The antidote to war is not peace. The antidote to war is commerce.
This concept of cultivating peace by fostering commerce traces its roots back to Montesquieu and the Enlightenment. The thought is that increasing commerce leads to shared interests, recognition of the rule of law, and growing prosperity, all of which preclude armed conflict.
At the end of WWII, the U.S. realized that only America, with about fifty percent of the global GDP, could reignite the fires of international trade, production, and competition. In league with its wartime allies, agreements like Bretton Woods were executed and multilateral regulatory and monitoring organizations like the WTO were established. With its enormous financial, military, and market clout, America was able to get the flywheel of global commerce moving again.
It worked, of course. In 1945, global GDP was approximately $1T, while today it is about $117T. Even better, the percent of the world’s population living in extreme poverty shrank from fifty-five percent to less than ten percent today. These epic improvements are all due to the expansion of global commerce and free markets, driven by the U.S. sharing its markets, finances, and enforcement power.
But we still have war. We still have situations around the globe where warring parties only use the cessation of hostilities to reload, for the next round of fighting. Recent examples of this War-Pause-Reload-War are in Ukraine vs. Russia; Israel vs. Hamas/Hezbollah; Sudan vs. S. Sudan and then S. Sudan vs. Itself; and multiple players in Syria. The situation of Liberia is actually a counterexample here and warrants more study than it has received.
The problem with ceasefire-type peace agreements is that they immediately raise the question: What next? If there is no attractive answer to that question, the former enemies will most likely start planning to procure bigger weapons for the next round.
On the other hand, commerce, to even exist, requires ongoing trust and hope for the future. What may have been overlooked in the enthusiasm for global monitors, multilateral financiers, and multi-nation partnerships is that true commerce is built on millions of one-on-one private sector transactions. Regardless of how many agreements and regulations are in place, an individual must always make a final leap-of-faith to conclude a bank transfer and buy a product or service. The more often this works, the more progress is made in instilling trust between individuals and nations, and the more peace progresses.
With this perspective of what drives “Peace through Commerce”, it’s obvious to the casual observer that the outstanding component of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy is increasing commerce:
Ukraine. This peace effort has always been stated in terms of commerce. The much-delayed Ukraine minerals agreement is meant to lay a foundation of business activity in the disputed areas before a ceasefire is even established. The commerce generated by this agreement can also pay for continued military support, and the beginnings of reconstruction.
This expanding network of investment and commerce can act as a bulwark, then — not perfect, but substantial — against further Russian incursions.
Trump has also talked about business investment with Russia after a negotiated ceasefire. The intent is to get the Russian economy back on its feet and interacting with the rest of the world again. Even the restoration of Russia’s energy pipelines through Ukraine is not so crazy if viewed from this trust-building commerce perspective.
Reorganization of International Assistance. The most important charge against USAID’s foreign assistance activity was how many non-productive projects it was pursuing. DOGE has uncovered tens of billions of dollars that were being diverted to unaccountable NGOs, or into purely social justice programs, rather than into economy-building projects. It should be noted that the few USAID projects which have been retained are mostly in economy-building, like the emergency grid energy work in Ukraine.
The Administration decided that the theft, fraud, and abuse was so pervasive in USAID that the organization had to be dismantled. Its function has been reconstituted in the State Department. From the draft proposals for reformation which have surfaced so far, it appears that the new State Department USAID will be very focused on investable economic aid projects.
Tariff Regime. It appears that the end result of “Liberation Day” will be the U.S. signing bi-lateral trade deals with 50 or more trading partners. Outline agreements have already been concluded with the UK and China, we are told. These agreements will redefine how the U.S. will conduct trade with the rest of the world. This will be the greatest reset in international trade since the post-WWII agreements and institutions. Pres. Trump has repeatedly stated that the crown jewel the U.S. owns is its market. Everyone in the world wants access to this richest market, and the U.S. needs to offer that access fairly and judiciously. Again, this will all be on a bi-lateral, country-to-country basis, rather than through global organizations.
The final tariff resolution with China will demonstrate how the Administration can resolve conflict with commerce, not arms. China is very disadvantaged in the tariff struggle because the U.S. is the deficit trade country, it has the larger and more dynamic economy, and it exports necessities like food and fuel to China, rather than discretionary consumer goods. The final agreement then will undoubtedly resolve the IP, tech data, and social media issues which have been so contentious to-date. Recognition by both parties of how much we need each other in trade will then hopefully defuse possible military confrontations in the future.
Syria. Even the nascent rapprochement with Syria has started with the raising of economic sanctions.
The Trump Administration’s commitment to resolution of conflict through commerce is why we should remain optimistic about the future for international development practitioners. Those practitioners who have strong records of successful programs which feed economic prosperity using local resources and private sector assistance are well-positioned for getting back to work in international development.
Author’s Credit: Rick Whitaker is a Harvard and West Point-educated international developer. He has managed large, successful USAID-financed infrastructure and energy programs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Liberia, Uganda, Ukraine, and Sri Lanka over the last 20+ years.
CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.
Jesus Christ is King
.jpg){kind=link}
Comments are closed.