When goods don’t cross borders, armies will

Last updated on: November 7, 2014 at 12:58 pm by Kevin Miller

When goods don’t cross borders, armies will 2014-11-07T12:58:09-07:00 Kevin Miller

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The quote that forms the title of this post comes from Otto T. Mallery (1881-1956), perhaps best known for his book Economic Union and Durable Peace. It came to my attention recently while listening to Blueprint for Armageddon Part 1 on Dan Carlin’s most excellent Hardcore History podcast.

As the quote indicates, countries that are economically interdependent have too much to lose by going to war against their trading partners. Therefore, a globalized economy should be an effective way to reduce wars. However, as Carlin points out, the era leading up to World War 1 was a period of unprecedented globalism and wealth. How, then, could the richest countries in the world find themselves embroiled in the most brutal war the world had ever seen?

We see a similar argument echoed much more recently by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree. He calls it the “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention.”

No two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s.

The appearance of McDonald’s is a signal that a country has developed a middle class that is wealthy enough to support a chain of fast food restaurants. And with their bellies stuffed full of Big Macs and Happy Meals, who would want to mess that up by going to war–particularly against anyone with a vested interest in their fast food chain? They have too much to lose.

Ironically, shortly after Friedman’s book was published, NATO warplanes bombed Yugoslavia, and angry protestors destroyed all of the McDonald’s restaurants in that city. So much for the theory–or so it appeared.

Friedman responded by saying what happened in Yugoslavia is merely the exception that proves the rule. The restaurants have since been rebuilt and–surprise!–there hasn’t been a war there ever since. You’ll have to excuse me, but that sounds a bit like the following joke:

Why are you waving that chicken around over your head?

To keep the elephants away.

Does it work?

You don’t see any elephants around here, do you?

The way I see it, countries go to war out of self-interest, and they avoid war for the same reason. The fact that the object of their aggression may be part of their supply chain makes little difference to what amounts to a simple cost/benefit scenario on the part of the aggressor. For example, the ancient Vikings were happy to trade with other countries, until they realized they could simply take the goods instead. Think of it as a form of vertical integration–with guns. Organized crime organizations make similar moves all the time. Russia has exhibited similar behavior recently in Ukraine.

That said, I do think economic interdependence has certainly helped to reduce the likelihood of war. It’s just a mistake to think of it as a cure-all. Think of the dampening effect Europe’s dependence on natural gas has had on the Ukraine situation, for instance. It didn’t prevent Russia’s aggression, but it certainly stopped it from exploding into a much broader conflict. As anyone who has taken grade 5 history knows, when trade happens, we exchange far more than goods. We also exchange values, ideas, technological innovations and so on. Most importantly, we come to see our neighbors as human beings. And the more human the other becomes, the harder it is for us to considering killing them. Incidentally, that’s why I think multi-national corporations tend to get a worse rap than they deserve. Sure, there are some bad actors out there, but I think they prevent far more wars than they cause. Furthermore, their economic involvement in the far corners of the globe help to bring all sorts of previously unknown injustices to light.

Trade or no trade, armies will still cross borders, but they cross them far less frequently than they did in the past, the conflicts don’t last nearly as long, and the aggressors are unilaterally condemned by the global community. Compared to how such actions were viewed in the past, when kings were literally expected to go to war against their neighbors in the spring, I’d call that progress.

I’m not saying international trade is solely responsible for this reduction in aggression, but it is certainly preferential to the economic and cultural isolation practiced by nations like South Korea and much of the Arab world–and the outside world’s treatment of these countries as social pariahs. If we engage our enemies economically, I’m confident we will have far less reason–and far less desire–to engage them militarily, and vice versa.

Philosophy

Previous Post

November 6, 2014

Kevin DeYoung -- the complete "Hellbound?" interview

Next Post

November 7, 2014 I wish "Disquiet Time" was more disquieting, but I still enjoyed it

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books environment Film Hell non-violence Philosophy Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2016 May 2016 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the Christian response to being wronged?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Gossip Hold a grudge Revenge Forgive