On the avoidance of small wars

[Madhu]

In response to the following (and other comments):

But that hardly changes the fact that US government $crewed the world over again and again.

This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archiv...6-3/index.html

No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.

At any rate, a NYT article on Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature":

Since 1945, we have seen a new phenomenon known as the “long peace”: for 66 years now, the great powers, and developed nations in general, have not fought wars against one another. More recently, since the end of the cold war, a broader “new peace” appears to have taken hold. It is not, of course, an absolute peace, but there has been a decline in all kinds of organized conflicts, including civil wars, genocides, repression and terrorism. Pinker admits that followers of our news media will have particular difficulty in believing this, but as always, he produces statistics to back up his assertions.

To readers familiar with the literature in evolutionary psychology and its tendency to denigrate the role reason plays in human behavior, the most striking aspect of Pinker’s account is that the last of his “better angels” is reason. Here he draws on a metaphor I used in my 1981 book “The Expanding Circle.” To indicate that reason can take us to places that we might not expect to reach, I wrote of an “escalator of reason” that can take us to a vantage point from which we see that our own interests are similar to, and from the point of view of the universe do not matter more than, the interests of others.

http://tinyurl.com/3mfpzbp

His argument is complicated, however, and not related entirely to monopolies of violence, international institutions, or American soft/hard power. Instead, he describes an evolutionary process affecting human cultures 'writ large'. Perhaps his theory is a more illuminating way to look at the development of mankind than clashes of culture or East vs. West?

If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.

At any rate, Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana are difficult to compare. For example, on the economy of India during the Raj (a complicated topic much outside my areas of expertise), see the following from Amardeep Singh quoting Manmohan Singh:

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.

http://tinyurl.com/8xrgqqp


(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog ).

[Dayuhan]

(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog ).

Not a moderator, but welcome to the dark side.

I don't think the general increase in peace (yes, the world is more peaceful now than it's been in recorded history, and has been for some time) is necessarily a consequence of a fundamental evolution in human nature, or a consequence of US hegemony. There are a number of more pragmatic factors involved, for example:

Nuclear weapons and mutual assured destruction raised the risks of great power conflict to a hitherto unknown level. That's why the Cold War was fought by proxy: nobody had evolved beyond fighting, the probable consequences of direct conflict had simply become unacceptable.

The dissolution of imperial spheres of trade and the emergence of relatively free trade reduced a major incentive to conflict. Emerging economic players no longer need to conquer territory to gain access to resources and markets.

Commercial interdependence has reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) the incentive to fight.

There are more, of course, but overall I don't think we've become more peaceful as a race. We've just given ourselves fewer good reasons to fight and more good reasons not to.

[Fuchs]

Commercial interdependence has reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) the incentive to fight.

I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

[JMA]

I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

Bear with him Fuchs. He makes this sort of statement all the time.

[Dayuhan]

I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

I did not suggest that the power of commercial interdependence to deter war is in any way absolute: it clearly is not. It is one factor among many. Nobody would say that nations with active trade and commercial interdependence never fight: that would be silly. It's a disincentive, not an absolute bar.

Do you not think, for example, that the potential loss of the US as an export market would be a factor in any calculation China was making that might involve armed conflict with the US? Please note that I do not suggest that this makes such a course impossible, only that it would be a factor in the calculation of cost, risk, and benefit.

[Fuchs]

Dayuhan, about the special case: I don't think that a trade relationship in which China exports more than it imports (and gets paper or bits and bytes to make of for the difference) is so indispensable for China as many people in the U.S. appear to think.
The Chinese are moving toward strengthening their domestic consumption/demand. Additionally, most of their economic growth is afaik primarily in their construction sector and other domestic investments, not in export to the U.S..


About the general issue: I've heard and read the reference to economic relations as war inhibitor very often and it looks overstated to me. It's not reliable as you write and probably not even powerful. The public perception of it appears to be overstated, and taking peace for granted is not a wise move.
We gotta work for peace continually, for there's a beast in many if not all of us (at least those with balls), it's pretty primitive and inclined to use force.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, about the special case: I don't think that a trade relationship in which China exports more than it imports (and gets paper or bits and bytes to make of for the difference) is so indispensable for China as many people in the U.S. appear to think.

The paper, bits and bytes are extremely useful to the Chinese, despite their rather hypothetical nature: they can be passed on to folks in the Middle East and Africa in return for oil, to folks in Australia for iron, etc etc.

The Chinese are moving toward strengthening their domestic consumption/demand. Additionally, most of their economic growth is afaik primarily in their construction sector and other domestic investments, not in export to the U.S..

A large percentage of their growth at this point is in construction that's increasingly speculative in nature, which is a very big problem for them, though a different issue. While they are strengthening domestic consumption, it has a long, long way to go. They remain very reliant on exports and removal of any major export market would be a real problem for them, especially if it were removed through a conflict that threatened to disrupt trade with other markets as well.

About the general issue: I've heard and read the reference to economic relations as war inhibitor very often and it looks overstated to me. It's not reliable as you write and probably not even powerful. The public perception of it appears to be overstated, and taking peace for granted is not a wise move.

I don't recall saying that it was powerful, reliable, or even quantifiable, only that it exists. I would certainly not advise anyone to take peace for granted.

We gotta work for peace continually, for there's a beast in many if not all of us (at least those with balls), it's pretty primitive and inclined to use force.

Agreed. However, we can empirically verify that we have more peace than ever before. That would suggest that we are either working more effectively at keeping peace (though I see little evidence of that) or circumstances have evolved that are more conducive to peace. If the latter, we'd want to keep track of those various circumstances and try to help them keep evolving. Obviously there is no single circumstance that assures peace, but that doesn't mean we can't make efforts to expand and continue evolutionary trends that favor peace, no matter how peripherally, over those that do not.

[Fuchs]

The paper, bits and bytes are extremely useful to the Chinese, despite their rather hypothetical nature: they can be passed on to folks in the Middle East and Africa in return for oil, to folks in Australia for iron, etc etc.

The Chinese have a trade balance surplus, thus much of the paper, bits and bites still have only an imaginary value.

That would suggest that we are either working more effectively at keeping peace (though I see little evidence of that) or circumstances have evolved that are more conducive to peace. If the latter, we'd want to keep track of those various circumstances and try to help them keep evolving. Obviously there is no single circumstance that assures peace, but that doesn't mean we can't make efforts to expand and continue evolutionary trends that favor peace, no matter how peripherally, over those that do not.

The tolerance for robbing other countries has declined drastically both in most countries and in gatherings of the representatives of countries.
I think that's the cause for the rareness of inter-state conflicts.
On the other hand, there weren't that many inter-state conflicts in the 40 years prior to the First World War either. There were mostly small wars far away from home and people forgot what it's like to have a foreign army on your soil and send your sons to war.

[Ken White]

No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.

Sadly true, that...

If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.

Hopefully they'll pay some attention. They tend to self fulfilling prophesizing and a lot of group think.

[blueblood]

No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.

At any rate, a NYT article on Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature":

Never said nor implied it.

In what world, Brits were more "evil" than the Gaznavis and Aurangzebs they replaced. The 22% you mentioned, much of it belonged to these rulers and they for certain were not Indians. For the sake of minority votes, Dr. Singh may not want to point this out but a common man wasn't living with the fear of being slaughtered under Brits or a woman wasn't supposed to be raped because she was a Hindu or Sikh.

[blueblood]

Americans are definitely lesser of the evils around and probably the best hope. Most people, sooner or later will find that it is easier to deal with the Americans than it is to deal with the Chinese.