http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-malcomson/globalization-cause-war_b_6548864.html
Article taken from the The World Post.
My article brings up an interesting question. Does globalization cause war? Before going any further I believe globalization does cause war, but so does isolation. My explanation follows:
The author of this article, Scott Malcomson, says that, "the interdependence feeds the insecurity." I believe this to be true. I think of a very simple example when considering countries interacting with one another. Think back to growing up and being on a playground with other school children during recess. It may be funny to think of, but have you ever once thought, 'wow I want what that kid has' or 'why is my friend hanging out with that kid more than me?' Still sounds funny to think of. Now think of countries interacting. Countries get suspicious of trade agreements amongst other countries when they are not involved. Many times countries see the military capacity of other countries and increase military training and presence in regions to "show off." My point is to think of all the good that has come from globalization. Trade, medicine, military assistance, humanitarian aid, culture, science, and technology are just a few of the many benefits of globalization. Now, think of all the negatives that have come about. Terrorism directed at multiple countries, military aid being given to countries with questionable ambitions, exploitation of less developed countries, and trade conflicts are just some of the negatives when everyone is involved.
On the other hand, I believe being isolated would ultimately lead to war. Eventually countries would dispute over land, natural resources, influence, or water ways. It simply would not work to be in isolation from one another. An example of this could be North Korea. It is simply a black spot on the map, and literally one at night from a satellite. Countries have no idea what North Korea plans to do or what their true capabilities are. The result is constant build of defenses and technology to always one up what they do not know.
My final and main point in simple terms is that globalization is natural, nobody wants to go stand in the corner at recess. Countries interact with one another, but there are still bullies, still thieves, and still those more fortunate or less fortunate than others. From time to time there will be fighting. Isolation would only lead to questioning of one another and violence from bumping into one another over time. There would be distrust and a build up of technology/weapons/economical capabilities to one-up the competition.
I understand the point you are trying to make yet I must disagree with you on your example of North Korea and other countries not knowing what their capabilities and intentions are. According to CNN the US is the leading nation in the world with the total amount of nuclear weapon tests done and second in the world for the total amount of war heads. The US has an estimated 7,650 nuclear war heads whereas North Korea has fewer than 10. I would say that if there is any country that the US would respond to by building up defenses would be Russia, since they have an estimated 8,420 nuclear war heads.
ReplyDeleteFollowing that logic I wonder now that the Soviet Union has broken up and Russia and ex-Soviet Union nations have become more globalized, are we still just as much at risk of a cold war or actual war with Russia, as before when they were less globalized?
I found your comparison of countries feeling insecure when interdependent to children on the playground interesting but I also think it may be over simplifying things a bit. I wouldn't necessarily attribute this to globalization but I think its interesting to note that when compared to the rest of history there have been empirically low levels of war among democracies since WWII (which happens to coincide with an increase in globalization, interdependence, and the creation of the EU, NATO, etc). You believe that globalization causes war, what is your opinion on how the EU fits into your explanation? Countries like Britain and France used to fight in historic times but currently do not. I think with international institutions and increasing interdependence makes war less likely because issues are linked, there are institutions to settle disputes, and a closeness allows them to monitor other countries.
ReplyDeleteYour comparison between school children and a globalized world is very compelling, but as Julie said I think that there is a lot more to it. I think that while jealousy could be a part of it, the idea of "showing off" resembles more of an idea of the haves vs. the have nots. Some countries do feel that they deserve more, and historically we have seen that fighting has resulted from this. However I think the results are more of disagreements on how to deal with each other economically. Also, I do not agree with your idea of isolation, because as Valerie says, even though countries are isolated does not mean the rest of the world does not know their capabilities.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand that in many respects globalization may lead to war, as you mentioned with terrorism, I would argue that on the whole, globalization actually prevents war. Since World War II, there has been no major war pitting two world powers against one another. I think that this is largely due to globalization. Organizations or world bodies such as the UN and EU in many ways prevent war due to the complete isolation from the world community that would ensue from being the aggressor state. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the consequences of being isolated from the global community for starting a war only grow. While there is still the threat of a massive world war that would envelope nearly every country on one side or the other--as was almost the case in the Cold War and could happen in the future with China and her allies against the West-- the risk of two major powers warring with each other has decreased significantly.
ReplyDelete