17 of 61

Write now Article Tools

It is clear that global economic interdependence, coupled with an increase in the number of democracies worldwide, has reduced (but not completely eliminated) the threat of renewed world war. This is not to suggest that smaller, ethnic based wars triggered by non-state actors will not continue to exist.

The 21st century promises to be, at minimum, a bipolar world. The rise of China coupled with the emergence of India can be considered to further a multipolar global system. Coral Bell identifies the European Union, Russia and Japan as other emerging great powers.

Importantly, of the aforementioned states, the non-democratic great powers are active members of the United Nations. Moreover, American relations with all the powers have generally been positive. With or without economic globalisation, there is much to be optimistic about in relation to world peace.

The importance of economic globalisation as a means of fostering cooperation has been noted by numerous commentators. Viewed through rationalist eyes, free trade creates a necessarily reciprocal relationship between actors in international relations.

Private interests lobby governments to push for increased access to global markets, and war is not conducive to flows of capital, goods or services. Consumers benefit too, from an increased awareness of other nations' produce and through it, their culture. These components of capitalism have been theorised to promote peace.

Economic globalisation has been heralded as being responsible for increasing living standards and promoting peace from within. Individuals within wealthy nations with advanced information economies are less prone to territorial disputes, preferring to negotiate with monetary exchange at mutually agreeable prices.

Economic freedom is inextricably linked with political freedom. A reduction of the role of government in economic affairs offsets excessive political power (and vice versa). By this view, economic interdependence should contribute to demands for democracy and therefore peace, both internally (from citizens wanting a stable environment to export and import) and externally (from investors seeking a secure location to place funds).

If this line of argument is correct then deterrence of conflict at home and abroad must be facilitated by economic globalisation, which is by definition an increase in freedom through the removal of trade barriers.

Critics are not all persuaded by this ideologically liberal view. Ronald Chilcote condemns globalisation for being "a manifestation of imperialism and the devastating capitalist order." By this view, inequalities are exacerbated not reduced by economic interdependence. Extended to the current global powers, one might argue (wrongly, in my opinion) that a resentful underclass of poor citizens in emerging powers such as India or China could increase the potential for conflict with Western nations enjoying the "uneven" benefits of globalisation.

One thing is clear: economic interdependence has been used for political purposes. For example, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have used their position as lender of last resort to developing nations on the brink of bankruptcy to demand neo-liberal reforms. The breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 and the United States' protectionist response to increasing competition from Japan in the 1980s demonstrates how quickly relations between great powers can sour, in spite economic openness.

Learn more about this author, Sukrit Sabhlok.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Globalization: Who benefits from it??
We want to hear your view. Write now!