As globalization brings economic growth, it will bring political growth. Countries that are economically successful and growing do not, as a rule, go to war. In a world where there are numerous flashpoints and delicate balances to be maintained, globalization is a key force pushing towards peace. It is that complicated. And that simple.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dave Schuler:
November 9th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Great points, Simon. I don’t honestly believe that China and the U. S. will go to war but a chilling thing about the prospect is that it’s almost entirely outside our control. But if the Chinese regime sees it to their domestic political advantage, i.e. it creates greater harmony at home, then I do believe that war between the two countries is possible and that there’s very little we can do to prevent it.
mark:
November 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Hi Dave,
Part of the problem relates to the opaque and factionalized nature of top-level Chinese decision making.
The PLA has become far more professional in the last thirty years but that professionalism has come at the price of separation from the civilian party leaders, though the generals still retain inordinate influence collectively. Far more than their Russian counterparts ever did under the Soviet Union.
Nor have we really effectively mapped out the influence of business-oriented “princelings” on major Party trends and how they relate to official channels of decision-making.
Again to borrow a Soviet reference, China’s nomenklatura is more complex and harder for the U.S. to read.
IJ:
November 9th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Very interesting choice – the WTO.
Re the global economy, the UK Minister for Defence Procurement said in September that the MoD would be taking into account ‘appropriate sovereignty’ when buying military hardware. This suggests some form of protectionism. More and more countries are protecting themselves against the global economy for strategic reasons – security of energy supplies is one excuse.
Agricultural subsidies could also be seen as ensuring security of food supplies. And the riots in France have now introduced a concern for securing national stability.
Moreover the EU still has no common energy policy, as a new publication notes: “It should not accept Russia’s use of its energy resources as a means of exerting political pressure on its neighbours. If the EU is united and steadfast on such issues it will be immune to any pressures
that Russia may try to exert.” Within this framework, the takeover of ScottishPower by the German energy giant E.ON is meeting much opposition.
For light relief, the Guardian pointed out the direction of the protectionist stance.
The progress today on WTO concessions was much less than hoped. Lots of scope for friction. Doha development round?
Rob:
November 9th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
Talking about war with China? It can take several forms. For example, the US and China can have a geopolitical — or geo-economical — war. They could even engage, to some degree, in a proxy war. Then again the tentacles of economic interaction could thread through both societies to the point of strangling the chances for hostile relationships. I’m an optimist myself. No one can predict the future, of course. I think your article merits consideration. As for 1914, the world was younger then in many ways. I’m considering today’s communication, alliances, and stronger West (European/USA/Japan) relationship, like NATO and of course nuclear “stand off” weaponry. I would not discount Indian participation in global events so as to rival China’s. These are exciting times.
Simon:
November 10th, 2005 at 12:22 am
A couple of comments on the comments.
Dave: I disagree that it is out of our control. If American politicians find “bashing China” to no longer be a vote winner, that helps. If there’s greater public awareness of the benefits of seeing China as a partner rather than rival, that helps. The point about splintered decision making in China is also a good one. The clear outlier is Taiwan, but even the US seems to be pushing for a continuation of status quo, hemming in the pro-independence forces on the island.
Rob: The world might have been “younger” in 1914, but the European powers considered themselves the epitome of civilisation before they commenced 4 years of quite futile and barbaric fighting. Thin vaneer of civilisation and all that. Perhaps the world is more integrated these days, which is the basis of my optimism, but history shows the world is not immune to war because it’s integrated.
There’s a choice to be made, and it needs to be made actively.
mark:
November 10th, 2005 at 3:41 am
Editorial Note:
Although I am going to collect and publish rebuttals after everyone has had their say, I have to note that Dr. Sam has rebutted Simon in a post at The Useless Tree :o)
http://uselesstree.typepad.com/useless_tree/2005/11/globalization_w.html
acrv56:
November 10th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
“As people grow richer in countries like China, they will start demanding more secure property rights, rule of law, less tolerance of corruption…”.
If many of the (fast) enriched people had come to their fortune by corruption, as it seems to me to be the case in the echoing feudalistic system developping countries, then their will for a “clean” society it would be questionable (i have a sad-critical eye on the realities of the country where i live in).
Dave Schuler:
November 10th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
We may have to agree to disagree, Simon. As I said in my first comment, I don’t believe that the U. S. and China will actually go to war. And I absolutely do not believe that the United States would go to war with China without severe provocation. Could China offer such a provocation? I think the answer is “Yes”—if internal Chinese political considerations warrant it.
The United States has, essentially, zero ability to influence internal Chinese politics in any but the most indirect, “soft power” sense. IMO that “soft power” BTW is the greatest danger to the Chinese regime. Influence requires access and we just don’t have that.
sportsbook:
December 27th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
In the 1990s, the world awakened to a post-Communist order, one in which global capital was largely unfettered to come and go as it pleased. Soon it became apparent that not just capital, but people, ideas, goods, services,sportsbook and every manner of human transaction, physical or otherwise, was enabled by technology and the
fall of the USSR to spread as never before. This entire phenomenon came to be known through the shorthand term of “globalization.”
http://www.enterbet.com
pedro:
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Sugeestion walk on the wild side
Your IRA CAN
buy real estate in Costa Rica
If you are looking at real estate overseas, or for a way to get
better returns in your IRA, here is little secret your stock broker will
never tell you about… The IRS lets you purchase
real estate Costa Rica
with income that is tax-deferred. That means that many savvy investors
are investing their IRA funds in
real estate in Costa Rica
The one exception is that you can’t use the
Costa Rica real estate in your
IRA as your residence or vacation home, if you are under 59 & 1/2. Your IRA
custodian must actually buy the real estate you are investing in. For more info go to
http://www.costaricanbrokers.com