In order to bring the peace through commerce thesis more clearly into focus, it is important to acknowledge and understand the converse: That sometimes business interests do support the initiation of war. How can we promote "peace through commerce" when, in fact, sometimes some business interests advocate war?

There are several layers to understanding this issue.
First, we advocate a conscious capitalism, which, as a matter of principle, is against the initiation of violence. Second, most business, most of the time, benefits far more from peace than from war and, as a consequence, contra Lenin, prefers peace - the London financiers were horrified at the prospect of WW I. International trade collapsed in both WWI and WWII, and for all the business interests that benefited from the war, far more saw their businesses destroyed or greatly reduced due to the war. Peace is good for business.

Third, a significant number of those situations in which businesses have sought military protection for their assets have been due to situations in which nations have nationalized or otherwise unilaterally seized their assets. While such seizures and nationalizations may continue into the future, there is every reason to suspect that they will become increasingly rare, for two complimentary reasons:

Most business, most of the time, benefits far more from peace than from war - peace is good for business.

First, socialists explicitly advocated the nationalization of business, and for much of the 20th century most developing nations were socialist. But that form of socialism is dead. Second, an increasing percentage of nations realize that in order to become wealthy, they need to become safe places for foreign investment. Indeed, we are beginning to see a global competition among nations to see who can be most friendly to foreign investment precisely because the winners of that competition get rich the fastest - and their poorest benefit immediately. Thus most nations have not only foresworn their socialist programs, but an increasing number are actively moving in the opposite direction, towards secure property rights and the rule of law. Thus this motive for business to seek military intervention, fear of confiscation of their assets, is vanishing.

Fourth, democracy is spreading around the world. Because democracies are less likely to initiate violence, especially with other democracies, the democratic peace will reinforce the free market peace. In addition, the spread of democratic government will improve the functioning of the U.N. - one disaffected observer has suggested dumping the U.N. in favor of an international organization made up solely of democracies. Although this is unlikely to happen, the key point is well taken; a U.N. made up entirely of democracies is unlikely to put Sudan or Libya on its Council on Human Rights. U.N. credibility may be at an all time low right now, but as one by one more nations develop more democratic governments, there are grounds for cautious optimism regarding a future improvement in U.N. credibility.

Elsewhere I have suggested that we are in the happy position of simultaneously strengthening all three of the legs of Kant's tripod on which Perpetual Peace is based: Democratic governments, international organizations, and global economic freedom. A stronger and healthier version of each of these re-enforces the other two, leading to the hope that if we do this rightly, we can create a world without war in the coming decades.

For those of you interested in a comprehensive scholarly treatment of this perspective, see Michael Mandelbaum's book The Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century. While Mandelbaum's position is not identical to ours, it is very close, and abundantly documented. For a taste of Mandelbaum's logic, note his interpretation of the Cold War:

Peace through commerce puts us in the happy position of simultaneously strengthening all three of the legs of Kant's tripod on which Perpetual Peace is based: Democratic governments, international organizations, and global economic freedom.

The Cold War resembled the other great wars of the modern period -- the Napoleonic War, World Wars I and II -- in that it was a global struggle, the outcome of which transformed the world. But it was unlike those predecessors in one crucial way: the Cold War was won not by force of arms, but . . . by the force of example. It was the success the West enjoyed in politics, and particularly in economics, that held the key to the collapse of Communism. I stress this point because it is, I believe, important for understanding not only the past but the future, as well. The Western example that won the Cold War is still extremely potent. The forces of example that brought down communism are still operating in the world, and now without serious rival. They exert a gravitational pull everywhere, and that gravitational pull is a political force not to be underestimated.

Mandelbaum is more concerned with the immediate need for effective defensive military structures around the world as a means to ensure peace than are we, but his overall orientation is profoundly supportive of our peace through commerce initiative. We seek to increase and improve the gravitational pull of which he speaks, peaceful free markets that benefit all.




Contributed by Michael Strong CEO & Chief Visionary Officer of FLOW, Inc. Reprinted with permission from FLOW.

To read another Global Envision article about commerce and development, see How Diamonds Became a Power for Good in Africa.



Return to top