War! What is it good for?

[davywavy]

Well, ridding Europe and Asia of gencoidal midgets c1939-45 was a pretty good start.

Further to my post on nuclear weapons a week or so ago, I've been thinking more about ways to stop people going to war and killing each other.
It's widely accepted that the prevelance of nuclear weapon ownership amongst major military powers has severely curtailed the incidence of the traditional stand-up-and-fight army vs. army nation state wars of the past, which can only be said to be a good thing. However, nuclear weapon ownership, even on both sides of a conflict, does not serve as an absolute guarantor of peace: witness India and Pakistan who still occasionally trade shots and rattle sabres over Kashmir. With this in mind I got me to wondering if there was any factor which absolutely prevented nations going to war with one another - and I found it. The United Nations? Not a chance. That impressively corrupt body has the odd succss on it's hands, but it seems that tends to be more by luck than judgement. The true means of spreading peace is an economic one and it's called the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict prevention.

What this theory states is simple: no two nations with McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war on each other*. Of course, this is due to wider economic factors and trade which would make it profoundly uneconomic to kick off on trading partners, but McDonalds (and more recently the Dell theory of Conflict Prevention, which states that no two nations which are a part of a global supply-chain network have ever gone to war on each other) seems to be the predicating factor.

This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the anti-globalisation protestors who spend their afternoons cheerfully lobbing bricks through the windows of McDonalds franchises rather than getting a job and earning an honest living are not only self-deluding, but they are in fact self-deluding warmongers. Rather than helping the poor innocent natives of Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso preserve their native way of life in the face of homogenising culture by attempting to slow or even reverse the spread of globalisation, they are in fact increasing the probability of those self-same natives dying in one of the internice brushfire conflicts to which those unlucky nations without branches of McDonalds and Dell outlets are so prone.
These anti-globalisation sorts should be rounded up and shot. It's the only language these people understand. And it's for the good of world peace, too, so everyone is a winner.

I look forward to the day when, rather then the UN showing up in trouble spots worldwide to sit and twiddle their thumbs whilst labouring under Byzantine rules of engagement and failing to save lives, peacekeeping forces show up in APCs gaudily painted red and gold with troops all dressed as Ronald McDonald. As the lessons of recent history show us, it's the most effective way of bringing peace to war zones that we have.

^{*Revised after the war in Yugoslavia}

Comments

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

Damn those Slavs for breaking the might Pax McDonalds.

McDonalds, Mickey Mouse and Superman are powerful forces for global peace. None for the same reasons.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

McDonalds was founded in 1934, since which time only one war has been fought between nations with franchises. The UN was founded in 1945, and how many wears between UN members have been fought since?
As a force for global peace, my money is with the Golden Arches.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I know, it's beautiful. Though McDonalds would be seen more as a side effect of the fact that a fairly large middle class is required before a McDonalds is established, so rather than importing the global Arches we should be creating situations worldwide where franchises naturally arise. One day I'd like to visit McDonalds Baghdad.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced by needing a large middle class - Panama, Guatemala and Nicaragua were all amongst the first international McDonalds Franchisees and they aren't famous for being rich and crammed with the Middle Class.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

The McDonalds business model requires certain demographics to move into countries... and its those demographics which also happen to dampen down warlike tendencies. At least that's my understanding. A growing and affluent middle class is one of these indicators.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So basically, wealth creation (i.e global capitalism) is the best way of ensuring world peace? Gee whillikers, I'd never have thought of that! :)
Looks like all my lefty chums are going to have to redically re-think their stances on globalisation or risk being exposed as hypocrites!

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I'ma lefty, and globalisation is cool. It just needs to be carefully managed. The powers of capitalism could easily destroy small economies like African nations, we need to open up their markets but be prepared to give them an initial advantage... capitalism only works as a force for global good if everyone can play... so we need to help some people into the game. Currently the playing field is out of balance and we would just sink them further into poverty.

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

"Friedman's theory stipulates that when a country reaches the level of economic development where it has a middle class big enough to support a McDonald's network, it becomes a "McDonald's country". And people living in "McDonald's countries" do not like to fight expensive and tiresome foreign wars any more, they prefer to queue up for burgers and fries."

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's going to be Chinese McDonald's.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You what?

Dell + China + McDonald's = World Peace

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's a combination of the McDonald's and Dell theory of conflict resolution. Dell will absolutely not sell their products to Syria (for example) and other countries with 'issues.' That means that Damascus will still have the living bejesus bombed out of it as frequently as possible because it and their enemies will remain untouched by the soothing hand of Dell.

The Chinese, however, have no such qualms about dealing with a bunch of tanned bastards out to rustle a few feathers. And they're currently friendly with just about everyone (except the Japanese, who think they talk funny.) The implied consumer power of over 1 billion people tends to throw most companies and countries into a giddy daze that turns their pupils into dollar signs.

So if you combine the Greed Mobility of modern consumerist China with the peacefulness of McDonald's and Dell then you do have the ultimate solution to all the world's problems. It also means you get to burn even more protesters.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

No one fights in countries with McDonalds because the fat content of the food renders everyone obese and unable to fight.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I kind of feel the "... but said countries may occasionally disintegrate into hideous internecine genocidal strife" qualifier of the McDonalds theory rather robs it of some of its power to impress.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Not really a believable qualifier - countries throughout Africa, South America and Asia are embroiled in hideous internal strife; Sierra Leone, Bougainville, Chechnya, Zimbabwe, Liberia, and so on. None of these have McDonalds. If you look at the warfare hotsots of the world, pretty consistently they're the bits which aren't a part of a global supply chain network.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Not really a believable qualifier

It's a necessary qualifier, given the example of Yugoslavia. Milosevic was scoffing Big Macs in Belgrade for some years before he decided to start the war.

Also worth pointing out that 'going to war' is horribly passe. For example, the USA invaded Panama and overthrew its government without formally declaring war -- which I'm sure was of great consolation to the McDonalds eaters there.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

As observed above, there are one or two examples of the rule being broken, which is what led to the Dell theory of conflict prevention being postulated instead - however, the number of examples of globalisation and supply chain management being the most powerful predicators of peace and their lack leading to social breakdown and war (under any name you care to use) makes it a powerful and compelling argument.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Oh sure, I don't disagree with the broad principle, just with its expression in terms of McDonalds.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Really? I rather liked the mental image of peackeepers in red overalls and wigs with giant shoes bringing peace, stability, and second-rate nutrition to the people of the world :)

[scarletdemon.livejournal.com]

It's like a nasty little slice of violent gherkin, in the middle of the theoretical burger of peace.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Nicely put! A fetid finger in the fries of freedom...

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I forgot, I have a new phrase for you: 'synthetic transparency'

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

eh?

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

It's the catch phrase for online journal's tendency towards false or implied intimacy. It's being tossed around specifically in reference to corporate blogs but it reminded me of you going on about 'hugs' posts.

This is a similar concept.

It's about time the communication theorists named it.

Tuppence

[applez.livejournal.com]

Taking the general principle of global commerce in question...

The McDonald's and Dell 'theories' have had their day in the sun - and there is certainly something to be said about co-dependents less likely to war with one-another. However, even with the Yugoslavian war as a counterpoint, there are several issues with the idea:

It may sound Gibsonian, but one must consider that widening the dependencies across political borders may simply translate a conflict to other powers/authorities. After all, the coup d'etat of Panamanian indepedence is but one of many historical models of a corporate sponsored 'takeover.' To be fair, there are other better examples, including the British East India Company, but in the fuzzy area of government contracts, there is always the chance the contractor triumphs best in the end.

Even further back in history, one could argue that the world was even more widely economically integrated when colonial powers were ruled ... but nationalist movements showed the trouble with these methods, namely that the 'natives' still need bargaining power, and integration to the point of slavery does not earn one that bargaining power. As anti-Bechtel protestors in Latin America are showing, this basic equation of power still hasn't been equalized with regard to globalisation. Also, we mustn't forget the world wars that resulted from such bloc-integration of the world's economy (/-ies).

Re: Tuppence

[applez.livejournal.com]

Follow-up:

This issue of bargaining power I raise, it's rather crucial. It suggests there is no single path or method to achieve equitable or sufficient standing in the global commerce system.

By all means one should engage, offer up workers, technologies, products, materials ... but one needs more than that to avoid being exploited. It isn't enough to have world bodies to register complaints in, and to get some modicum of satisfaction (such as the WTO).

One also needs a potentially scary military, a trusty-enough system of justice & law enforcement, and other accoutrement of government - necessary state investments to secure good-faith contracts in the global commerce system. Examples range from China's development path, to Switzerland's. To that end, the recent dealings with Roche & Tamiflu make for an intersting case study.