Jeffrey Garofalo

Assignment #4

We, the peoples of the world, live in extraordinary times. As we begin our journey into the Twenty- First Century, we find ourselves at a crossroads in history. Never before has mankind been so rich, and yet, so poor. While the northern half of the worlds' population enjoys unprecedented prosperity and progress, the southern half suffers from abject poverty and economic deprivation. It may be said that a "poverty curtain" has descended upon the latter half, where over $1 billion people struggle on less than $1 per day. We also live in an age of "relative" peace. Fifty five years have now passed since the last major military confrontation was waged amongst the world powers. And yet, "lesser" wars have claimed the lives of more than five million persons just within the last decade. The great challenge of these extraordinary times is to reconcile these contradictions, ensuring freedom from want and fear for all peoples of the world. In considering our course, we may wish to contemplate upon the direction we should follow. Our path will be shaped by whether we believe that economic development leads to peace and security or whether we believe peace and security is necessary for economic progress.

It has been the tradition of most progressives to consider economic development as the primary instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security. This philosophy can be traced back to the lineage of the development of the social welfare system within national domains. Originally conceived by Bismarck, the social welfare system seeks to combat economic frustrations by providing a measure of security through a state supported safety net during periods of hardship. In the past, economic conditions of inequality and despair had often found an outlet in civil unrest and violent revolutions. Programs such as unemployment compensation and affordable health care were designed in great part to prevent such outbreaks from occurring. This philosophy was projected onto the international stage with the creation of the United Nations. It is clear in Article 55, that in addition to collective security, the founders believed that a New Deal for the world's poor could safeguard peace and security. Member states were asked to pledge their support to promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of social and economic progress. Just as in their national domains, greater economic progress and opportunity would prevent economic collapse leading to acts of desperation. It is this desperation which, Professor William Olson at the American University explains "leads to military regimes, repression and the destruction of human values".

In the wake of World War two, the Marshall Plan and other collective aid programs were created to rebuild the economies of war devastated Europe so as to foster peace and security through economic development. The emergence of Germany and Japan as peace loving economic powers is a testament to those collective programs. Closely associated with these programs was the special emphasis progressives placed on the promotion of free trade and freedom of the seas. As F.D.R. explains "Free trade among nations begat prosperity for all concerned; prosperity begat freedom and world peace". The General Agreement on Tarrif's and Trade (GATT) was created to facilitate free trade and it was believed that this greater economic liberalism would result in international cooperation, not conquest. As the world becomes more interdependent, the theory goes, the benefits of territorial acquisitions are lessened.

A realists interpretation of international relations dismisses the progressive philosophy as conjecture. Economic development, alone, they maintain, is not enough to maintain peace and security. The progressives ignore national, ideological, ethnic and religious rivalries, which like economic deprivation, lead to wars and military adventures. Realists also assert that history has not been kind to the economic deprivation as a causation of war thesis. Students and historians of the First World War recognize that the decades leading up to the Great War were generally prosperous. In Russia, the Trans Siberian Railroad had been built opening up the vast Russian market for international trade, precious metals were found in South Africa, the telegraph and stamped postage revolutionized world communications and new categories of manufactured goods were being produced. It should also be noted that despite the economic benefits which were derived from the "velocity of technological advancement", this scientific progress which had left, as Henry Adams explained "man and mind behind", created the most destructive and catastrophic form of war ever envisioned in the Twentieth Century.

To the realist, globalization and economic progress do not "render obsolete the struggle for political power among nations". Over the past half century, despite improvements in medicine, health care and literacy, the goals of the UN as articulated under Article 55 were never realized. Paralyzed by a bipolar political and ideological power struggle, economic development alone was not enough to improve prosperity and living conditions. What was needed was peace and security. Peace and security realized through Eighteenth and Nineteenth century principles of diplomacy and statesmanship, modernized by the collective security measures espoused by Wilson in the Twentieth Century.

In conclusion, with the end of the Cold War, we stand today at a New Frontier in history where the prospects for political cooperation and economic development are greater than ever before. Recognizing that past international collective security and international economic development measures have failed when pursued on their own accord, we have an opportunity to combine these efforts to create, as President Kennedy would have hoped, a world where "liberty, prosperity and progress walk hand in hand".