From the ancient times to the present, thinkers have tried to understand war and the question of whether humans can somehow transcend their seemingly interminable propensity for territorial aggrandizement, violence, and lust for power. Realists, from Thucydides forward have generally had a pessimistic view, arguing that these tendencies flow from intrinsic and unchangeable features of human nature and/or organization. The best we can do, according to realists, it to try to preserve some stable balance of power that instills fear, because fear, it is believed, generates cautiousness and makes men less willing to use organized violence as a tool of politics.
Liberals tend to disagree, arguing that human nature and political organization are more malleable and that, with the right mix of good intentions and effective institutions, man can escape his tendency towards war and live in peace. Liberals generally have three prescriptions for promoting international peace: better global governance institutions, more democracy, and free trade. I have always been skeptical of the sunny optimism of these ideas, and my current travels in the Middle East have only reinforced that impression. In the eight days that I have been here, I have traveled to, and spoken to people in, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. Despite increased trade between these different peoples, hostility remains high and shows no substantive signs of abatement.
For the past few days, for example, I have been in Jordan and have spoken to many Arabs in the country. Most of the views towards Israel I heard were negative, ranging from mild antipathy to outright hostility. The border crossing between the two countries, similarly, does not show any signs of the fact that trade has increased dramatically between them. We were held up at the border for more than two hours, and had to present our passports several times. When I arrived in Jordan, one Arab Christian from the country told me that he has never visited Israel despite living just across the border. To my question of why, he responded that it is too difficult.
75% of Palestinian trade goes to Israel and despite this the Palestinian border crossings give the sensation that you are encountering a line that divides peoples who are in a state of war. They are divided by big, ugly, and grey security walls with barbed wire. When arriving at the checkpoint, Israeli soldiers holding automatic rifles with their fingers on the trigger (literally), some just teenagers, board the bus and ask everyone for their passports. The whole process takes a long time and consequently there are huge line-ups of cars, buses, and trucks that force one to wait over an hour. One friendly and sunny teacher from California who lives and works in Palestine told me that some of his students have to go through these crossings twice everyday. These crossings may prevent the smuggling of weapons but they also increase animosity, which only exacerbates the already existing hostility in the region.
It is hard to see how more trade can ameliorate this situation. Interestingly, one Israeli businessman who I spoke to who has business partnerships with Palestinians told me that he thinks the conflict will never be solved. It is not hard to see why. The conflict is ultimately about irreconcilable claims to sacred pieces of land, to different religious narratives that are largely not compatible. In light of that, the only thing that will really solve the conflict is the transformation of these narratives, and there is little evidence that that is happening, and the notion that more trade will somehow promote those necessary changes relies on a degree of faith for the things unseen that, ironically, would not seem out of place here in the Holy Land.
Of course, it is not only the Middle East that suggests that there is a tenuous, or absent, link between trade and peace. The increase in trade between China and its neighbors has manifestly not led to more peaceful relations between them. China is now the largest trading partner of Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, and others in the region. And how are they reacting? By increasing their military expenditure and allying themselves with China's great geopolitical rival, the US, the country they rely on to protect their sovereignty from Chinese encroachments on their (disputed) territories.
Although the evidence does not support the liberal faith in the salvific effects of trade, liberals do provide something valuable: by adding a dose of optimism to a dreary international system, they provide hope that a better world is possible, even if there is little evidence to support that.
Liberals tend to disagree, arguing that human nature and political organization are more malleable and that, with the right mix of good intentions and effective institutions, man can escape his tendency towards war and live in peace. Liberals generally have three prescriptions for promoting international peace: better global governance institutions, more democracy, and free trade. I have always been skeptical of the sunny optimism of these ideas, and my current travels in the Middle East have only reinforced that impression. In the eight days that I have been here, I have traveled to, and spoken to people in, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. Despite increased trade between these different peoples, hostility remains high and shows no substantive signs of abatement.
For the past few days, for example, I have been in Jordan and have spoken to many Arabs in the country. Most of the views towards Israel I heard were negative, ranging from mild antipathy to outright hostility. The border crossing between the two countries, similarly, does not show any signs of the fact that trade has increased dramatically between them. We were held up at the border for more than two hours, and had to present our passports several times. When I arrived in Jordan, one Arab Christian from the country told me that he has never visited Israel despite living just across the border. To my question of why, he responded that it is too difficult.
75% of Palestinian trade goes to Israel and despite this the Palestinian border crossings give the sensation that you are encountering a line that divides peoples who are in a state of war. They are divided by big, ugly, and grey security walls with barbed wire. When arriving at the checkpoint, Israeli soldiers holding automatic rifles with their fingers on the trigger (literally), some just teenagers, board the bus and ask everyone for their passports. The whole process takes a long time and consequently there are huge line-ups of cars, buses, and trucks that force one to wait over an hour. One friendly and sunny teacher from California who lives and works in Palestine told me that some of his students have to go through these crossings twice everyday. These crossings may prevent the smuggling of weapons but they also increase animosity, which only exacerbates the already existing hostility in the region.
It is hard to see how more trade can ameliorate this situation. Interestingly, one Israeli businessman who I spoke to who has business partnerships with Palestinians told me that he thinks the conflict will never be solved. It is not hard to see why. The conflict is ultimately about irreconcilable claims to sacred pieces of land, to different religious narratives that are largely not compatible. In light of that, the only thing that will really solve the conflict is the transformation of these narratives, and there is little evidence that that is happening, and the notion that more trade will somehow promote those necessary changes relies on a degree of faith for the things unseen that, ironically, would not seem out of place here in the Holy Land.
Of course, it is not only the Middle East that suggests that there is a tenuous, or absent, link between trade and peace. The increase in trade between China and its neighbors has manifestly not led to more peaceful relations between them. China is now the largest trading partner of Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, and others in the region. And how are they reacting? By increasing their military expenditure and allying themselves with China's great geopolitical rival, the US, the country they rely on to protect their sovereignty from Chinese encroachments on their (disputed) territories.
Although the evidence does not support the liberal faith in the salvific effects of trade, liberals do provide something valuable: by adding a dose of optimism to a dreary international system, they provide hope that a better world is possible, even if there is little evidence to support that.
No comments:
Post a Comment