How Have Transnational Criminal Organisations and Terrorist Groups Changed in Post 9/11 Era?

Using Dishman’s (2001) idea of transformation, how have transnational criminal organisations and terrorist groups changed in a post 9/11 era? Using this theory discuss the problem of drug trafficking and the threat it poses.

This paper will look in to how and why some terrorist groups are making alliances with transnational criminal organisations, as the trafficking of drugs has somewhat blurring the lines between these two entities.  Since the decline of state funded terrorism after the Cold War, many noteworthy scholars have been led to believe that terrorist organisations have increasingly engaged with drug traffickers, in order to acquire money and material goods (Dishman, 2001:3; UNODC, 2013). This begs the question whether there is a model which law enforcement agencies can use to police this issue and after an evaluation of that model decide whether it is effective enough to be used.   To start by defining what organised crime is, a better understanding of why these terrorist cells and organised crime gangs have changed and adapted will be achieved.  The definition of organised crime is an intensely debated argument.  Problems occur at all levels of trying to define organised crime and by using work done by Paoli (2002), whose argument is that the supply of illegal commodities takes place in a ‘disorganised’ way, will then be contrasted to Levi (1998) and Maltz (1976) whose main body of evidence suggests that crime at this level will have certain distinct elements as to how we define it. In order to help law enforcement, we must have a deep and clear understanding of the workings of organised crime groups or markets. The detection and uncovering of these crime networks behind certain crime markets, be it cigarette smuggling or drug dealing, is paramount to aiding research into the activity that goes on in these networks.  By comparing common perceptions of organised crime as shown by Wright (2006) in the Italian La Cosa Nostra and Japanese Yakuza to what Paoli (2002) understands it to be, we can evaluate and form a new idea as to what organised crime is.

Paoli (2002) believes the main problem with the definition is that there are two inconsistencies constantly incorporated in the definition.  The first being ‘the provision of illegal goods and services’ (Paoli, 2002:52) and the second that criminal organisations are understood as a large-scale collectivity primarily involved in illegal activities with the subdivision of work among its members (Paoli, 2002:52).   She notes that literature prior to 1983 based all notions and definitions of organised crime around an archetypal network such as the Italian Mafia, thus when evaluating other criminal organisations assumptions would be based on this model.  After the Presidents Commission on Organised Crime 1983, preconceptions changed and it is now known not all networks will be structured like La Cosa Nostra.  Paoli (2002:54) lends us the view that organised crime is now ‘loosely structured,’ and is backed up by other leading scholars (Reuter, 1983, 1985; Hobbs, 1997; Naylor, 1998). When talking about the Chinese Triads, Paoli (2002) says that some lasting large-scale organisations do exist, however these organisations have many functions.   The Triads are neither exclusively involved in illegal market activities, nor is their ‘development and internal configuration the result of illegal market dynamics’ (Paoli, 2002:52). The structure and organisation may nonetheless be an advantage when entering into illicit activities; however the Triads structure does not represent their particular market as a whole.  Wright (2006) poses a conflicting argument as he saw the Triads origins came solely from China, agreeing with his argument of a traditional crime based network made up of family ties and other forms of selection.  Later a reference is draw to the Medellin cartel, which originally started with a top-down hierarchical model, only to be disbanded after a government crackdown in to a much ‘loosely structured’ network.