Daily Times

The evolutionary process of globalization has changed the world. William Bernstein, in his book “A Splendid Exchange”, discusses this evolution and the denouements that continue to shape the world hitherto. From the Smoot-Hawley tariffs to the 1945 “Proposals” that “opened the floodgates of globalization”, many factors, many actors and many perspectives have changed. The depth of integration in every market of the world has become deeper, the bond stronger and the profits better.

Visit from a gunboat, in case of a default, has been replaced by bailout packages and the Washington Consensus. War-fare with law-fare. The preferred tool now is diplomacy. Sanctions are the new artillery. Brinksmanship defines the current spirit.Game-of-chicken is in vogue. The perks of globalization, inter alia, include the peacedividend which has prevented any serious military conflict after the World War II.

One can start from the recent Qatar-Saudi strife or the DoklamPlateau conflict between China and India. The recent missile that flew over the Japanese Hokkaido islands and the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet in 2016 by Turkey merits scrutiny. Back in 2013, the once-abandoned practice of expansionismseemed like a revenant that came out of Russia this time, swallowing up the Crimean peninsula which contains the port of Sevastopol. The Chinese build-up (literally) of artificial islands in the disputed archipelago of South China Sea and its blatant refusal to accept The Hague’s judgment further cements the aforesaid argument.

Though the shadow of war still lurks, at times perilously close, at times distant; we can certainly avoid any war, globalisation has and will play the key role in doing so

When Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies deserted the gas enriched nation of Qatar, matters seemed to slip into the realm of escalation. There was a total diplomatic boycott. Even religious sentiments were played with when KSA announced that it won’t allow Qataris to perform the Pilgrimage (the annual gathering of Muslimsin Mecca, known as Hajj). Qatar was even denied airspace use: resulting in disturbances for the world-famous Qatar Airways. However, the conflict has now boiled down, if not finished completely. Saudi Arabia lifted the ban restricting Qataris from performing Hajj. The stand-off was one thing, but they kept the tankers out of it: the tanker traffic between Saudi Arabia, U.A.E and Qatar went up, too. UAE soon realized that it needs Qatari gas to generate half of its electricity. Tourism got dented from this hostility. Why the fuss then?

The China-India conflict had soldiers throwing belligerent stares at each other across the border. The Doklam plateau is situated in the tri-junction of Indian, Chinese and Bhutanese borders. The plateau overlooks the strategic Siliguri corridor, which connects India’s north-east to rest of the country. The recent stand-off began when Chinese started to build a road on the plateau to help its troop patrols. Bhutan, accusing China of territorial aggrandizement, allowed Indian troops to cross the border. The Indian soldiers formed a human chain to interdict the bulldozers and construction work. Strong rhetoric replete with warnings, no country budging even slightly from its stance; this was a classic case of game-of-chicken. All of a sudden,India decided to remove its forces, giving a message of mutual cooperation and trust, while China played it as a victory.The BRICS summit conference was in view; their reputation, also, at stake. Both contribute 18% to the world GDP and host 36% of its population. Neither side could’ve afforded a military confrontation. To the extent of posturing, it was helpful; but the line was not crossed.

Turkey in 2016 shot down a Russian fighter jet which allegedly violated its airspace. President Erdogan refused to apologize for the incident. This was a serious offence, but the Russians replied with sanctions to tourism. Turkey lost $840 million in tourism revenue as Russian tourists decreased by 87% in 2016. It was but a matter of time that Mr. Erdogan sent a missive to Moscow: the script had the word sorry in it, and that was enough for President Putin. A volte-face, however perspicacious.

The Russian expansionist agenda became clear in 2013 when it annexed the Crimean peninsula: itwas an unprecedented event after the end of Cold War. Had it been the 18th century, a war would’ve beenthe obvious consequence.But the policeman of the world (USA) resorted to the strong weapon of sanctions. Meanwhile, the oil prices crashed: andfor every $1 fall in a barrel of oil, the Russian government losses $2 billion in revenue. This easily shows the extent of damage this double-whammy of sanctions and oil price crash had done to the country. The same effects as war, more or less, minus the bloodshed.

The hermit kingdom of North Korea, referred to formally as theDPRK, is the best example of how the threshold of using military might has increased over time. This was the 18th missile test conducted in the same year. It was only after launching another missile few years back that Mr. Kim Jong Un guided another ballistic missile flyingover the Japanese island of Hokkaido, which fortunately fell into the Pacific ocean1180 km east of Japan. If the missile had been lucky: catastrophe. Fortunately, it wasn’t. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, incensed at such an offensive action,spoke in a stern manner. There were emergency exercises in Japan teaching people how to evacuate in case of a strike. President Trump said “all options are on table” to deal withthe DPRK.To further exacerbate matters, North Korea recently tested a Hydrogen bomb.

However, it is safe to assume that military action is the last option being mooted in Washington. Doing this can have serious and long term consequences. China is an ally to the DPRK and the US cannot afford to corrode its relation with China. Also, both the US and China are each other’s biggest trading partners: any interruption in the bilateral trade-flow is least desirable to both sides.Punitive sanctions are the most preferred and probable measure: that these have failed to prove effective is another debate.

There is empirical evidence as well. Studies show if bilateral trade increases by 10%, the possibility of an armed conflict decreases by 0.1% by its mean probability;this increases to 1.9% in case of contiguous countries.

Notwithstanding all the aforesaid examples, the image of WWI sneers at us. Termed as a ‘war to end all wars’, the world, after few years, witnessed a savagery that was unprecedented in history: WWII.The shadow of war still lurks: at times perilously close, at times distant. We cannot hush the monster back into the abyss. But, we can certainly avoid any confrontation (war). Globalization has and will play the key role in doing so.

The writer is a student of International Relations with interest in International Political Economy. He can be reached at osamarizvi10@hotmail.com

Published in Daily Times, September 9^th 2017.