The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention

¶ … Flat, Thomas Friedman argues in favor of what he calls "The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention." William Duiker is not so sure about the trend toward globalization, saying that it may be offset by a simultaneous trend toward fragmentation.

The following paper explains which of the two individuals theories mentioned above are correct.

Thomas Friedman and the "The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention."

In his book, the World Is Flat, Friedman proposes that the world will soon cease its violence and strife since we are all part of the same global supply chain, we each impact one another, this impact is all the more visible in the 21st century, and our very connection and inter-dependence will compel us to cease rivalry.

To quote Friedman, he in effect says that:

No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell's, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain. Because people embedded in major global supply chains don't want to fight old-time wars anymore. (p. 11)

The impact on the economy is so immense that this alone will deter a nation from warring against another.

Friedman brings two cases as examples: India and Pakistan and China and Taiwan. Pakistan and India almost fought a war in 2002 over Kashmir. However, economic concerns and the private sector (specifically corporations) intervened and the war fizzed out.

A similar situation happened with China and Taiwan in the December 2004 parliamentary elections, when the pro-independence candidate for Taiwan was defeated by those who called for closer economic ties between Taiwan and China. Again, economic interests predominated over nationalistic agenda.

To Friedman, this Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention does not eliminate all wars, but it does make countries more reluctant to enter into any battle.

Friedman's reasoning sounds legitimate enough and it explains why many countries are deterred from fighting. However, it does not explain the exceptions, such as continuous fighting in Africa and India, as well as Islamic resolution to continue battering the West. We may need to particularize rather than generalize and realize that there are numerous conditions that go into instigating and maintaining strife.

William Duiker and fragmentation

Whilst Friedman veers towards globalization, William Duiker, on the other hand, is not so sure about the trend toward globalization, saying that it may be offset by a simultaneous trend toward fragmentation. In this, Duiker echoes a classic - some consider it notorious - voice on the subject: that of the historian Samuel Huntington who, in his "The clash of civilizations and the making of the world order" remarked that the world is being torn into two different directions: that of the West on the one hand and that of Islam on the other. To Huntington, the world was becoming increasingly epitomized by fragmentation and a "clash of civilizations" based on ethnic, cultural, or religious difference. He (and Druicker too) saw the 21st century as being characterized by disputatious cultural blocs in the U.S.A., EuroAsia, East Asia, Western Europe, and the Middle East (Duciker, p.667)

Druiker even thinks that Huntington may be underestimating the phenomena of fragmentation overlooking industrial-determined factors. The industrial and technological factors do their own work in cementing connections and creating rivalries in given regions. For instance, Japan in recent years has moved closer to the U.S.A. whilst, by so doing, sliding away from its traditional neighbors China and Korea. There are, therefore, various factors that result in global fragmentation.

On the other hand, Druicker refuses to slide to an extreme in his assertion of fragmentation and suggests that the truth may lie in the middle. There will be simultaneous trends to globalization and fragmentation on the one hand as the countries try to deal with the economic challenges of the 21st century whilst creating a pool of meaning for themselves in an increasingly complex and confusing world at the same time (ibid.)

My opinion

Both Friedman's argument and Druicker's perspective have their particular merits. We can well see how Friedman may be correct. After all, there are fewer wars now than in the past; the world is more closely interconnected; resources are sparser; and countries are earnestly concentered about their economic welfare. Friedman's reasoning does sound legitimate enough and it explains why many countries are deterred from fighting. On the other hand, it does not explain the exceptions, such as continuous fighting in Africa and India, as well as Islamic resolution to continue battering the West. At the end of the day, governments are not always in control of their people. An Egypt for instance may be secular-led and liberal during one period, and during this period its government cares about economic concerns to the point that it refuses to drive its country into war against another nation realizing that to do so may well usher the country into poverty. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, may wrest control of the government and turn a democracy into an Islamic theocracy where it may be the determination of the now-ruling party to dominate the West and convert it to Islamic faith. All of this is speculation, but these circumstances do happen and the Muslim Brotherhood -- the granddaddy of Islamic fundamentalist movements -- has recently won a majority in the Egyptian Parliament with one of its leaders, Mohamed Morsi, became president. The Muslim Brotherhood, whilst advocating social reform, has deep hostility towards the West, and it does not refrain from voicing this regardless of economic results. So Friedman's theory, therefore, has its exceptions.

Druicker's assessment seems to be more accurate. Whilst the world is becoming increasingly more globalized and interconnected on the one hand -- and this is largely due to economic factors -- there is also a simultaneous shifting of plates to fragmentation. Some countries become more Westernized, whilst other remain in the past or intensify their sliding away from the West and other countries. We see this for example with the conflict in the Middle East where, far from making peace with the West, determination has only been to intensify the war. These are not just individuals, as manifested in the Egyptian or Al Quida example (where Iraq fell prey to extremists overrunning the government). This is also the case sometimes with entire countries, such as Russia, where economic challenges and the growing gap between West and some other parts intensifies dissatisfaction and frustration and exacerbates the gap between the West and some other countries.