|
|
|
|
|
ORGANISED CRIME AND TERRORISM
|
|
|
4.1. Recent factors that have contributed to the increasing threat of organised crime. Phil William’s (1991) writing has reflected a focussed consideration of the range of structural factors that seem to have contributed to the creation of a socio-political environment in which organised crime has gained a foothold. Consequently Williams will be used substantially in the following sections due to his comprehensive understanding of this. Over the last 25 years, global developments have contributed to an increase in organised criminal activity, more than ever before. These global developments include the dramatic advances in transportation systems facilitating organised crime activities, especially the movement of drugs and weapons in and out of countries. Communication and information systems, too, have been developed to such an extent that organised crime syndicates are able to network their activities to a greater extent than before. Information warfare entails the sabotage of national and global information systems. In this way organised crime moves into the arena of white-collar crime, as financial fraud and embezzlement become added to the list of organised criminal activity. The advancements in information infrastructures also allows organised criminal groups to engage in extortion, their capacity to harm information and communication infrastructures (through hacking) can be used as a potential bargaining tool for extortion or act as a deterrence to inhibit law enforcement successes. (Williams, 1997). Past trade and travel restrictions have been lifted as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only has the high level of social control diminished but organised crime syndicates within and without the former Soviet Union are able to diversify and expand their activities - since many Cold War policies have been rendered obsolete. Lower tariffs, free trade arrangements and the integration of former Soviet Bloc countries into the global trading arena have all contributed to the rise in global trade. Thus world trade has reached an all time high since Middle Eastern, Third World and Eastern European countries are participating more actively in global trade. In fact world economic interdependence is a feature of this. Organised crime syndicates have more opportunities to take advantage of the global trade and financial system. Globalisation is the key to the increasing threat of transnational organised crime. The world is, in effect, shrinking due to technological advances, the world’s population is also rising - more social problems are the result (such as disease, poverty, the huge influx of people across borders), and so too possible increase in the opportunities and reasons for engaging in criminal activity. Especially when that activity guarantees profit, which most organised criminal activity does. (Balzer, 1996). Due to the relative ease of travel and migration (which governments find increasingly difficult to monitor and control due to the permeability of national borders), ethnic networks have gradually been created, resulting from diasporas. Ethnic networks are an important resource for transnational criminal organisations in that they provide foreign cover; recruits and transnational linkages. Law enforcement agencies have difficulty in penetrating immigrant communities, thus they have an in-built security mechanism against police interference. So Chinese, Nigerian, Italian and Russian diasporas have resulted in global networks whereby criminal contacts and foundations for criminal activity have been created in countries world-wide (Williams, 1997). The development of the world’s financial infrastructure has also led to a linking of countries, banks and other financial systems, not necessarily under state control. This offers many opportunities for transnational criminal organisations, since the increase in financial business has not been matched by parallel regulatory measures. The global financial market has a large number of access points, trade can be conducted anonymously and rapidly. Origin and ownership is obscured and so too the distinction between ‘dirty’ and ‘clean’ money - as the global financial system provides safe havens for ‘dirty’ money. Not only is regulation lagging but there are also divergent levels of regulation. Thus there are always opportunities for transnational criminal organisations to take advantage of zones which are unregulated (such as in former Soviet Bloc countries, and in developing countries). Transnational criminal organisations merely move their activities from areas where they are illegal and strict regulation is prevalent, to areas where regulation is lapse and the origin of the source of money is irrelevant. Global efforts to counter this is thwarted by the countries without the means and power to engage with the problem (Williams, 1997). Large, cosmopolitan global cities, connected to one another by telecommunications and transportation links are a haven for criminal organisations. Within many mega-cities are areas in which inhabitants live in terrible conditions. In these alienating circumstances inhabitants may be forced to form criminal social organisations in the form of street gangs, in order to survive. Global cities become the incubators for these gangs to develop into powerful transnational criminal organisations. Global cities not only cause transnational crime development but also maintain them by becoming congenial environments providing anonymity, encouraging survival skills and promoting bonding mechanisms. Thereby facilitating the success of criminal organisations and increasing the opportunities for the establishment of connections among criminal groups (Williams, 1997). The above factors create an ideal environment for organised crime syndicates to engage in illegal activities and, at times, without the constant threat of police interference. State authority has become contracted as states have lost control of markets. The rise of grey and black markets; the undisturbed flow of illicit goods across various borders; the rise of illegal migration; as well as the development of informal economies all profess to this loss of state control. The more the state attempts to take control over these parallel markets (through law enforcement strategies), the more incentive transnational organisations have to step up their operations. They stand to profit from their ability "to circumvent national and international regulations and supply illicit goods and services with some degree of predictability" (Williams, 1997:18). Concerted state responses are vital, but not always obtainable. The challenges facing law enforcement agencies and organisations are thus formidable, some of these challenges, briefly stated, are as follows 4.2.1. The global nature of organised crime Organised crime syndicates have largely taken advantage of the process of globalisation. Globalisation, in effect, has contributed to the rise of transnational organised crime. Advances in technology, transportation, information, communication and financial systems has led to transnational criminal organisations making use of these innovations to facilitate their activities. Drugs can be more easily transported, as well as weapons, ‘dirty’ money and any form of contraband. The very developments that have contributed to the transnational functioning of modern (legitimate) corporations have also contributed to the rise of the black market and emergence of transnational criminal organisations. The effects of globalisation and the proliferation of advanced communications and, for example, the development of cyberspace have resulted in states not being able to maintain a high level of authority. The advances in technology have largely diminished state authority as many more avenues have been created to facilitate illegal activities, at times, largely beyond the control of state authority (Williams, 1997). The challenge to law enforcement is to keep pace with the increasing sophistication of transnational criminal organisations. There is also a need to develop ways of eliminating or containing illegal cyberspace activities. Law enforcement agencies and organisations have to decrease the gap in sophistication between them and organised crime syndicates, not only through advances in technology but through concerted efforts and state co-operation. 5. STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY THE USA, UN AND EUROPEAN UNION TO COUNTER ORGANISED CRIME The following section will be devoted to the strategies adopted by the law enforcement arena to contain the organised crime and related drug trafficking threat and so the methods adopted to face the new challenges that organised crime has to offer. The USA, UN and European Union will be used to represent international efforts to do this. Organised crime syndicates in general weaken institutions concerned with public security (such as the police and judiciary) due to their capacity to corrupt officials and/or intimidate those who are as yet, not corrupted. Their activities have far-reaching consequences, domestically and internationally - they may block legislation and treaties and weaken economies due to the vast sums of money moved in and out of countries, uncontrolled. The emphasis once again is on the damage that organised syndicates cause - globally. It is of no use to address a global problem without the co-operation of the countries involved. The drug problem, too, is of major concern, as the UN World Drug Report (1997:9) aptly states: "No nation, however remote a corner of the globe, is immune to the adverse consequences of drug abuse and trafficking..." The drug problem as one instance of organised crime, really is a worldwide phenomenon and worldwide problem. Even though specific countries may not have, for example, drug trafficking problems per se, other countries directly involved in the problem will suffer economic distortions and possibly effect the worldwide economic situation and hamper international drug enforcement treaties. 5.1. The USA The USA has by far emphasised the international security threat that organised crime poses, it has also realised the serious threat it has to US security in particular, reflected by the current American President, Bill Clinton: "We have to combat those who would destroy democratic societies, including ours, through terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking…organized crime now plagu[es] the former Soviet Union, so much that one of the first requests we get in every one of these countries is, send in the FBI…the drug cartels…threaten the open societies and fragile democracies there - all these things we know can emerge from without our borders and from within our borders." (Quoted in Winer, 1997:44). As far as the drug trade is concerned the USA is the leader in international drug enforcement. Nadelmann (1993) points out that this is but one area in which the USA has declared its leadership (other areas of leaderships include providing intelligence, military and economic support as well as providing financial aid to countries in need, also in the struggle against remaining communism and terrorism). In fact US government activities include involving anything that has a political or regulatory interest. For example, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have increased their transnational responsibilities by opening offices in many countries, the US Customs Service has conducted courses in border, air and seaport control for various countries, including South Africa and the Southern African region. The US Marshals service has offered technical assistance, specifically to South Africa, in terms of the witness protection programme, and the DEA has held drug enforcement seminars and, in South Africa, helped SANAB (South African Narcotics Bureau) establish a database in this field (Callahan, 1997). The FBI has also been responsible for training foreign police. Thus, the DEA and FBI are seen to be the most prolific in the fight against drug trafficking specifically and organised crime more generally. As Nadelmann (1993:129) states: "The DEA’s principal objective, broadly stated, is to stem the flow of drugs to the United States, yet it has devoted considerable efforts to assisting foreign law enforcement agencies in countering drug trafficking that has little or no impact on the United States." A unique feature of the DEA is that its agents are beholden to the US and responsible to the US ambassador, when abroad, yet its instruction and mission are authorised by the UN and international conventions. The main role that the DEA plays is that of liaison. The DEA was in actual fact the first transnational and nonimperial police organisation ever (after being the successor of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in the 1970’s). Since the late nineteenth century the USA has promulgated transnational controls. Factors, (besides the explosion in international drug trafficking in the early 1960's), which have led to a globalisation of US law enforcement are economic and security responsibilities that the USA adopted after World War II. During the 1940s and 1950s military criminal investigative agents were sent abroad to police the many American military personnel stationed overseas. A police training programme was created and the Customs Service, the FBI and Secret Service all asserted their efforts overseas during this time. During the 1960s, the rapid nationalisation of American law enforcement took place parallel to crime attaining a national political status (Nadelmann, 1997). In the early 1970s political policies were adopted by the likes of American presidents such as Richard Nixon - and his extension of the war on drugs to other countries - in the beginning of the 1970's (Ronald Reagan and George Bush following suit in the 1980's). The late 1970s 1980s and 1990s saw a rise in extradition and mutual legal assistance relations with foreign governments. The Office of International Affairs (OIA) and the Office of Law Enforcement and Intelligence (LEI) (both created in 1979), in this regard, assumed leading roles. Treaties with foreign countries were signed as a result of these efforts and improved co-operation in drug and securities law enforcement was at the top of the agenda. After the 1980's US jurisdiction was spread to terrorist acts against American citizens overseas. But it has been the real threat of drug trafficking by organised crime syndicates and the American engagement with this threat that has led to a substantial internationalisation of American organised crime and drug enforcement policies, laws, treaties and the like. A few decades ago this need for a globalised approach was non-existent - the nature of the drug trafficking problem today is such that a globalised approach is necessary. Not only a globalised approach but an adapted globalised approach - adapted to keep ahead with evolving drug syndicates and organised crime technology with regard to drug trafficking, but also smuggling in general, money laundering and computer fraud. Other developments that have taken place in the last few decades of US international criminal law enforcement include the creation of an office devoted to international enforcement matters (handled by the Securities and Exchange Commission). The US national central bureau of Interpol and federal police agencies have expanded their extraterritorial activities. US military forces have become increasingly involved in international criminal law enforcement. Congressional hearings have stimulated incentives to confront the transnational drug trafficking problem and other criminal problems. (Nadelmann, 1997). US law enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) US Customs Service, US Marshals Service and the Secret Service to name a few, have become increasingly involved in the international activities of syndicates specifically involved in the drug trade. However the enforcement of internationalised organised crime and drug enforcement activities are beset with problems, particularly with regard to the state sovereignty of foreign countries. US agencies working abroad may not have authorisation from foreign agencies to effectively promote their strategies.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
