War and Terrorism
With globalization, many more ties have been forged between countries and the reliance on one another for economic purposes has made international relations much more complex than before. While in the past the major superpowers could invade the powerless nations without much repercussions, the situation has become more complicated today as we see with the case of Russia and Georgia.
As international trade becomes commonplace in today’s world, every major country would have multiple trade links with many other countries. Tensions can arise from this increased level of contact and connection between countries, creating more potential for disagreements and disputes. However, fortunately, we have not seen many of such instances evolving into full-blown wars.
This is because powers are kept in check by every other nation with vested interests, as well as economic/political organizations such as United Nations, ASEAN and BRIC etc. There has been much debate, even internally within the country, regarding the war in Iraq commissioned by the United States. In a more recent case, the South Ossetia war, we have heard how numerous parties have sounded their disapproval towards Russia’s invasion of Georgia. I have also read in a recent statement MM Lee made on Russia, during the Forbes Global CEO Conference, where he alluded to its recent invasion on Georgia – “‘If the Chinese had done that, they would have had the whole of South-east Asia agitated and no friends.’”
From the few examples above, we can see how every country’s actions are watched by everyone in the world. Unlike in domestic affairs where interventions or commentaries by external parties are minimal, such as the unstable state of politics in Bangkok of late, in international affairs the external parties such as other nations or organizations like UN will be less restrained in voicing out their opinions. Precisely because of the high degree of interdependence between countries in today’s globalized world, most countries are very watchful of their own management of international relations and take extra care in maintaining their diplomacy. In instances when this fail and where certain relations are upset, external parties would step in to control and mediate the situation.
In today’s world, economic strength is arguably far more intimidating and superior than military strength. This is again explained by the importance of international trade to almost every country’s economy. There is no doubt that the military strength still commands a level of fear in others, as evident in how several parties have been careful in negotiating with North Korea for the latter to limit their nuclear ambitions, but we are also aware of the country’s dependence on food and humanitarian aid from the UN and US, amongst several other parties.
In my opinion, power yielded from growing a strength through the economy is also likely to garner more respect than through the military. Citing MM Lee, in drawing a contrast between the way China and Russia are flexing their growing strategic muscle.
“Both are equally formidable on the economic front. But on the diplomatic front, one maintains a quiet presence while the other is more open to slugging it out.
China does not display its strength by intimidating others. Russia, on the other hand, is more ‘robust’, noted Mr Lee.
‘One is getting his act together. There’s no doubt that the world knows that China has come together. But they don’t beat their chests and threaten anybody.’
‘On the other side, really robust – you’ve got to respect us and we demand that you recognise that these are our countries. Where any Russians are is where we will be.’
He left the audience to decide who is the better strategist. I am sure you know where I stand.
With this ever-increasing significance of economic strength, we have also witnessed the shift from military towards economic warfare. The United States had imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar days before the cyclone Nargis struck the country early this year, and the impact of its action is claimed to impede U.S. humanitarian organizations and individuals from donating money directly to causes within impoverished Myanmar. In addition to Myanmar, the US had also imposed economic sanctions to a number of countries, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
In today’s globalized world, war has taken on a new economic form, although the traditional military form is likely to remain. Increasing international trade and the formation of international organizations have also had their impact on regulating power and prevented wars from being waged. However, whilst we see less of (or less large scale) military wars being fought, we have to acknowledge the evolution of warfare and be vigilant in dealing with them to minimize the damage done, whether or not they involve the loss of human lives.
References:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_277391.html
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/myanmar_0522/
