NEW WAR FRONTS LIE IN ECONOMIC ZONE - SOLVED CSS/PMS ESSAY
1. Introduction
2. What
is a war front and economic zone?
3. Historical
evolution of different war fronts
4. A
cursory overview of current war fronts
5. Indeed,
new war fronts lie in the economic zones:
5.1.
States are competing for economic
dominance through regional connectivity.
5.2.
Economy has become a tool for ideological
and cultural confrontation among competing world orders.
5.3.
Conventional wars have been replaced by trade wars to a great extent.
5.4.
States often use the economy as a tool of
hybrid war to inflict harm to rival states.
5.5.
The global economic choke, points pose the threat of a conflict due to competition among states to control them.
5.6.
The concept of collective security and
military cooperation is gaining currency in the new economic alliances of the globe.
5.7.
Political maneuvering through economic aid
is the new face of imperialism.
5.8.
Economic sanctions are often used as a
tool of coercive diplomacy.
5.9.
Economic inter-connectedness has opened
non-traditional war fronts i.e. cyberwar, crypto, and technological war.
5.10. States
have internal fault lines over the distribution of economic resources.
6. Factors
that have ushered new war fronts in the economic zones:
6.1.
Nuclearization.
6.2.
Economic imperialism.
6.3.
Changing power dynamics across the globe.
7. Impacts
of new war fronts in the economic zones:
7.1.
Less proclivity of humans towards
conventional war fronts.
7.2.
Emerging nontraditional security threats.
7.3.
Rise of new waves of populism and
authoritarianism.
8. Steps been taken by the world so far to avoid catastrophic escalation in the economic
zones:
8.1.
United Nations has so far averted another
great war.
8.2.
Treaties have been signed by nuclear power
to avoid nuclear annihilation.
9. The
way forward to avoid war in the era of economic war fronts:
9.1.
At the state level.
9.2.
At the global level.
What is a war front? Is war only an
armed war? How its nature has changed? A scholar of international relations and
political sciences would define war as ‘diplomacy by other means.’ Similarly a
Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu describes war as ‘an act of subduing enemy without
fighting.’ The definition of Sun Tzu answers the questions asked above. It also
describes the nature of economic wars being fought in economic zones. The act
of political maneuvering by states, sanctions as punitive measures and local
wars over economic resources are some of the economic warfronts. Through the
prism of history, ‘war has been a constant according to Will Durrant. However,
the natures of warfronts have evolved over time. In the ancient era, wars used
to be fought for religion to preserve the divine mighty empires of the kings.
Then global order changed. The religious empires were replaced by the nation
state system. The advent of nation state system paved the way for ideological
wars. For example, First World War fought to end all wars between empires and
nation states of that day. However, it could not end the ideological wars and
contained the seeds of the Second World War. It was the Second World War that
defeated the narrative of communism and fascism and put an end to ideological
war. Not only had it ended the ideological wars but also engendered the modern
era, a new world order and new warfronts.
While talking about the modern war
fronts, its roots lie in the tree market economy, global institution and
economic night. The era of globalization, interdependence and nuclear overhang
has made war, “a costly business” according to Yuval Noah Harari. It is the
reason that states have more proclivities to fight at the economic levels. In
the current era, the trade wars have replaced traditional wars to a great
extent. Similarly, the political maneuvering of states through economic
institution is new way of annexation and control. Furthermore, super- powers no
more attack the adversary but employ economic sanctions to coerce them to their
interests. Hence, economic wars are the new normal and the manifestations given
below are illustrations to it.
To start off, with the emergence of
Bretton Woods order, political maneuvering has become a new face of imperialism.
The global financial institution such as international monetary funds (IMF) and
World Bank (WB) breach the sovereignty of the states in a number of ways. Their
structural adjustment plans are meant to exploit the recipient state and
achieve the national interest of the imperial powers. The economic aid is used
in the context of economic warfare. In a renowned book, the confessions of
economic Hitman, John Perkins has admitted the political maneuvering done by
global powers. Firstly, they exploit the internal fault lines and engender
despotic rule that fewer their interests. Secondly, the structural adjustment
plans as mentioned earlier. Thirdly, the vicious cycle of debt follows in the
wake of economic aid. The academic literature is not replete with the tales of
economic wars and new modes of annexation. Be it the Chinese control of
Hambantota or, the US control of Latin America, the world is full of stories of
economic annexation in this century. Hence, political maneuvering is a tactic
of war which uses economy at its forefront.
The states not only do maneuvering
through economic aid but also use sanctions as a tool of coercive diplomacy.
Due to heavy cost of traditional warfare and mutual assured destruction due to
nuclearization, military attacks and annexation has become a difficult and non-
profitable prospect as compared to sanctions, the states can achieve interest
in coercive yet hostile ways. Recently, the US Iran imbroglio has not turned
into a war because of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regime (JCPOA). The
JCPOA is a sanctions regime launched by USA to inflict economic harm to Iran.
Similarly, the sanctions on North Korea are another example where the USA has
secured its ego as well as national interests without firing a single bullet.
Furthermore, the sanctions are not only used as a tool to kneel down weak
countries, they are effective in relations among strong states as well. The
USA, China and Russia often use sanctions against each other to subdue the
adversary without fighting.
Apart from the struggle of hegemony
and rational cum egoistic sanctions, the states are also vying for economic
dominance through regional connectivity. The academicians such as Tim Marshall,
Peter Frankopan and Robert Kaplan have already highlighted the importance of
geography to become a super power. In the post-cold war era, the states are
using the power of geography to accrue geo-economic benefit through regional
connectivity. In this perspective, the People’s Republic of China turned up
with its plan of new Silk Road: Belt and Road Initiative. It was countered by
the USA’s plan of RCEP and Quad. Similarly, the Indian plan, the plan of ASSEAN
states for regional connectivity to gain geo-economic is another example that
substantiates this argument. Hence, new global competition lies in the regions
of regional connectivity.
The quest for regional connectivity
has heightened the threats of conflict at global economic choke points. For
instance, nearly eighty percent of global trade is carried out through Indo-
Pacific region. However, the region faces the dilemma of boiling tensions due
to presence of naval bases and air craft carriers. The revisionist and existing
power of status quo are competing to control the economic chokepoints. It is
not only in Pacific, the Atlantic ocean is also not an exception. The competing
spheres of influence of NATO and Russia are the case in point here. Similarly,
the African continent and the central Asian republics is another warfront where
the competition to control the economic choke point may escalate into a global
conflict.
Similarly, economy has become a tool
for ideological confrontation as well among competing world orders. The so
called peaceful rise of china pose a perceived threat to western liberal order
and aims to reduce its sphere of influence. History is evident that the world
has already fort the Second World War on ideological lines. However, the new
Thucydides trap of ideology is in the economic laws this time. The competition
between the Beijing consensus and the Washington consensus has ideological lens
as well. The Chinese premier’s statement: “Beijing provides an alternate model
of development to underdeveloped countries,” leaves many lessons under the
lines for the western policy make. Furthermore, under the dynamic leadership of
public, Russia is once again emerging on the global stage through its economy
to receive the feminist school of thought. Hence,
the prevalent economy warfare has an ideological aspect as well.
Moreover,
the nexus ideology, competition for control over economic routes and regional
connectivity has ushered the concept of
collective security within the economic blocs. The formation of NATO in the
Atlantic, and Quad in the Indo- Pacific is a testimony to the said claim. The
emerging strategic partnership between United States and India as well as the
new Aukus deal further illustrates the above mentioned argument. However, the
greatest disadvantage of said deals lie the prevailing security dilemma within the
region. Hence, the concept of collective security is gaining currency and
military corporation is becoming a new normal at the economic warfronts.
Furthermore,
in the era of strategic and geo- economic competition, the nature of warfare
has changed from conventional wars to trade wars. In modern days, states show
more proclivity towards trade war as a tool of hybrid wars. In the bid of trade
wars, states usually revert to mercantilist and protectionist policies to hit
the exports of rival. Similarly, the suspension of trade as done by India to
inflict harm to Pakistan is another example of this competition. The aspect of
covert means to launch offensive on the adversary is another machiavellian
tactic used by states. In this scenario, it is not surprising if India violates
the Indus water treaty to disrupt the agriculture of Pakistan. The satire that
everything is fair in love and war holds true in the context of economic
warfare as well. Hence, trade wars are the new modes of containing the
adversary and a replacement for a traditional war.
The
changed nature of warfare is also evident on the non- traditional economic
warfronts being contested by the states. In the contemporary age, war is more
about the division of economic resources. As a result, the federations are
becoming weaker due to internal fault lines of the states. Consequently, the
separatist movements and the civil wars are gaining currency. The exploitation
of the fault lines of Balochistan by the adversary over the ownership of
natural resources is an example. Similarly, the intra- provincial disputes
between Sindh, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa over water, minerals and fiscal
autonomy is another example of economic warfronts within a state. The
centralized system and prevailing security narrative has prevented the civil
war within the state. However, the states with weak security apparatus such as
Sudan, Syria and Iraq could not prevent the ignition of civil war within
themselves due to the issue of distribution of economic resources. Hence, the
new economic warfare is more into the states rather than external threats.
The
engendering of new warfronts in the economic zones have become possible due to
a no of causes:
Firstly,
nuclearization has ensured a balance of terror among states due to mutual
assured destruction. The said phenomenon can be explained by the System’s
theory of Robert Kaplan. According to the Systems theory, it is in the greatest
interest of the status quo to preserve the systems that would otherwise
collapse in the wake of nuclear war. Hence, nuclearization has somehow created
deterrence. So, in a nuclearized world, states satiate their egos in the
economic area.
Secondly,
after the Second World War and the drive of decolonisation put an end to
colonisation. However, at the same time it espoused a new concept of economic
imperialism. A new mode of social relations emerged between the occident and
the orientalist and economy would dictate that social relation.
Another
factor that propped up the new warfronts in the economic zones is the changing
power dynamics across the globe. The end of Second World War and the American
contentment with its security gave way to multi- polar world according to John
Mearsheimer the ensuing multipolarity led to nuclearization of different regions
of the world such as South Asia and few states of Middle East. The notion of
balance of terror got weight and the rival states reverted to playing safe in
the economic zones.
The
emerging warfronts in the economic spheres has created impacts for the world
both in positive as well as negative connotations.
Firstly,
less proclivity of humans towards conventional warfare is a reality. Steven
Pinker, one of the keen analyst on global peace and conflict has put forth a
better and evolving side in his book: The Better Angels of our Nature. In this
book he has highlighted how global peace is no more an utopia and humans have
less proclivity for war.
Secondly,
the economic warfronts have created non- traditional security threats such as
Cyber, Crypto and technological warfare. Similarly, states are being haunted by
the menace of climate change, food insecurity and other multifaceted warfronts
stemming from economy.
Thirdly,
the rise of new waves of population and authoritarianism is another contested
phenomena erupting from economic warfronts. The election of Donald Trump in USA
and the rise of the right in Europe is an example of this impact. Similarly,
the foreign affairs magazine has described Chinese mercantilism as
“Authoritarianism with Chinese characteristics.” Hence, economic warfronts has
led to the rise of populism and authoritarianism at the same places in the
world.
Hitherto,
the states have taken steps to avoid the escalation of economic warfronts to
conventional war. In this context, the role of United Nations need to be
appreciated. Inspite of being the theatre of global power politics and having
structural lacunas UN and its adjacent security council have averted another
great war.
Apart
from that, inspite of ideological confrontation, all the powers are unanimous
on the free market model of economy. The universal consensus on it somehow put
the ideological issues at the back seat.
Similarly,
the states have signed the treaties to avoid nuclear annihilation as a
confidence building measure. This shows that though global power politics is a
reality, the states are unanimous towards attaining peace. Hence, the
confidence among states have avoided the nuclear annihilation.
However,
humans are prone to make mistakes. In order to avoid traditional war in the
economic age, the states need to initiate steps both at the state level as well
as at the global level.
At
the state level, the states should effectively utilize the conflict resolution
mechanism to resolve intra- state conflicts. States should respect the
diversity and perpetuate a culture of equity and tolerance. The states need to
profligate the democratic norms, equitable taxation and create more chances for
social mobility of her citizens.
Similarly,
at the global levels the super powers need to curb their imperialist
tendencies. Considering the human history and lust for power it seems an uphill
task. However, the prevailing rationality since Second World War is also an
achievement of some human race. Hence, rationality is the solution to human ills
in the nuclear age.
To
conclude, over a period of century or so, the nature of warfare has changed.
The dominance of the economic narrative has made conventional war a difficult
prospect. Indeed, new warfronts lie in the economic zones at both global, regional
and domestic levels. The economic warfronts are less inclined to bloodshed but
not immune from total annihilation. The economic chokepoints and the
intensification of rivalry between emerging and existing global order is an
apple of discord for global peace . The world must remember that a trust
deficit in the Indo- Pacific led to nuclear catastrophe in the Second World
War. Owing to populism and jingoism such miscalculation can occur again. As
Will Durrant says: “The greatest lesson of history is humility.” The super
powers need to learn this lesson. They must realize the law of nature: if not
reverence then reparation. The world needs to show reverence towards peace.
Otherwise, escalation at the economic front will lead to reparation by the whole
of humanity.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment
If you have any doubts, Please let me know.