WPR's The New Rules: Credit the U.S., Not the U.N., for More Peaceful World

Thanks to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the wars they spawned, many people around the world think they're living through the most dangerous, violent and strategically uncertain period in human history. Well, that simply isn't true, as the most recent Human Security Report from Canada's Simon Fraser University makes clear. Entitled, "The Causes of Peace and the Shrinking Costs of War," the 2009-2010 edition of the annual report marshals a ton of solid data that proves our world is less violent than ever and that it has "become far less insecure over the past 20 years." 

Read the entire column at World Politics Review.

Comments

[Maduka]

Dr. Barnett,

Frankly speaking, I don't understand your problem with the report. The United States is both a member of the United Nations and NATO and even though the US has been very involved in creating a more peaceful world, it is by no means the only player.

The leadership of the Soviet Union managed a peaceful dissolution of a massive empire, that was no mean feat. The Chinese made a strategic decision to engage peacefully with the rest of the World (and not fund terrorist organisations) and major regional players like the Nigerians in Africa have often used their meager resources to maintain peace.

Without all these factors in play, the US would have found it extremely more difficult to achieve its strategic aims.

Secondly, the US in a fit of rage launched two massively destructive wars in Asia. The outcome of the first (Afghanistan) will be a destabilized Pakistan and the second (Iraq) will be a Cold War between Sunni and Shia Islam - hardly a recipe for World peace.

You then talked about Africa as being ground zero for globalization. You have spent a lot of time discussing the national security and humanitarian imperatives of the United States, but you have missed out the most important component of US engagement - how exactly does the United States contribute to the economic development of the African continent?

In virtually all regions of the World, increased US attention has led to increased investment and economic growth. It is instructive to note that Africa is an exception to that rule. When US-led economic policies were the only game in town, African economies stagnated. It took the arrival of the Chinese to precipitate economic growth in Africa - and that fact has not been lost on most Africans.

And how does the US attempt to address these issues?

In defining the mission of AFRICOM (which you present as being the sharp end of America's engagement in Africa), you merely slap on counter-terrorism and national security on top of a largely discredited humanitarian aid model. Exactly how do you expect it to succeed?

There has been no serious discussion on tariffs and trade barriers to African goods - no meaningful discussion of trade whatsoever (outside the Oil and Gas and extractive industries). The US is needlessly courting irrelevance a few decades down the line by refusing to take economic matters seriously.

In a World where it is increasingly easier for an ambitious young African to travel to Guangzhou than to New York or London. In a World where young Africans see their economic future closely tied to China, I fear that America is extremely complacent and is chasing shadows.

There is nothing AFRICOM is doing today that the Indians and Chinese will not be able to do in a few decades but deep economic ties take time to build. If you let the Chinese dominate Africa economically, you will lose all your strategic levers and be forced to beat a very hasty retreat.