While that statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, his point was that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. The global expansion of McDonald’s restaurants is a relatively recent phenomenon in the Indian perspective when we put this into the context of the history of warfare, and, with a few notable exceptions.
The 2008 South Ossetia war between
Still, are McDonald’s investments a sign that countries are headed for freedom and peace? What do you think about Friedman’s views on globalization?
I personally feel that, McDonalds usually only exist in the areas with liberalized economies, which usually only exist in nations with liberalized governments and off course with liberalized society. States with liberalized governments usually do not go to war with each other because of United Nations and different Trade treaty to become the franchisees of the global supply chain. McDonald’s is a kind of sign that countries are becoming more interested in economic liberalization. Everyone understands that if people income level is good and happy, they won’t rebel. Sometimes this economic change is also associated with democracy and political freedom, but not always (see
As an indicator of relative stability, McDonald’s could be weakly correlated. As you point out,
It’s not quite the same when we loan them money through the World Bank, and the IMF, but it does build ties, and it makes it more difficult for them to engage in wars. Plus US loans overseas go primarily to US companies who are building large infrastructure projects. Those ties are somewhat tenuous, but they are something. I’m sure McDonald’s follows soon after all those deals.
Mostly, though, I think that McDonald’s is a kind of stamp of approval rendered because a nation has attained a certain level of stability. Introduction of McDonald’s could indicate a willingness to adopt a more culturally homogeneous approach, which could be more encouraging of peace between previously differing nations too.
“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”“ Frederic Bastiat.
Further Reading :
(Like my word isn't good enough for you.)
- Cecil Adams: The Straight Dope: Is it true there has never been a war between two democracies?
- Andrew Bennett & Alexander George: Case Study Methods and Research on the Democratic Peace
- Miriam Fendius Elman: Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer? (abstract)
- Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist Papers: No. 6. Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
- Fred Kaplan: Elections Aren't Enough.
- John J. Mearsheimer: Why We Will Soon Miss The Cold War
- John M. Owen IV: Iraq and the Democratic Peace
- David Plotz: Greens Peace
- James Poniewozik: Fallen Arches
- R.J. Rummel: Democracies Don't Fight Democracies
- R.J. Rummel: Political Systems, Violence, and War
- Thomas Schwartz & Kiron Skinner: The Myth of Democratic Pacifism
- Michael D. Ward & Kristian Gleditsch: Democratizing For Peace
- Spencer R. Weart: Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another (Ch.1)
19 comments:
Great read!
I read it. I want to read once again. Then I shall come back to you.
Dibyendu,
Your blog put a smile on my face, as it is a novel (and tasty) angle on analyzing the root causes for countries to declare war on each other (or not).
Although having McDonalds (or not), tells in a very modest way on how the economies 2 countries have opened up to non-local companies, I'm sure I'm not telling you something new that that would be an oversimplified root cause for ('official') war to happen or not.
You mentioned Russia and Georgia. I think that it's more their mutual history they have in common that provided the 'layout' of this conflict, than whether or not you could get a Big Mac just around the corner.
And McDonalds does not exist only in freed up economies as you put it, I believe they opened up their first site in Moscow way before Glasnost and Perestrojka really took off.
Your conclusion that a firm stability is needed for McDonalds to invest in outlets in a certain country is true though, but that has not in the first place to do anything with warfare, only with making a sound business decision (a country can have a very stable economy, but still be proned for war with other countries).
But . . . certainly amusing approach on this topic.
If only it were true. However, Israel got its first McDonald's in 1993. Lebanon got its first in 1998. The two countries fought a war in 2006.
I doubt this is the only example.
Were there no Macdonalds in Iraq? or Pakistan?
Globalisation certainly makes war tougher to instigte but I would guess it makes it more critical to trash the opponent big time in the event of going there. Having taken a major step to damage your market you now need to annihilate the opposition or they will need to share a diminished capacity with you...
War is changing, perhaps already has. But it isn't going away anytime soon. Possibly global powers won't risk all out battles against each other f2f - India and China aren't going to drop nukes on each other. But expect the border disputes to continue and expect foregn supported terrorism to flourish indefinitely.
I submit that the Falkland Islands War (between Great Britain & Argentina) counters virtually ever point made by Thomas Friedman.
Not only were there McDonald's in both countries, there were also several other trade and cultural exchange programs existing, encompassing agricultural, manufactured goods, and services.
Some would say that the war was the result of globalization of trade between the two countries... and the ego of politicians.
That's probably because all their soldiers are feeling too ill and bloated to fight after all that disgusting, fatty food packed with salt (see the film Supersize Me).
A McDonalds Big Mac must surely have all the essential nutrients for the average soldier?!
I mean, you've got meat for protein; two of your five-a-day with lettuce and tomato; cheese for calcium... Mmm, healthy.
Have you ever seen Kofi Annan and Ronald McDonald in the same room?
If thats TRUE finally we have an answer to the complex problem of world peace.. must take this initiative to make it more visible :)
it's only because in 1999 the Israeli McDo representant said he would never open a branch iin the Palestine's occupied territories...
For Argentina, your assumption is true, by short, only 4 years (Argentina/UK). 1986 against 1982 to be precise...
This is up there with no two democracies have ever fought a war either, but as the most powerful global driver shifts from politics to corporations it may just be a when question.
Further while the economic ties that globalization brings make it extremely costly for countries heavily invested in each other to go to war don't think for a minute that part of Chinas (just as one example) in buying US Government Debt is entirely about economic benefit. The government of China could throw the US economy, and in deed most of the developed world, into complete and utter economic caos just by dumping it's Dollar holdings. That is a tool of war!
Further, and again I'll single out China, while the economic interests between Tiawan, China, the US and the EU probably preclude an actual shooting war over Chinas claims on Tiawan, oil is another issue, and just one, that could cause such a war (after all wasn't part of Japans justification for WWII about the Southern Resources Area and oil reserves in Indo-China?). The Spartley Islands (as one example) have untapped oil reserves. The islands are disputed between Japan, China & Vietnam.
Currently an uneasy truce exists with a number of countries in essence drilling sideways wells to get to these reserves, but if a shot was fired between Japan & China how does the US and likely the EU not get sucked into such a shooting war? Don't all those countries "have McDonalds"?
Countries (and corporations) will always act in their own percieved best interersts, and when those interests conflict tensions rise, and at some point in the calculation they override simple economics.
Well, instead of duking it out from now on we should eat a supersize meal and take a nap when we have a dispute.
I get it - there are 3 rich Jews running this world. Whatever countries they have invested in - those do not fight. To hide the fact that they are in fact Jewish, they bough the non-kosher McD.
How do you say "Supersize me" in Farsi?
While the main pitch line doesn’t really hold much water it has some common sense appeal though.
McDonald's and any other F500 company has a way more at stake for their countries to keep the tomahawk buried as opposed to slimming down their own markets abroad by hitting the warpath.
I'll get the Colonel's chicken now. Not sure what they put in their sauce after reading this.
It is a funny angle but there is some truth in it. In today's world, and with just the exception of the US, Israel, and the UK with Argentina in the 80s, most countries at war/civil war/significant unrest are not democracies I reckon.
And with democracy ... large fries
I think internet penetration would have a bigger impact,wars happen when you demonize the enemy,but when people actually talk to each other,you see they are human too.It is the leaders hiding in their bunkers that start wars,but only if they have a military to fight it.No military,no war.
I was recommended this website via my cousin. I am not sure whether or
not this publish is written by him as nobody
else recognize such special about my trouble. You're wonderful! Thank you!
My web site - microsoft registry cleaner
my webpage - windows registry cleaner
Post a Comment