Globalization does not necessarily = peace
Robert D. Kaplan has an intriguing piece in the Washington Post today about how there are still some dangerous states out there, beyond the realm of pacification-by-trade. He mentions Iran, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Belarus and others.
A quote:
"Globalization is a cultural and economic phenomenon -- not a system of international security."
Indeed. Interdependence creates some fascinating relationships (U.S.-China comes to mind), but it's not the solution for global peace. It seems that there are three possible explanations for the relative peacefulness that has descended upon the world since about 1950:
1. Technological advances in military equipment, most notably in the form of nuclear weapons. I would suggest cruise missiles, satellites, night-vision equipment, and air superiority in general have played a significant role. (These advances have made it too dangerous for developing countries to engage in combat with developed countries, and have partially obviated the traditional major ground war.)
2. International law. It is my humble opinion that this has played a limited role, but one would at least hope that states are motivated a little bit by the "common good" and are not completely self-interested.
3. Increased international trade and travel, AKA globalization. This has played a significant role, but international trade was also high in the period before the First World War. China and the U.S. are deterred from military action over Taiwan because of economic disincentives, but the trade relationship alone does not make war unfathomable.
When I say "peacefulness," I realize the second half of the 20th century was not without conflict. However, more than 60 million Europeans died in war-related deaths during the first half of that century, and fewer than 1 million died in similar circumstances in the 55 years since (according to "Postwar," by Tony Judt). Other continents, of course, have seen war in the past half-century. But wars seem to have minimized and localized in recent years. Maybe atomic weapons were invented at just the right time (the Japanese might disagree) - world wars reached their peak, and we won't see such massive scale again.
Why is this on my mind? No one seems to think another major ground war is in the world's future. Most Americans don't think about the possibility of Russian tanks rolling west, but you can bet the Fins do. Perhaps it's ludicrious to consider. Perhaps not.
You know that line about "those ignorant of their history," etc. No one ever expects a war, just like no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe we're beyond major land wars; I certainly hope so. But I think studying the trends of such conflicts is worthy - for nothing else, if it helps explain how we may predict the next war, and possibly assist in some way toward preventing it.
Post-script:
This blog entry is written from a pretty U.S.-centric perspective, obviously. Kaplan describes "dangerous" states, with the assumption that the U.S. is not one of them. Many people would disagree.
Additionally, the repeated references to "major ground wars" and "major land wars" are more tactical analysis than IR analysis. Significant wars could happen without tens of thousands of ground troops. Example: To use the U.S. and China again, it is forseeable that China would use air power to hit select targets in Taiwan, and also to strike the U.S. fleet nearby. The U.S. might respond with only air strikes. Many casualties could occur. This seems to be quite a digression, but it serves as a reminder to myself to not get wrapped up in specific military tactics alone when attempting to analyze state vs. state actions.
A quote:
"Globalization is a cultural and economic phenomenon -- not a system of international security."
Indeed. Interdependence creates some fascinating relationships (U.S.-China comes to mind), but it's not the solution for global peace. It seems that there are three possible explanations for the relative peacefulness that has descended upon the world since about 1950:
1. Technological advances in military equipment, most notably in the form of nuclear weapons. I would suggest cruise missiles, satellites, night-vision equipment, and air superiority in general have played a significant role. (These advances have made it too dangerous for developing countries to engage in combat with developed countries, and have partially obviated the traditional major ground war.)
2. International law. It is my humble opinion that this has played a limited role, but one would at least hope that states are motivated a little bit by the "common good" and are not completely self-interested.
3. Increased international trade and travel, AKA globalization. This has played a significant role, but international trade was also high in the period before the First World War. China and the U.S. are deterred from military action over Taiwan because of economic disincentives, but the trade relationship alone does not make war unfathomable.
When I say "peacefulness," I realize the second half of the 20th century was not without conflict. However, more than 60 million Europeans died in war-related deaths during the first half of that century, and fewer than 1 million died in similar circumstances in the 55 years since (according to "Postwar," by Tony Judt). Other continents, of course, have seen war in the past half-century. But wars seem to have minimized and localized in recent years. Maybe atomic weapons were invented at just the right time (the Japanese might disagree) - world wars reached their peak, and we won't see such massive scale again.
Why is this on my mind? No one seems to think another major ground war is in the world's future. Most Americans don't think about the possibility of Russian tanks rolling west, but you can bet the Fins do. Perhaps it's ludicrious to consider. Perhaps not.
You know that line about "those ignorant of their history," etc. No one ever expects a war, just like no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. Maybe we're beyond major land wars; I certainly hope so. But I think studying the trends of such conflicts is worthy - for nothing else, if it helps explain how we may predict the next war, and possibly assist in some way toward preventing it.
Post-script:
This blog entry is written from a pretty U.S.-centric perspective, obviously. Kaplan describes "dangerous" states, with the assumption that the U.S. is not one of them. Many people would disagree.
Additionally, the repeated references to "major ground wars" and "major land wars" are more tactical analysis than IR analysis. Significant wars could happen without tens of thousands of ground troops. Example: To use the U.S. and China again, it is forseeable that China would use air power to hit select targets in Taiwan, and also to strike the U.S. fleet nearby. The U.S. might respond with only air strikes. Many casualties could occur. This seems to be quite a digression, but it serves as a reminder to myself to not get wrapped up in specific military tactics alone when attempting to analyze state vs. state actions.
posted by bp at
2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home