I compared our relationship to China with decisions on whether to unfriend people on Facebook, but that analogy will only carry you so far. Nations, after all, can't exactly invite each other over to watch a movie together. :)
Nations show friendship in other ways. Trade deals. Military support. Joint training exercises. And more. (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)
This brings up a pretty important part, actually. Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations. This is not new. The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government. The Opium Wars are another example.
I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today. They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China. China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door. This, btw, isn't exactly new. I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century. Mirrors! We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.
Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand. So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries. We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Two things I wanted to point out here. The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks. Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries. If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive. The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest. This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm.
It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over. After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan? And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo. Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).
The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace. The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific. I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories. One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore. While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not. I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning. Bear with me. The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting. Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain. In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice. Self-defense, for example.)
I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test. That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory. If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened. And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.
Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.
Nations show friendship in other ways. Trade deals. Military support. Joint training exercises. And more. (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)
This brings up a pretty important part, actually. Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations. This is not new. The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government. The Opium Wars are another example.
I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today. They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China. China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door. This, btw, isn't exactly new. I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century. Mirrors! We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.
Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand. So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries. We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Two things I wanted to point out here. The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks. Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries. If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive. The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest. This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm.
It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over. After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan? And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo. Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).
The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace. The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific. I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories. One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore. While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not. I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning. Bear with me. The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting. Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain. In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice. Self-defense, for example.)
I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test. That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory. If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened. And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.
Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment