Free Trade Stops War - Essay Example

Free Trade Stops War and Introduction Free trade promises widespread interactions across nations, leading to reduced conflicts and wars among the participating countries. The policy signifies free movement of goods, services as well as capital in which governments removes any trade restrictions. Since 1970s, globalization emerged as one of the strongest economic forces in the world. Globalization and integration of economic interests of the countries make it relatively difficult for countries to fight with each other. The complex nature of international free trade and the economic interests are typified by intricacy, which according to Nester (2010) makes it extremely difficult for the countries to wage war against each other. Free trade offers important benefits to improve the overall economic conditions of rich and poor countries as well as serving as an important deterrent for war. On the other hand, free trade policy does not work very effectively when the participating members do not cooperate with each other and comply with the policy accordingly. Furthermore, free trade forces some countries to depend economically on others, on essential commodities such as raw materials and food, which is very detrimental especially during the times of war. Other negative effects of free trade include cutthroat competition and dumping, among many others. Despite these impediments, this paper argues that free trade spurs globalization and international trade, which in effect brings nations together and hence preventing them from resulting into war. Globalization and Free Trade Globalization has emerged as one of the most important forces of change in the recent times. What started as an economic move to open the borders and allow free trade has now made inroads into other fabrics of the society. Additionally, changes are being observed at socio-political level where smaller and developing countries are transitioning towards democracy and improved economic performance. Normally, governments often impose trade restrictions such as quotas, tariffs and other barriers that make it relatively difficult for other countries to actually trade with each other. Despite this barrier, free trade has emerged from the drive towards globalization, which is sweeping across even the fundamental structures of the society. As a result of this drive towards the free trade, many nations including China and India benefits from open economies. Since developing countries are essential providers of raw material and also possess cheap labor, the overall benefit is perceived as being transferred to poor nations. Escobar (2006) argues that, through globalization, poor countries are allowed to benefit from their raw materials and cheap labor sources. A part from this, poor countries also benefited from the transfer of technology, which took place due to globalization (Smith, 2007). Developed countries transfer technology to the less developed countries, for example, in order to take advantage from the latest technology to manufacture goods in more efficient manner. As a result, both the developed and the developing nations benefits from free trade. One of the bodies that were founded to accelerate the benefits of globalization is World Trade Organization (WTO). Moore and Lewis (2009) contend that WTO was founded as one of the moves towards achieving the free trade and ensure further trade liberalization. Therefore, WTO is considered as the apex body that formulates the rules of the game when it comes to trade between the countries and also monitor the same. The body not only creates the agreements, which reduce the barriers to ensure free trade between the countries, but also mediate the disputes between countries arising due to trade. This further brings nations together leading to a more united world. The overall debate on free trade and what are its pros and cons actually are based upon two sets of important arguments. One set of argument is based upon the moral arguments and other set of argument is purely based upon the economic impacts of free trade (Nester, 2010). The moral set of arguments was based upon the assumption that the free trade between countries can actually improve the world through enhancing economic gains. The moral argument is based the ethical frameworks to safeguard trading countries from exploiting one another. This argument in favor of free trade suggested that by ensuring flow of wealth from one country to another country, international society could actually benefit from the free trade. The economic benefits of free trade, however, are relatively covered extensively to include the increase in the global output, creation of specialization as well as transfer of technology and skills that can allow countries to effectively trade with each other (Smith, 2007). The trading bloc allowing free trade with each other results into the benefit on both the demand as well as supply side of the trade, permitting countries to benefit from the trade with each other. Free Trade and War According to Steger (2002), free trade is based upon the philosophy of liberalism that believes in freedom at all levels. Liberalism not only advocates for the freedom at the individual level, but at the society and economy level. In addition, it suggests that the economy should be free from any interference of the government. Free trade, however, creates economic interdependence between the countries, therefore, making war an unlikely option for the participants. This view is often based upon the overall philosophy underlined in the liberalism and international relations theory, which governs the overall relationships of the States with each other (Smith, 2007). From the perspective of international relations, liberalism suggests that those states that have mutually beneficial economic relations with each other are less likely to engage in war with each other. This view, however, is based upon the assumption that States are not technically unitary actors, but rather they are dependent upon each other as long as they depend upon each other economically (Moore and Lewis, 2009). States, therefore, do not operate as single humans but rather as mutually dependent actors whose survival depends upon the survival of each other. If the States engage into war with each other, their mutual economic dependence may not last for longer. In a globalized world, where countries are connected with each other through sophisticated telecommunication networks, this dependence has greatly increased the odds of survival if countries actually cooperate with each other rather than engaging into war with each other. In an increasingly mutually beneficial world, there are many competing actors within and at the international level. Further, the presence of institutions such as WTO creates external actors that are competing and independent of the State (Hawkin, 2004). The competing nature of actors within the States actually continues to force States to abandon any plans, which can instigate war with the countries that are of mutual benefit to the country. Free trade can prevent war because very few countries in the world can be considered as self-sufficient and may not require the help of other countries. In a world of comparative advantage, countries depend upon each other even if they are self-sufficient because cost of making goods and services may forces countries to look for other alternative cheaper sources to actually buy these products and services (Nester, 2010). Such dependence upon each other, therefore, makes it less likely for the countries to engage in war with each other. In a liberal economy, political resources are considered as the function of the wealth; therefore, in such an economy and society, state may not engage into actions that can jeopardize the interests of the wealthy. The wealth of globalised countries is assumed the property of the partner countries, and cannot participate in wars that can lead to its destruction (Hawkin, 2004). Since nations are integrated in their international business, it may therefore be relatively impossible for the States to go against the interests of such global businesses. It is also critical to note that the question of whether free trade avoids the war may be more of the hypothetical question rather than an empirical question. There are examples of many instances where war broke out between developed nations despite strong trade links among them. World War I has often been cited as one of the key events in which war broke out between the developed states despite the stronger trade links (Barkawi, 2006). Major European countries like Britain, France and Germany have stronger trade links before the War actually broke out. There is also another hypothesis, which suggests that two countries having McDonalds are less likely to engage into war with each other. When war occurs between two countries hosting one company, there is a widespread effect on both of them (Friedman, 2000). There have been few wars between the countries having McDonalds franchise network and it is suggested that it has become relatively costly for both the victor as well as the defeated to actually afford the war and its consequences. Conclusion Free Trade emerged as a result of the trends towards globalization and advocated more open economies and limited trade or no barriers. Over the period of time, economic dependence of countries on each other has increased to a greater extent, hence drawing them together in a peaceful manner. This, as a result, makes it less likely for countries to engage in wars and conflicts with each other. Furthermore, globalization and free trade leads to increased economic interdependence, making it costly for both the parties to engage into any kind of war. It is also imperative to note that, through free trade, trading countries begin to protect each other, which significantly reduces the chances of resulting into war. It is this view that leads to the argument that, despite some few impediments, nations should adopt free policy trade because it spurs globalization and international trade, which in effect eradicates war. References Barkawi, T., 2006. Globalization and War. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Chanda, N., 2007. Bound together. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chandra Chari., 2010. War, peace and hegemony in a globalized world. London: Routledge. Escobar, P., 2006. Globalistan. Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble Books. Friedman, T., 2000. The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Hawkin, D., 2004. The twenty-first century confronts its gods. Albany: State University of New York Press. Moore, K. and Lewis, D. 2009. The origins of globalization. New York: Routledge Nester, W., 2010. Globalization, war, and peace in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, C. 2007. International trade and globalisation. Stocksfield: Anforme. Steger, M., 2002. Globalism. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Read More