Does Globalization Bring War or Peace?

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



Does Globalization Bring War or Peace?

By P.R. Goldstone, MIT Center for International Studies. Posted September 25, 2007.


High levels of economic exchange act as an accelerant: extensive trade enhances either cooperation or conflict.



Do high levels of international trade lead to peace? Norman Angell authored the best-selling book on international politics in history, arguing that economic interdependence between Germany and England made any war between the two unthinkable -- an illusion. His book, The Great Illusion, was translated into 17 languages and sold one million copies; Angell himself won the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, within a few years of publication, Britain and Germany eagerly threw themselves into the abyss of the First World War.

The analytic literature on the Commercial Peace is much less robust than scholarship on the Democratic Peace, the latter positing the improbability of war between democracies. The Commercial Peace literature displays less consistency and theoretical rigor, with precise causes largely untested. Statistical analyses of trade relationships generally find that trade is conducive to peace; however, numerous case studies find that international trade either played no part in particular leaders' decisions about war or prompted them to escalate rather than become dependent on others.

Nonetheless, some patterns emerge. Trade highly concentrated with a single partner correlates with conflict, as does a marked difference in states' respective dependence. At the same time, however, high levels of trade with the aggregate international market correlate with cooperation. The nature of the traded goods matters -- trade in commodities with substantial strategic applications (e.g., oil or high-tech capital equipment) is most conducive to conflict.

Most important, high levels of economic exchange act as an accelerant: extensive trade enhances either cooperation or conflict. The implication is that specific outcomes are contingent on economic interdependence's interaction with some domestic institutional factor: states' strategic response to global market forces will vary according to their internal political-societal composition.

Economic Sectors and Foreign Policy

A growing body of research indicates that the domestic institutions and dominant sectoral coalitions of the trading nations determine the effect of economic interdependence on states' foreign policy. Put simply, international trade has distributional consequences, producing relative winners and losers in each society, affecting these groups' foreign policy preferences. When constituencies advantaged by global markets dominate the political system, national policy will favor conciliation and multilateral cooperation -- including when the median voter is both politically empowered and gains from trade.

On the other hand, when groups uncompetitive in global exchanges have the power to turn their sectoral preferences into the "national interest," the state will likely pursue a foreign policy of confrontation and the unilateral quest for advantage. Imperial Japan, for example, actually had a higher level of economic interdependence than did its 1920s democratic predecessor, but nonetheless embarked on aggressive imperialism. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/audits/62848/

[fasttense]

1. I've alway thought that trade does nothing for peace

despite what the advocates of globalization would like you to believe. I just think back to the Boston Tea party, the Chinese opium wars, and of course the Japanese attack on the US. P.R. Goldstone just explained why. Thanks for posting this.

[katty]

2. globalization=increased dog eat dog tactics/selfishness and for

others it is the uptopian ideal of 'one world', experiencing 'sharing and cooperation' of resources. Clearly, humanity is still operating (consequently, billions of us held hostage one way or another) in the (painfully obvious)ruthless, brutal dog eat dog, 'survival only' mode, fighting, starting wars for resources, etal.
No real aliveness of spirit or soul (whatever you want to term the 'life within' a human being)can thrive in, basically, what may be described as a prison planet (mentality)atmosphere-extremely compromised/marginalized/downtrodden groups of people have even less of a chance of getting through the globalization bottle neck in one piece or with their sanity intact.
Globalization is on the march, that's for sure - it's not going to simply disappear anytime soon.

[applegrove]

3. It depends if the money gets to the people or not. Sometimes democracies

are run by a special wealthy minority. And that causes Kaos when it looks like the benefit is going to that special group. Like in Russia or Indonesia.

Trade and free markets need to be moderated by wealth redistribution tools in order to make it fair for everyone.

That is how the west did the 20th Century.

[katty]

4. any substantive moderation-now-at best, is random,

subject to (often savaged) tremendous global fluxuations sourcing from every corner, or simply in name only and effectively, non-existent.

you write:

Trade and free markets need to be moderated by wealth redistribution tools in order to make it fair for everyone.