Appunti corso “Industrial Society, War and Peace in the 21st Century”, Dispense di Storia della Guerra

Scarica Appunti corso “Industrial Society, War and Peace in the 21st Century” e più Dispense in PDF di Storia della Guerra solo su Docsity! Aprile 2023, SciencesPo Reims INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, WAR AND PEACE Bibliography Nicholas Mulder, The Economic Weapon: The rise of sanctions as a tool of Modern war (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022) Agathe Demarais, Backfire (New York: Columbia University Press, 2022) Katherine Barbieri, The Liberal Illusion: Does Trade Promote Peace? (Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press, 2005) Dale Copeland, Economic Interdependence and War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014). Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) DOES WAR HAVE ANY RATIONALITY IN THE INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY? «La société industrielle et la guerre.» - Raymond Aron, 1955 Economic development brings more wealth than conquer (which is an anachronistic way to enrich peoples), and this changed the relationship between nations. The very nature of war changed after industrialisation. For centuries, war was one of the most efficient ways to increase wealth (until the Industrial Revolution): rich nations were violent nations. - enslaving people - Getting the land’s goods - Control over the land was one of the most important things: trade routes and ports - After a war, losers have to pay to the winners (ex. Germany after WWI) Today, war isn’t profitable anymore: the cost of war becomes more important. Weapons are more expensive, and the expected “benefits” from a war can no longer cover destruction and damages (in most cases). Before starting a war with another country, important variables to take into consideration: 1 - Are we able to sustain war in the long term? (Sun Tzu, The Art of War: before engaging in war, be sure you have enough weapons and resources to do that) —> you can never be sure when a war is going to end - Are we interdependent with the other country? Do we rely on trade with them? - Are there gonna be consequences in the international community? In the industrial society, the wealth of a nation relies in its people, who manufacture. If you kill the source of the wealth of the country by invading it, it will not be rich anymore. When you have a generation of injured people, the cost of war for a society is extremely important. Auguste Comte (19th century) predicted that no more wars were to exist among industrial nations: if having a war would prevent economic growth, they were not going to happen anymore in the future. —> Assumption theoretically correct but in reality wrong: two years later, the war between Prussia and France began, then the two world wars occurred… After the Cold War, liberal assumption. The answer to the great depression after WWI was protectionism: it didn’t resolve problems but it developed extremist movements in Europe. The economic situation got worse, and it favoured the rise of fascism and nazism, which led to WWII. The more economic interdependence there is, the less conflict. Today, Theory of hegemony: realist theory. When there is one hegemonic power, the world benefits from that, there is peace. China benefited for example from the fact that the US Dollar is stable and the currency of trade. However, all hegemonies come to an end, and when an hegemony falls, there is the rise of another one: this can create confliction, and this confliction may turn into a war E.g. Germany wanted to take leadership —> confliction between the old power (UK) and the new power (Germany). The result was the rise of a third power: the US. The result of globalization is increased wealth and development. The world got richer, and from the new economic balance, rose a new political balance. China has global ambitions (Xi Jin Ping says that himself). No hegemonic nation will accept to leave power. 2 trade theory made wealth increase and the search for a national power increase by disadvantaging rival states compatible Characteristics of mercantilism: - search for autarky, - xenophobia, - idealization of war. - Desire to dominate politically and economically other nations, - rejection of foreigners. The great majority of mercantilists didn’t mistake money for wealth. Mercantilism is presented as a response to a historical necessity, deriving from the States’ wish to assert themselves with regard to foreign nations, but also to strengthen their authority at the national level, through a policy of power and warfare. This was the first expression of economic nationalism. In the early 19th century, the mercantilist theory was more than a theory of power, it was a theory of the national economy’s development and organization: mercantilists place security in the center of the economic analysis. Some problems remain: mercantilism works well in a free-riding situation. Since free-riding works, the first one will benefit from the situation, but then everybody will do that and it will become less and less beneficial When the number of free riders increase, there are less incentives The economic crisis in the 1920s and 1930s coincided with a strong protectionist revival, in a political context marked by international tensions. John Maynard Keynes, in General Theory (1936), used his defense of mercantilism (against the attacks of ‘classical’ economists) to confirm his conviction that an unsuitable international monetary system contains the germs of international conflict by making the various national interests antagonistic. The mercantilists’ bellicosity was mainly a realistic answer to the monetary problems of the time. The preservation of international peace seems highly improbable because the international monetary system prevents the realization of full employment in all nations. 5 Above all, economic development was of benefit to military power, by providing the means to ensure the State’s defense and by financing military expeditions abroad. Politics benefited from trade. The trade surplus enables the constitution of a treasure (or of public savings) likely to protect national wealth. Mercantilists then developed the balance of trade surplus theory. The dominant idea was that the power of a State was determined by its capacity to have sufficient monetary resources available at any time to achieve its foreign policy, in particular to finance its wars Conclusion Mercantilists established a direct link between economic development and the confirmation of national power. From this time onwards, economic reasons justified wars. They believed international economic relations were marked by economic and military competition for the conquest of markets and resources. The nation’s power was relative, and the government had to improve their national position in the hierarchy of powers. Therefore, the State had to intervene on the international scene to promote national interests. At the national level, it could undertake actions in favor of the development of export industries. These mercantilist principles opened the way to the modern concepts of protectionism and economic war. A POLITICS STATEMENT: PETER NAVARRO 2015, “Death by China: Confronting the Dragon - a global call to action” 6 Arming Itself to the Teeth Even as China has boomed at the expense of much of the rest of the world, it has used its rapid economic growth to fund one of the most rapid and comprehensive military buildups the world has ever witnessed. In this way, and in the spirit of Vladimir Lenin* dictum that a capitalist will sell the rope that will be used to hang him, every “Walmart dollar” we Americans now spend on artificially cheap Chinese imports represents both a down payment on our own umemployment as well as additional financing for a rapidly arming China. Here what just some of that vaunted war machine is shaping up to look like: * Chinas newly modernized Navy and Air Force feature every- thing from virtually undetectable nuclear submarines and the latest Russian-designed fighter jets to ballistic missiles that can precisely target America* aircraft carriers on the high seas. * Chinas own “Pentagon” is confidently developing advanced weapons systems—many of which have been stolen from us by Chinese hackers and spies!—to shoot down our satellite and GPS systems and send nuclear warheads deep into the Ameri- can heartland. They got their own industry and in a couple of decades acquired all the knowledge that Western countries took centuries to have. 1905 for the first war between Russia and Japan, 80% of the Japanese budget was dedicated to the military, in order to guarantee the very survival of the state. Shifting from traditional societies to modernity To what extent the changes brought by the industrial revolution were important? Agriculture was the cornerstone of the economy. The pre-industrial world evolved very slowly (such development cannot be achieved in the short run), thanks to several factors: - Demography - Politics - Economy - Ideology Industrial “take-off” (the moment when a society irreversibly switches into industrial growth) cannot be propelled from the outside. Rise in production investment, one or more major industries appear, and they will take the lead in the entire industrialization process. Our relation to the Industrial Revolution was influenced by two features: - The hegemony of liberal ideas and the decline of mercantilist ideas. - A quasi-Hegelian vision of history, marked by the triumph of reason —> if war doesn't make sense, it's gonna be more and more rare As a result, contemporary/modern visions of development only encompass development in its economic dimension The liberal logic of the Industrial Revolution The evolution of the society is cornerstone of the Industrial Revolution —> economic development brings the modernisation of societies (bourgeois mindset is the search for profit)* —> modern societies are bourgeois societies —> bourgeois societies demand more individual freedom —> demands made by bourgeoisie are more and more acceptable (because it appears to be efficient and it’s more powerful in the dynamics of the modern society) —> authoritarian rules end 10 —> economic development eventually brings democratization —> the Industrial Revolution is getting global —> with the global spread of the Industrial society comes a global spread democracy —> no war between democracies —> Industrial Revolution eventually brings peace *BUT This logic has two inner limits: - were the first countries to implement their Industrial Revolution pacifist and driven by a “bourgeois” mindset? I.e. the search for profit? - In the case of late comers, was the industrial revolution initiated for profit or for security? Were these actually driven by the mindset of national security? The process of industrialization Take-off is due to several factors, pre-conditions: Technique (steaming machine) Political willingness External pressure THEORY VS HISTORICAL/EMPIRICAL EVIDENCES In the 19th century the UK used the new power provided by industrialisation to establish a colonial empire. Britain was not always in favor of free trade: it was also a mercantilist power at the beginning of its own Industrial Revolution First late comers in the 19th century (Germany, Japan) implemented their industrial revolutions for highly political purposes: willingness of power, guarantee of national independence, fear of a threat, competition for power… As soon as they had the opportunity they started to have their own colonial empire (race for colonies) The Industrial Revolution and the modernisation of the economy are not the sole result of political willingness —> you also need a prepared society and economic means The Industrial Revolution is not the result of political logic. But, when a country is able to undertake its Industrial Revolution, the political power can seize the opportunity to make it successful and use the IR to achieve power goals. (This aspect was completely overshadowed by economics for a long time.) 11 Counterexample: all developing world autocrats have dreams of power goals, they want to have a war with their neighbor, but all of them failed because they didn’t have the economic infrastructure that allowed the achievement of this goal. STRUCTURAL CHANGES, POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES The development of capitalism changes the balance of power Industrial nations vs pre modern nations New bourgeoisie vs old gentry West vs the rest of the world As soon as there was an industrial revolution there was a market, and as soon as there was a market there was a need for harmonization —> if we speak the same language and have trade routes we’re more efficient. Less and less borders. (Ex. Germany: still sovereign states but no economic borders) This is not necessarily a peaceful change If a hegemony ends, because free-riding increases, the two options are: confliction/war, or cooperation (end of mercantilism) The objective of States to gain wealth and power in the long run is not sustainable in democracies because it gets to the point where it prevails over individual well-being, sacrificed to the public cause. The process of industrialization in Japan Pre-conditions to “take off” - External demand for raw materials initiates economic change - Development of more productive, commercial agriculture and cash crops not consumed by producers and/or largely exported - Widespread and enhanced investment in changes to the physical environment to expand production (irrigation, canals, ports) - Increasing spread of technology and advances in existing technologies - Changing social structure, with previous social equilibrium now in flux - Individual social mobility begins - Development of national identity and shared economic interests Conditions for industrialization: Important literacy rate and evolution of education A society ready for changes: intellectual evolution 12 What Kindleberger highlights is that it's not only a matter of economy, but also international order and national security. When there’s a hegemony, it’s an international order that is set From the mid 19th century the dream was represented by the West, which designed the standards for society, the economy, civil and interpersonal relations. This is over: the Asian standard is rising now Each time there has been the collapse of a hegemony, there was a period of conflict: when you’re on the top you don’t want to lose the advantages of that power Also, all the others want to be the hegemonic nation (WWI and WWII) Will the (relative) decline of America mean a coming war in the near future? Will the rise of China (or any other leader) lead to a war? If we go back to the paper, Kindelberger has a very optimistic vision on international affairs → Hegemony as a “benevolent stabilizer” 15 The hegemonic power’s main task is to assume the stability of common goods into the international system. This implies the stability of the currency system, security of trade, ecc. → world prosperity The US still benefits from the international trade order, with the Dollar being the international currency. However, stability has a high cost This theory implies different levels: - First level: a free trade world economy requires a hegemonic power to set the economic frame. I.e. a leading country on military and economic matters - Second level: free-riders make the cost of an international regime even higher for the hegemonic country. The more free riders there are, the higher the cost for the leader and eventually the international regime collapses. - Third level: the decline of the hegemonic power leads to the end of the international regime We have an international order. The “big guy” in the room decides the rules, and others play according to the rules This is the idea for example after WWII: everybody agreed to cut down tariffs and increase the free trade policy and it worked well and attracted other countries. Ex. of free rider: South Korea in the 70s and 80s. The general agreement was no social nor fiscal dumping. The Korean government was instead of the idea of maximum dumping and protectionism. When you’re the only protectionist nation in a world of free traders, it’s a free riding strategy Dumping: artificially setting the price (for ex by cutting taxes for exports so that your prices are lower in comparison with other countries) The hegemonic power has to carry out and maintain the stability when there are free riders The world trade organization said this was a temporary situation because it was a developing country, but now it enjoys the same standards as developed countries so they need to accept the international terms (which they did) Countries like Germany, Japan and France were free riders: the idea was to have a link between the value of the US dollar and European currencies, but it needed collaboration between countries. 16 Free riding: not respecting what you previously agreed with your partners. Problem of liquidity after the Great Depression, Britain couldn’t provide financial stability like it used to. Everyone is alone in such a situation, we just have national solutions that highlight protectionist attitudes. The hegemonic nation, on the other hand, remains a benevolent stabilizer, according to Kindleberger Gilpin: national interest driven hegemony Gilpin resumed Kindleberger’s theory but he added a security dimension. Unlike Kindleberger, Gilpin thinks the hegemonic power is not just a benevolent stabilizer, and reintroduces the concept of national interest → Hegemony is not just a matter of benevolence but also of national interest. He resumes the same logic of the cycle but changes the outcome For Kindleberger the end of hegemony was anarchy and inefficient economic and social order - First period: hegemony is profitable for everyone. It works so well that eventually competitors recover, so trade is not so beneficial anymore (2 period). High levels of production and export. In terms of trade flow, the hegemonic nation is an exporting one, and in terms of consumption it remains average, while for the rest consumption is very low - Second period: competitors recover and the domestic population is more focused on consumption than production. The world is at peace, so the hegemonic nation enjoys stability and wealth. It’s not a manufacturing country anymore. Trade flow is on a zero balance. Consumption is average-high for the hegemonic nation, for the rest it’s average. - Third period: financial crisis —> decline of the international regime and rise of protectionism. No manufacturing capability anymore, production is in the rest of the world, consumption is high, not to say too high (because it exceeds the production capability) for hegemonies, while for the rest it’s average, hegemonic nation now becomes a pure importing nation → Hegemony ends in a war The point is: it’s not so easy to wage a war in the modern economy. 17 “A state will seek to change the international system through territorial, political and economic expansion until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the marginal benefits.” The power of a State increases → this State will seek to extend its territorial control, political influence, and/or domination of the world’s economy → more resources are available → power of the state increases → economies of scale → the advantage of this state over others is reinforced An economic surplus related vision of power Gilpin’s vision of power is radically different from traditional IR or international economic ones. Wealth accumulation and power are linked➔ this was true for ancient powers, and it is supposed to be true today. So wars have not disappeared from industrial societies. “For the empire to survive, the economic surplus had to increase faster than the cost of war”[p115] 20 In this respect, the type of social formation is extremely important because it determines how the economic surplus is generated, its magnitude, and the mechanism of its transfer from one group or society to another. 3 categories of social formations: 1. Feudal societies 2. Empire 3. Modern industrial nation-state One question today is to know whether there’s a specific social formation of the post industrial society From empire to Modern Industrial State Talking of industrial revolution implies a radical change (a revolution). So we should first wonder to what extent these changes were important. In this respect, the previous situation should be understood. ▪ Agriculture is the cornerstone of economy ▪ A long «incubation» ▪ Traditional political power Agriculture is the cornerstone of economy 50 to 75% of resources are provided by agriculture. Agriculture is the wealth of a pre-industrial nation. Rural population represents 80% Strong solidarity and community links (mechanical solidarity vs. Organic solidarity in industrial societies) Rudimentary technology 21 The lack of real market freezes techniques and behaviors Few exchanges This lack of markets is explained by slow communication. This relative autarchy can be explained by different kinds of barriers. The contemporary understanding of markets is unknown: labor market, capital market, etc. The cycle of empires World politics was characterized by the rise and decline of powerful empires, each of which unified and ordered its respective international system → correlation between economic development and power: for the empire to survive, the economic surplus had to increase faster than the cost of war. (115) The cycle of empires was broken in the modern world by 3 significant developments: ▪ The triumph of the nation-state as the principal actor in international relations ▪ The advent of sustained economic growth based on modern science and technology ▪ The emergence of a world market economy A different perspective on war in the industrial nation-state world The importance of territorial conquest has declined. 22 the outputs, but on the inputs as well, since much of the raw materials needed for producing any product in a determined country come from abroad. Other negative effects are more expensive products, limited choices, and not spreading of new technologies. it is a matter of negotiating the best deals for both parties and leaving aside the history of pervasive bilateral relations both countries have had between each other and that compromise other countries to tie economic relations to one or another, and to face different consequences from that choice. Is it a problem of free trade, security, ideology, mistrust? MAKING SENSE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION IN EAST ASIA - economic protectionism, decoupling - threat to geopolitical and strategic balance - Security dilemma - Hegemony - Nature of regime - Cycle —> is it natural - New Cold War with competing economic blocks - Tensions among allies in the region —> are US allies allied? - Are the US still in charge of security in the region? - Ukraine war impact on energy, supply chain - Context of high economic interdependence - World trade organization There are US military facilities in Asia since the colonization of the Philippines. According to China, this militarization is increasing tensions China has more economic leverage today —> Other countries have to choose their stance, they move either on the US or Chinese side —> China can sanction and is less exposed to sanctions 1946: US is the only power in East Asia After the defeat of the US in Vietnam, 1976, they reestablished their relationship with China, which entered the world economy Development of China's economy and enrichment of the US A security crisis will increase the gap between China and the US and increase China’s interest in being a revisionist power 25 1982: Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping established the map road for the 4 modernisations of China: military, industrial, science and medication, agriculture. These are all correlated: modernisation of agriculture allows better living standards and better education, which allows a good healthcare system and more educated people, which allows a better industry which allows the development of a new economic and military power 1999: turning point —> the US threw a NATO operation and accidentally bombed China's embassy saying that the GPS was not updated. The Chinese were not convinced by that explanation. Either a war is coming (we don’t know how or when but it’s there), or there’s still time to change things 10 years ago we were probably in a better situation, now we’re close to the risk of war We have to promote peaceful relations and avoid an armed conflict There is no winner in a trade war In order to defend their national interests, stakeholders have to work in a constructive way, so achieve things together, step by step One solution could be bringing stakeholders together at a dialogue table instead of having unilateral sanctions (from both sides) There is a limitation to Gilpin’s thesis: security crisis will increase the gap between China and the US, while the financial crisis will increase the decline of the US related to the decline of China. INTERDEPENDENCE AND PEACE 1st reading: MAKE TRADE NOT WAR? PHILIPPE MARTIN, THIERRY MAYER, MATHIAS THOENIG 2008 2nd reading: THE LIBERAL ILLUSION: DOES TRADE PROMOTE PEACE? KATHERINE BARBIERI 2005 THEORY OF THE TRADE-CONFLICT RELATIONSHIP According to Barbieri, international trade is just an illusion and it doesn’t bring peace Two schools of thought 1. Marxism —> dependence. 26 2. Realism —> other factors at stake. War is a complex process, the decision to go to war doesn’t rely only on economic factors but also on the international situation, politics… States trade with their enemies Ex. Historical case where the contact theory (Waltz) worked: European integration process and Marshall Plan → increasing economic cooperation, education programs… Creating a form of alliance that would avoid conflict Counterexample where high trade relations created a rising gap in terms of culture and values: China and US International trade does not necessarily bring to an identification of products with their origin country Importing items meant importing a way of life, but today this changed Economic dependence in some cases worked, in others it didn’t Barbieri says there's an international illusion that trade will bring peace, but there is no causal relation There are several factors that can lower conflictuality Eventually, when there’s peace, it’s likely that there’s an increase in international trade, but trade relations don’t guarantee peace Globalization, the acceleration of economic interdependence, and the proliferation of regional partnerships seem to give more strength to liberalists’ theories, which consider the development of international trade not only as a factor in pacifying international relations (commercial liberalism thesis) but also a booster for democratization. In the liberal theory, democracies do not wage war against each other. Thus, economic interdependence would distance war from the possibilities in international relations (thesis of market-driven democratization and democratic peace) Most unions are trade oriented Countries have to work with one another so there’s no room for military interventions 27 - regimes as institutions possessing norms, decision rules, and procedures which facilitate a convergence of expectations (Krasner) - International trade is a common good. This common good shall be provided by a hegemonic nation. —> if we invert the logic that means that there is no international trade without some prerequisites Any corporation trading with another from a belligerent country would be sanctioned and maybe ended What do we need for international trade? - financial connections - Transportation, ability to move items - Demand: people have to be able to buy and need to want to buy and they need to use a currency you can use If the world is at war there’s no particular demand CONCLUSIVE REMARKS This topic, albeit old, is still nourishing theoretical debates. Achieving cooperation is difficult in world politics. There's no common government to enforce rules. Yet cooperation is sometimes achieved If trade is not enough to guarantee international peace, what other factors do we have? International cooperation i.e. institutions LINK BETWEEN ECONOMY AND WAR IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES Some pioneering works as Hirschman in 1945 already highlighted the link between economy and war at the industrial age. Classic thesis on national power and the structure of foreign trade Hirschman (1945) explains how governments use trading relations to increase their power, starting from the assumption that trading partners will not necessarily get the same benefits (it is an asymmetric relation) The less dependent country can try to instrumentalize the situation in order to reinforce its power. Hirschman thus considers that Germany used its trade policy to expand its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe during the 1930s. 30 Albert Hirschman, National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945 expanded edition 1980). It’s not only a question of war economy relation, it’s a question of economy-power relation Another example: Jacob Viner explores the relationship between power and wealth as goals of foreign policy Finally, Richard Cooper, can be mentioned as one of the first to be interested in the effects of economic interdependence on state sovereignty. Richard Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). 2. Literature review The debate about the relationship between economic interdependence and war produced a vast literature in both the fields of economics and international relations. Trade as a pacifying factor: Montesquieu: “the natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace. Two nations that trade together become mutually dependent: if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and all unions are based on mutual needs” The traditional commercial peace theory has been modified Trade is not necessarily the cause of peace but a tool to reach it When there’s a heavy economic interdependence between two countries, it decreases the likeliness of a conflict, but if there’s an international trading framework the effect is less important This liberal tradition emphasizes that economic interdependence would increase the “opportunity-cost” of a war and, thus, limits the likeliness of war. For instance, Rosecrance reminds us that economic relations are a more efficient way to improve a state’s welfare than the use of force. According to Martin, Mayer and Thoenig, bilateral trade relations tend to act as a pacifying factor while the probability of escalation seems more important in the case of multilateral trade relations. Trade can be seen as a way to increase security threat 31 On the other hand, Mansfield and Pollins remind us that critics of this liberal perspective underline that economic interdependence may undermine national security Braddon reminds us that we know conflicts are linked through a variety of channels of transmission but we are unclear about the direction of causality and indeed what factors are exogenous and what endogenous. What we don’t know is who does what: does trade cause peace, or does peace cause trade? In some cases, economic interdependence may increase chances of a conflict and in others it doesn't. In other words, the issues of causality and endogeneity are crucial. That means that in some cases, economic interdependence may limit the chances of conflict, while in some other cases it may increase them. Do we have any EMPIRICAL RESULTS that allow us to give an answer? Empirical evidence reveals that the conventional commercial peace theory is somewhat less plausible and dated. For instance, Gartzke’s empirical survey points out that it is the very notion of economic interdependence that has to be clarified. His conclusion suggests that capital interdependence “contributes to peace independent of the effects of trade, democracy, interest and other variables”. In the same idea, Barbieri puts that trade does not compulsorily promote peace. “The precise nature and appropriate context of a particular set of economic interdependencies must be taken into account when assessing whether such linkages encourage or ward off potential military conflicts”. Conventional commercial peace theory is dated, it’s more difficult to reach results nowadays The concept of economic interdependence is too vague, it has to be clarified Their conclusion suggests that capital interdependence contributes to peace independent of the effects of trade, democracy, interest and other variables Barbieri: trade doesn’t necessarily promote peace. The precise nature and appropriate context of a particular set of economic interdependencies must be taken into account when assessing whether such linkages encourage or ward off potential military conflicts 32 Main idea: the problem is to understand how people decide, and they do so according to their perception If we want to understand the correlation between economic interdependence and war, deductions are not enough We don't need a static model (linear regression) We shouldn’t focus on the past but understand the dynamic in the relation between trading partners —> all trading partners are virtually enemies or allies —> he is a realist, because he thinks in terms of national interest. States are “selfish”, looking for their own interest, and their prime interest is security. We are in a communicational theory of international relations: if I send you a signal I’m not sure it will be understood correctly Flow of information from a sender to a receiver If two countries trade and country A gets richer, it’s more dependent from me and it will increase interdependence and decrease the feeling of national insecurity —> they are allies But if B has to trade with another country (C) and for some reason it doesn’t trust the other country, when C gets richer, there’s an emphasis on national pride, military expenses increase… How do people from country C interpret that? As a threat Two dimensions of a trade relation - Intensity: does it rely on one product or the entire economy? - Balance: does it benefit only one part or both? The relationship can therefore be sustainable or not It can be unsustainable if the trade is unadvantageous - If there’s exploitation: trade imbalance - Dependence It’s all a matter of perception: how it is perceived, it is somehow subjective. Actors are not necessarily rational, they could consider the wealth of the other as a threat Example of Japan and South Korea: diplomatic relations are not good, but if we had a pure realist perspective on this, they would say economic interdependence reinforces a country that allies with a bigger and stronger power 35 Do not only use macro and micro economics to analyze interdependence but also international relations In international relations we start with state behaviors, but the problem is no one tries to understand where this comes from, the dynamic of what that behavior could mean in the future There needs to be mutual trust, otherwise we need to ask ourselves why and what happens next Consider that in a social science perspective 36 He says one state’s behavior is the result of another state’s evaluation on its character The US consider China to be an enemy on every level, it’s kind of a priori Ex. Of leader who says something for the electorate, understood differently at the international level: Xi Jinping “it's the century of China” He was bringing China into the cycle of middle powers in terms of standard of living (having a house, car, job, sending kids to university —> tv commercials about it) Understood as China wants to rule the world, because it was very nationalistic in the way it was expressed Hard line position that may be evaluated as even harder because state Y has its own evaluation of its security Ex. War in iraq “Official” reasons - Establishing a new long lasting democracy in the Middle East - Stop Hussein’s who had weapons of mass destruction North Korea evaluates its own security: could they do the same to our beloved leader? Probably, so we will get nuclear weapons. We don't have trade relations with the US Case of China: the Communist party of China won't accept to become a liberal democracy Do we consider the regime will be accepted in the long run by the international community, which is led by the us? No Do we have economic relations with the us? Yes —> economic dependence and expectations of future of trade will result in the evaluation of the national security for both countries The US is relying on us (China) for imports, they don’t trust one another (US promotes democracy, China is a revisionist power claiming the century of the West is over and authoritarian form of government is as valuable as democracy.) Geopolitical conflicts can be solved with the crystallization of the problem —> Taiwan Taiwan could have been a point of cooperation between US and China but it wasn't because we are in a security dilemma Economic interdependence will favor cooperation, joint management of problems 37 Nothing a priori allows one to conclude that economic relations aim at the submission to the other’s will, but also nothing allows one to exclude the extreme power of economic interdependence. Therefore, economic interdependence and its impact are important in relation to how war is thought. Of course, economic interdependence can be seen from a warlike perspective Complex interdependence and war Such a situation is rather well described by what international political economy calls complex interdependence This concept was created in 1977 by Keohane and Nye in their book Power and Interdependence Their starting point was to say that contemporary world politics is not a seamless web, it is a tapestry of diverse relationships. In such a world, one model cannot explain all situations States would thus evolve in a complex interdependence, which has three main characteristics. International relations are achieved through multiple channels of communication (first characteristic) because there is an absence of hierarchy in the agenda of interstate relationships (second characteristic). Thus, military force is less central (third characteristic). everyone works with everybody, but the nature of the relation differs according to the situation, which means allies in one dimension may be competing or even be enemies in another dimension —> security, political dimension, economic power Actually, economic interdependence would create a variety of transnational actors who _ through their access to channels of communication _ could have a significant influence on international relations. Economic interdependence thus multiplies relations at stake between two or more countries: trade, finance, technology, raw materials, jobs, energy, and environment. Security is not the only issue at stake. The hierarchy of issues is fluctuating according to the context. Power then becomes diffuse. In such a situation, the use of force is not efficient. 40 Specifically referring to East Asia, Joseph Nye stated, however, that “security is like oxygen: you tend not to notice it until you begin to lose it.” Joseph Nye, “East Asian Security: The case for deep engagement” Foreign Affairs; July/August 1995. The concept of complex interdependence has the advantage of establishing two dimensions that make it possible to understand the role of power in a relation of interdependence: sensitivity and vulnerability Keohane and Nye define sensitivity as “degrees of responsiveness within a policy framework.” Sensitivity relies on the assumption that a country’s political framework remains unchanged. In other words, the concept points out how changes within a country will bring costly changes in another country. “The vulnerability dimension of interdependence rests on the relative availability and costliness of the alternatives that various actors face”. This distinction is useful to understand the relation between power and interdependence. “Clearly, it indicates that sensitivity interdependence will be less important than vulnerability interdependence in providing power resources to actors.” CASE STUDY: TRADING WITH A TREAT, RUSSIA AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Peter Navarro: can a country develop its economy towards its enemy? It’s a matter of perception of Int trade. Navarro: China has a hidden strategy and it really brings the idea that international trade is not to be tackled from a cooperation perspective. Along this perspective there is this idea that a country can trade with another with the purpose of getting rich and then attack it. As long as there are secondary suppliers economic sanctions won’t overcome geoeconomics. first reaction to ukrainian invasion was the impossibility to conduct first economic sanctions [economy could balance the situation] economic nationalism: defense of national economic interests. It will consider national power and the overall balance of power. The question of economic power shaped public policies in terms of industrialization. From this perspective, the Japanese state can be seen as a catalyst for economic forces 41 Is state control economy more efficient when a threat to national security? No, a market economy is more efficient. In the long run it will not provide efficient resources as a market economy would. REALISM AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY: MERCANTILIST TRADITION Do nations really wage wars for money in the 21st Century? What meaning should be given to economic war? Reading: “war by other means” by Blackwill and Harris If a partner benefits more than the other in a trading situation, it is still a benefit 42 Economic nationalism is looking for the nation’s future position (on the international stage) The Japanese example The question of economic power shaped public policies in terms of industrialization. In this perspective, the Japanese state can be seen as a catalyst for economic forces (E. Boulanger). 2. Economic nationalism: critics and definition The concept of economic nationalism has been poorly studied. No formalized definition of the concept. Economic nationalism is often seen as renewing past mistakes of mercantilism. E.g. Gilpin: Economic nationalism is “a set of themes or attitudes rather than a coherent and systematic body of economic or political theory”. In other words, economic nationalism was often seen as the antithesis of the liberalist’ commercial peace theory. Promoting national economic interests would facilitate wars. Debunking economic nationalism? In the 1930s, economic nationalism was coined with authoritarian regimes. It promoted autarchy; the primacy of the military over wealth; individual prosperity had to be sacrificed in favor of national power; protectionism; totalitarianism. Post WW2 evolution of the concept: economic nationalism in a context of open market economy. A development perspective. Strategic trade policy (Brender & Spencer), Developmental state (Chalmers Johnson). Economic nationalism cannot be limited to neo-mercantilism. It is a “theory of development in a volatile, unstable and insecure world. It is not the antithesis of liberalism but another perspective”. (Boulanger) No matter how interesting Boulanger's approach is, it tends to ignore conflict. The confrontation of economic nationalism could thus be defined as an economic warfare 3. Economic warfare: the modern form of war? A polysemic concept or a ‘pseudo concept’ (Christian Smith) 45 As seen in previous sessions, common wisdom shares Auguste Comte’s view on war in modern economies: the cost of war is too high, economic warfare would be an ‘attenuated form’ of war. Economic war → low intensity war → conventional war → total war Is economic warfare new? The notion is not new: Mercantilists (16th,17th Cent.), German Historical school of economics (19th Cent.), Marxists (20th. Cent.). The postWW2 liberal consensus tended to forget that trade could be conflictual. One problem: economy is a matter of firms. Economy is a matter of firms, not governments + war is a matter of states, not firms =Is economic warfare the clash of firms? Are firms only the tools of states’ power policy? It is difficult to consider economic warfare as a firm phenomenon. Considering economic warfare thus implies: ❑ A specific relation between state and firms ❑ National security is at stake (or it is perceived at stake) 2 perspectives Economic warfare as a ‘substitute’. Postel-Vinay (2002): post Cold-War world: democratization (3rd wave). Democracies do not wage wars (liberal assumption). Economic conflicts (trade, finance, sanctions, etc.) become the way to manage rivalries. Economic warfare as a consequence of the end of the Cold-War Harbulot: the cold-war imposed a strong solidarity of market economies. Victory of capitalism➔ less solidarity. Geoeconomic clashes can be openly expressed. UNRESTRICTED WARFARE - QIAO LIANG and Wang Xiangsui, 1999 Two colonels, book not wrote from a western perspective, 25 years ago Chapter is about a new form of warfare. The book had an influence on military strategy This book changed the way war is conducted War is not only a matter of having warriors in the battlefield, it is also in the political sphere Non military war operations: trade, financial wars 46 Cyber warfare relies on the transfer of economic development and human capital You might want to shape the opinion, so you need news corporations “The face of the god of war changed” —> military capability doesn’t rely exclusively on military expenditures, it is way more complex You can harm your enemy, not necessarily with weapons If you don't have access to natural resources, finance, and so on, you deprive the enemy of the possibility of winning Already said by Sun Tzu, in the art of war In the industrial war we don't rely on agriculture, there’s another cycle of creation The form of violence can change It was physical for a long time, but then now the economy is far more complex so you cannot cut an economy from all the rest of economic networks, but you can impose lots of damages to an economy so that these damages are so important that eventually you win the war Technology is super important but there should not be an economic determinism Americans are so confident in their military technology that they forget that there are other dimensions They are so convinced that there are offensive capabilities (information, disinformation…) This was a complete change in the way conflict were studied PUTIN War of conquest: conquer of land for prestige, resources, security… Fukuyama’s sort of war: the end of history and the last man Wrote the paper in 1989, first published in “foreign affairs” Written prior Tiananmen protests in Beijing, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the soviet bloc in Eastern Europe Starting point: no one believes in Marxism anymore, that authoritarian rule can be a better situation than market economy and liberalism. No one can realistically believe in that. It doesn't mean that there are no more options but there’s no more discussion because we know no one supports dictatorships rather than democracy No more alternatives to democracy, so what does it mean for a dictatorship? 47 Battlefields now are also cultural, social… Economy is part of the military equation The Unrestricted Warfare also carries another dimension: economic power Military and non-military warfare cannot be carried out without a sufficient economic capability. David Patreus: “[Russians) are very poor at maintaining their vehicles and weapon systems and have abandoned many of them. They are also poor at resupply and logistical tasks. For instance, modernizing the military is expensive. Financial warfare requires powerful financial institutions. Limits to this approach: the preparation of unrestricted warfare is necessarily hidden. This form of conflict can be conducted in a global - and thus relatively peaceful - environment. In a cold war environment - for instance - many of these “weapons” would not work. Is this trend new? Yes and no No: geoeconomic tools always existed (e.g. Trojan war) Yes: strategy reconsiders the battlefield, the means, and the actors (Qiao & Wang, chapter 2). What is at stake in the modern economy is not the end of war but rather the transformation of war. The evolution of war B. Wicht: establish a ‘cartography of confliction’➔ identify types of conflicts 3 types of conflicts: ◦ Hegemonic succession ◦ Periphery reactions against the ‘Center’ ◦ ‘Imperial actions’ against periphery 2 couples of actors ◦ Leader vs. challenger ◦ State vs. other actors A difference between economic conflict and economic warfare 50 International competition is more intense, but it is not necessarily a war. Wars can be explained by the structure of international politics. Foreseeable evolution: economic warfare as a dimension of war more than economic warfare instead of war Conclusion The logic of the industrial society is not to exclude any form of violence. (Aron) The industrialized world rejected ‘irrational’ violence: hyperbolic conflicts, war without control. A convergence in economic structures (market economy) does not mean the end of geopolitical rivalries. War remains possible among industrial countries➔ avoiding an excess of optimism The economy is part of the military equation. A political philosophy last word: Aron: “rationalism prevents us from asserting that men will not go mad. If men are reasonable, they will not wage war. But man is reasonable, are men so? […] A war 51 between the United States and the USSR could only lead to China as a winner. But if it is supposed that world leaders are reasonable, however little reasonable they may be, they will not assume the victory of a common rival.” “There is a philosophical sense to this. Man has become master of his destiny because he is able to destroy himself as a living species. But he will not do it because he is reasonable, because he wants to live according to the reason.” UKRAINE, A GEOPOLITICAL WAR OR THE BIRTH OF A NEW (AND DISTINCT) GLOBALIZATION? MICHAEL BECKLEY 2010, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NY, USA What makes states more militarily powerful than others? Certain “non-material” factors affect a country’s ability to translate resources into fighting power? In particular, democracy, high level of human capital, and amicable civil-military relations enhance military effectiveness —> material resources are not what primarily determines military power? When economic development is taken into account, culture and human capital become insignificant and democracy seems to degrade war fighting capability. In short, the conventional military dominance of western democracies stems from superior economic development, not societal pathologires or political institutions —> at the basis for defense planning one needs to take into account both the resources of the military power and its economic development Synthesis - Many studies assume that military power is directly dependent on material resources such as the defense budget, military forces, gdp (gross domestic product) —> materialist conception that ignores military effectiveness. Some states excel consistently, others have variations in their war fighting capabilities over time. The level of military power depends not only on the size of its resource endowments but also how well it uses those resources basically. It ignores military effectiveness, which is a crucial component of military power (even if it is primarily a function of economic development and not of political or social factors) 52