Globalization promotes peace

The argument

The case that globalization is good is made here on security grounds rather than economic ones: trade between countries makes war between them less likely, and the effect can be measured. The evidence is a study examining inter-state military conflict between 290,040 country pairs between 1950 and 2000 — a sample far larger than any handful of selected cases. Its finding was that the higher the interdependence in bilateral trade between two countries, the lower the chance of military conflict between them. The effect was quantified. For every 10% increase in bilateral trade, the probability of military conflict between the partners decreased by 0.1%. Where the two states share a border, the probability decreased by 1.9%. That the effect is far larger for neighbouring states matters, since those are the pairs with the opportunity to fight one another at all. A further effect is claimed beyond direct commercial ties. Even where two states do not trade substantially with each other, if both belong to trading blocs such as the European Union, Mercosur or ASEAN, and other nations within the bloc have significant import and export levels with the opposing nation, the pair are also less likely to engage in military conflict. Membership of a commercial network therefore transmits the pacifying effect indirectly, through the partners each side would damage by fighting. Since the promotion of global trade and international open markets is at the heart of globalization, the mechanism identified by the study is exactly what globalization does more of. On this reading it can be seen as a pacifying force, and because globalization promotes peace, globalization is good.

Context

A state that is more dependent on another is not likely to engage in actions that could lead to conflict with that state. In those nations, the business elites, who stand to lose the most from trade disruptions, will also lobby the government to avoid conflict or military aggression against a trading partner.

Premises

Counter-arguments

This argument has been debunked by history. Famously, Norman Angell published a book shortly after the turn of the century entitled ‘The Great Illusion’. Angell argued that Germany and Britain were so deeply economically interdependent that war between the two great nations was unthinkable. Within a few years of the book’s publication, Britain and Germany were engaged in battle in the First World War. It, therefore, becomes impossible to conclude that globalization and increased bilateral trade leads to peace. The two bloodiest and most mutually destructive wars in history, the First World War and the Second World War, saw nations with strong economic ties clash on the battlefields of Europe.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] History shows this premise to be inaccurate.