It is interesting to see the influence that the flat world had had on traditional geopolitical conflicts. These issues that once could have devastated the world such as conflict between North and South Korea have simmered down due to flat world collaborations. The theory behind this is simple, as countries become more involved in global trade and economic development wars and conflict become less prevalent.
The Dell theory of Conflict Prevention grew from the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention. Freidman found that no two countries with a McDonalds had ever fought a war with each other, which proves that once countries become more economically developed wars are less rampant. This theory has grown in the flat world to state the no two countries that are part of the same global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. This has happened because companies that invest in the countries require some degree of stability or assurance that there will be no disruptive events. The governments and people of these nations have realized the economic benefit of peace and they do what they can to maintain it. There is no better proof of this than the relation between Taiwan and China. Both countries, at one time diametrically opposed, are deeply immersed in global supply chains and highly invested in each other.
The Dell Theory of conflict prevention only goes so far. There are still several “hot spots” that are not part of a major global supply chain, such as Iraq. Just because they are not collaborating in a global supply chain does not mean they are not using the tools of the flat world to collaborate. One example of this is Al-Qaeda, which according to Friedman uses these same tools for “ mayhem and murder”. This theme has been present throughout this book. Of all the positive thing bought on by the flattening of the world just as many negatives have spawned. As it was discussed in the last chapter, many of the negative side effects will dissipate as people begin to fight them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe the supply-chain theory is brillant and never really thought about that situation until I read this book. But two hypothetical questions crossed my mind while reading this. What if you have a supply chain with a country (say China), but your biggest allie England does not, and England goes to war with China. As being allie's aren't you suppose to back them up at all cost. Whatever cost you less money right? That leads to my second question, which if you have a supply-chain with a country, but going to war brings a lot of money in, as we seen with Iraq, what do you do? The capitalist are having a field day in Iraq rebuilding it.
I loved the Dell theory. I thought it was great to see capitalism-driven collaboration doing some good around the world. It doesn't really prevent war, but it definitely does deter countries from going to war.
And Nick, regardless of whether you have a supply chain in the country or not, where is the moral and ethical right in warring with a country for financial gain?
Post a Comment