Although this is a good case for pointing out that economic interdependence does not necessarily lead to peaceful relations, I think it is a clear example that the interactions and interdependence in this situation have been negative interactions, which has led to this result of continued hostility between the two. Something that may be overlooked when simply stating that economic interdependence will lead to increased instances of conflict avoidance.
An article I came across from UNCTAD highlights exactly this idea that the result of economic interdependence can go either way and largely depends on how we structure these interactions. It would be interesting to see a study looking at relations between countries with fairly balanced amounts of trade (as the UNCTAD article emphasizes is necessary) and between nations with skewed trade where the relationship could almost be framed as exploitive. I think that a closer look at this along with discussion geared more towards the specific structure of the economic interdependence would be quite interesting and potentially bolster the claims of the Capitalist Peace Theory further.
This is a topic I find interesting and would be quite interested to see what kind of discussion could stem from this. Stephen Walt posted on his blog on Foreign Policy specifically discussed the EU and the scenarios we discussed in class during the debate today in both the article I have linked to and his previous articles links are provided for in the post.
Vey good post. As you pointed out, the results of economic interdependence can go either way. However, the debate from today made me question certain things, such as:
ReplyDelete1. What would happen if two countries stop trading due to some disagreement? Would it lead to conflict?
2. Does the emergence of conflict solely depends on if there is a difference in government regimes?
To answer your first question Andjelka, I think that if two countries stopped trading due to a disagreement, there isn't always going to be conflict. Certainly in the case of Japan and the US, trade relations has been cited as a reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, I think this lone example does not account for a the other examples history provides. The idea that when countries stop trading due to disagreement, conflict breaks out is too absolute for me to go along with. I think this misses out on external factors like third party actors (NGO's or countries) who could mediate disputes or provide alternative trading options giving the countries minimal reason for conflict. As we've seen in this class and I've noted in others, conflict is the least desirable output, assuming the actors are rational, countries would have more incentive to seek out an alternative.
ReplyDeleteHere is the problem I have with this capitalist peace theory. I think this theory is far too broad in the sense that all trading leads to peace. There are so many different cultures and governments with different ideals and values that it is too broad of a statement to say that trading leads to peace. So far it may be proving to be true, but there are so many factors to consider when analyzing why conflicts happen that it is to general to assume that trade could have prevented it. History is a good indication, however it guarantees nothing.
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy this post and the debate in class, so thank you!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that for the most part, deepening economic ties can lead to more peace. However, when I say that I do not mean that there will be less conflict or tension. I think that there will be less violent conflict. By building ties economically, this increases the amount of institutions that are in place to resolve conflict without the outcome of war. Organizations like the WTO, yes have caused conflict, but have made the world less anarchic and decreasing the amount of uncertainty by increasing the amount of repeated interactions among states and having institutions in place that can economically punish a state for not following the rules. Therefore, I think that capitalism can decrease the amount of violent conflict between states. However I do think, and agree with those who oppose increased economic interactions, think that this can cause increased tensions among states. But none that will lead to a violent conflict.
Although the capitalist peace theory does have its points that could be argued to mitigate international threats, I too find it to hard to accept as complete. There are too many other factors involved that lead to international warfare. This theory also would not apply to capitalistic countries that don't produce on the same level. Also, to answer Andjelka's first question, if trade ceased between two major countries due to a disagreement then I find that to be major conflict in and of itself. In 2007, US trade with China had an import/export with China of 65,238/321,507 million. If that was shutdown then it would be much more detrimental to the countries respectively than the immediate impact of military conflict.
ReplyDelete