Armed Nonstate Actors in a Globalized World

Link: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2014/06/isis-and-global-rise-non-state-actors

In addition to this link, I am going to be combining ideas from Friedman's "The World is Flat" and ideas regarding how globalization reduces war.

Stéphane Paquin writes that "in today's world, there are states that have no real power and non-state actors that, depending on the issues, wield considerable power" (Paquin 81).  In today's world, it is becoming increasingly easy for nonstate actors to gain influence. The link above brings light to the global rise of armed nonstate actors and terrorist groups, in particular, the rise of ISIS.  It states, "In geopolitical terms, Isis's challenge to traditional state authority and national divisions is also emblematic of the explosion of terror-driven non-state actors around the globe."  The number of armed nonstate actor groups that are operating throughout the world has been on the rise.  They do not operate in the way traditional armies operate.  This has led to these groups being incredibly harmful and exceptionally dangerous.  Armed non-state actors have changed the way we see and combat violence.  They are "unbound by the constraints of law and, in many cases, quick to extreme violence to bolster their influence and aims, non-state actors are a growing threat and one of which we should be wary."

Some argue that globalization has been beneficial because it has brought the world closer, more connected, and, in the words of Thomas Friedman, globalization has flattened the world.  With this, "what the flattening of the world means is that we are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single globalized network" (Friedman 8).  Although Friedman argues that globalization has been a relatively good thing, he is also filled with dread because of the "obvious fact that it's not only the software writers and computer geeks who get empowered to collaborate and work in a flat world.  It's also al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks" (Friedman 8).  In looking at the link posted above, you can see that this is happening.  Many scholars have stated that the growth in technology has had benefits for economic markets; however, the growth of technology has also helped armed nonstate actors gain influence.  Terrorist networks utilize the Internet to recruit and spread their message.  So, although technology has grown economies, technology has also grown a new form of conflict.

It has also been argued that globalization has reduced the likelihood of states going to war.  This has been because of the dependency of states on other states for trade.  Trade has helped the world become one place.  Countries are less likely to go to war due to the economic implications of it.  It is too risky.  Particularly for democracies fighting democracies; therefore, war has been less common.  Though this may be true, modern conflict has not been defined as war; rather, it is defined more in terms of conflict between states and armed nonstate actors.  Due to this, it cannot be argued that globalization has led to peace.  Nations have become more peaceful to each other, but this cannot be said for states and armed nonstate actors.  Globalization and the spread of technology has increased nonstate actor influence.  Looking at this, it can be argued that globalization has not decreased violence and fostered peace.  This is one way that globalization has had a negative impact.  The playing field created by a flattened world has been "leveled in a way that draws in and superempowers a whole new group of angry, frustrated, and humiliated men and women" (Friedman 8).