This paper will cover how terrorism has a direct impact on globalization. The research will present the context in which connections between global political policies and the war on terrorism have been discussed and then to come up with ways in which the war seems likely to affect the framework and state and business events linked with the economic forces that have been related with globalism. Globalism could be defined as a process where ideas, labor, capital, technology and profits can be shared between countries with minimal governmental interference.
The process also relies on the security or insecurity the countries involved can provide for the success of globalism, here is where terrorism could and would have a direct impact to the development of globalism. Around the late 1980’s at the end of the Cold War, one can say that economic benefit instead of military or political advantage has dominated the conversations between superpower nations and major foreign-trade partners.
One important aspect of that conversation has been an increasing tendency toward the validation of international political economy in general and foreign-trade protocols in particular, even though over the entire course of the 20th century, after two world wars and various regional conflicts there was a constant flow toward international conventions. The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) was formed in 1947 and main job was to regulate the international trade and to facilitate the process between tits members.
The sequence of negotiation rounds for GATT over nearly 50 years resulted in increasing the scope of treaty jurisdiction over member-nation economies beyond the initial elements of tariffs. The background for GATT as an international code of trade-related conduct with ever-increasing reach helps explain the increase of scope: the rise of the global economy, compounded by the relative ease of access to it made possible by the emergence of the Internet and electronic commerce (e-commerce)(Sarkar, 2001).
In 1994 GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which formally constituted to further streamline international trade and bring down trade barriers. The main assessment of the WTO is that it fills the economic gap between “have” and “have-not” nations, i. e. , developed and developing countries.
Citing “capitalist influence” on most postwar trade and finance agreements, Morgan (2000, p. 18) describes WTO’s intent “to provide a structure which, by its utter flexibility, facilitates untrammeled capitalist activity everywhere, except in the few nations which have been able to build self-serving conditions into it. ” This has fostered controversy. The Seattle Round of 1999 was informally billed as WTO’s “development round” and was intended to “close the gap between poor countries and the rich” (Flanigan, 1999, p. C1).
The talks did not exactly crumple, but they were eclipsed by a public-opinion coalition of environmental and trade-union activists, as well as “repeated descriptions in Seattle of developing countries as employers of slave or child labor, low-wage exploiters of their own citizens and tools of corporate greed” (Flanigan, 1999, p. C1). Mass demonstrations slid into rioting and mayhem, a pattern of action that was repeated, with perhaps a bit less vigor, in Genoa, Italy, when the WTO met there in July 2001.