaching
Australian audiences, half way across the world. AbdullahElmir, a
seventeen-year-old white, red haired teen from Bankstown wasjust
last monthheadline newsafter his infamousYouTubeclip (Benny-
Morrison, 2014). Theability for global terrorists to coordinate and
organise have been aided through technological developments
created within the processof globalisation. Technology has provided
a medium through which terrorism can be organised and
coordinated globally (Kiras, 2013 p379). Internetbased information
forum boardsvastly outnumber tradionaltrainingbases and attacks
are often carried out remotely. This same technology has seen
encrypted communication technology enhancingthe security of
terrorist attacks (Wright, 2008). TheMumbaibombings are a clear
indication of the role technology played in the coordination and
security of that attack (Kahn, 2008).
It would appear the transnationalshift made by terrorism in
the sixties and seventies wasmade capable by the emerging
technologies of that time. As the processof globalisation progressed,
it continued to facilitate global terrorism through meansof culture,
economics and most notably technological advancements.
So if interdependenceisirreversible and globalisation facilities
global terrorism does this mean that in order for us to fight global
terror wehave to once again resurrectthe all encompassingstate

7. sovereignty and rebuild the national security state? This will be
unpacked by analyzingthe concept of state sovereignty, exploringthe
idea surrounding thenational security state and the subsequentlaws
passed within Australia post September Eleven.
To be sovereign representsthe highest political authority in a
given territory. Sovereignty is crucial to the governanceof states and
the politics between states and is the basis of internallaw (Potter,
2004 p2). A sovereign state therefore has power over the affairsof
the nation and its citizens. A relationship exists between the state
and its citizens that Eidenfalk (2014)describesas a social contract.
Where by individualcitizensgive up certain personalliberties and
freedomsfor the sake of security. If that security cannot be
guaranteed then citizens no longer give up those personalfreedoms
and leave. Issuescan therefore arise when states are too willing to
promotesecurity and abolish the personalfreedomsprevious
generations have died to protect. As MaxWeber (1919, p4)notes,
‘the state has a monopoly onthe legitimate use of physical force’. This
monopoly of controlcan at times extend into the realm of legislation
where hastily prepared bills are rushed through parliamentand
often passed with little to no public interaction untilafter the
legislation becomes law.
Australia’s recent implementations of laws combating
terrorism highlight a dangerous trend to civil liberties within
developed western political nations. For example some of the new
legal measurestaken to preemptfurther attacks on America are
chippingaway at the Bill of Rights. Every new legal measureseems to
raise a new civil rights concern (Khan, 2001b)and Australiais
followingsuit. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

8. Legislation Amendment(Terrorism)Act2003 highlights such
concern. Under this amendmentpeoplecan be detained for up to
seven daysand interrogated for up to twenty-four hoursacross that
weeklongperiod (Burton, 2012 p437). Suchwarrantscover persons
who may have information on a terrorist activity. This openspeople
up to being detained withoutcharge without even having to be
suspected of committing an offence. This was reinforced in 2005 with
The Anti-Terrorism Bill(NO.2). Some key featuresof this bill include
placing controlson personswho pose a terrorist risk to the
community. Extendingthe stop, question and search powersof the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) and grantingthe AFP powersto
immediately obtain information and documentsthat enhance their
ability to preventand respond to possible terrorist attacks (Williams,
2014). Allup Australiahas passed sixty-one new anti-terror statutes
since the attack on the World TradeCenters (Williams, 2014). The
haste and volume with which anti-terror legislation has moved
through Australian parliamentrepresents our political desire for a
national security state. Such strong state control isn’t a typical
characteristic of our globalised world and someargue have pushed
usback politically into the past. If the state takes too many basic
liberties from the publicfor the sake of security, negative
consequencescan and will arise.
Dr Mohamed Haneef, an Indian national, was arrested at
Brisbaneairport on 2 July 2007 in connection witha failed London
bomb plot. He washeld for twelvedaysbefore being charged with
providingsupportto a terrorist organisation. The charge was
unsustainableand was quickly dropped. However, in theinterim Dr
Haneef'simmigration visa was cancelled on character grounds, a

9. decision which on review wasfound to be unlawful(Williams, 2014).
Currently within Australianew amendmentsare makingit easier for
security agencies to access personalcomputersand monitor peoples
actions. Disclosing secret information ispunishable by up to ten
years imprisonment. Whilstsimultaneously providingimmunity for
ASIO officers and enabling Australia’s overseas spy agency ASIS to
monitor Australiansoverseas. It’s a slippery slopebetween providing
security and balancing personalfreedoms.
In termsof social transformations, the world wasrapidly
movingto realising the idea of a global village. As economic
aspirations and technological progresswas emphasized over
differencessuch as religion and ethnicity, we were beginningto find
commonalities between politicians and opinion makers(Kahn,
2001a). Globalisation wasperceived as the ultimate celebration of
the political, economic and social homogenisation of the global
community. However thevery discourseof internationalrelations
and global politics is changing. Previousdominantgeo-economic
issues have paved way for the ‘old language’ of geopolitical issues
and security concerns (Kahn, 2001a). Thereforeshifting focusfrom
globalisation and humanitarian issues that previously occupied the
agendasof international summitsto security concerns shaped in a
manner fitting a Cold War perspective. The past has become the
presentin terms of the Australian Governmentscurrentphilosophy
on global politics. If independenciesareirreversible and globalisation
does facilitate global terrorism it would appear wecoexist in a
globalised world with global terrorists, enjoyingthe fruitsof
cooperation and international trade whilst fearing the occasional

10. backlash of political violence. The risks to personalfreedom and
security representa delicate balance between the threats posed to us
from global terrorism and the limitations dictated by national
security states.

11. References
Benny-Morrison, A (2013)‘Sydney teen jihadistAbdullah Elmir in
second IS video as school parentsshare concerns’, The Sydney
MorningHerald, NSW, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-teen-
jihadist-abdullah-elmir-in-second-is-video-as-school-parents-share-
concerns-20141028-11cpsg.html
Burton, L, M. McGarrity, N. Williams, G. (2012)‘THE
EXTRAORDINARY QUESTIONING AND DETENTION POWERSOFTHE
AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION’, Melbourne
University Law Review, p436-441
Di Muzio, T. (2012)‘CapitalizingaFutureUnsustainable: Finance,
Energy and the Fate of MarketCivilization’ Review of international
Political Economy, Vol. 19, I. 3 pp375-380
Ganor, B (2005)‘The Counter Terrorism Puzzle: A Guidefor Decision
Makers.
George, S (2010) ‘Wallsof Conflict’, Ch4, Who’s Crisis, WhoseFuture?
Towards a Greener, Fairer Richer World, Polity Press pp 140-146
Khan, M (2001b)‘ByeByeBillof Rights’, GlocalEye,
http://www.glocaleye.org/billofrights.htm
Khan, M (2001a)‘Terrorism and Globalisation, GlocalEye,
http://www.glocaleye.org/terglo.htm
Kahn, J & Worth, R (2008). "MumbaiAttackersCalled Part of Larger
Band of Recruits". The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/world/asia/10mumbai.html
?_r=0
Kiras, D, J. (2013)‘Terrorism: From transnationalto global
phenomenon’, Ch21. Terrorism and globalisation, pp372-375
Kiras, D, J. (2013)‘Terrorism; Theimpact of globalisation’, Ch21.
Terrorism and globalisation, pp375-380
Potter, W, D. (2004)‘State Responsibility, Sovereignty and Failed
States’, School of Government, University of Tasmania, pp2-15

12. Shangquan, G. (2000)‘EconomicGlobalisation: Trends, Risksand
Risk prevention, CDP background paper no1. Economicand Social
Affairspp1-8
Sloan, S. Bersia, J, C. Hill, B. (2006)‘Short term impact of the Lod
Airportmassacre’. Terrorism: the presentthreat in context, Berg
Publisher, p50
Williams, J. (2014)‘Anti-terrorism: The lawsAustralia enacted,
UNSWTV, Youtube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8RKVUWiZag
Wright, M (2008)‘Technology and Terrorism: How the Internet
facilitates Radicalisation, The Forensic Examiner,
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/winter08/7/