Trade produces conflict as well as profit, not automatic peace

Evidence

The economic changes in Asia, particularly East Asia, are one of the most significant developments in the world in the second half of the twentieth century. By the 1990s this economic development had generated economic euphoria among many observers who saw East Asia and the entire Pacific Rim linked together in ever-expanding commercial networks that would insure peace and harmony among nations. This optimism was based on the highly dubious assumption that commercial interchange is invariably a force for peace. Such, however, is not the case. Economic growth creates political instability within countries and between countries, altering the balance of power among countries and regions. Economic exchange brings people into contact; it does not bring them into agreement. Historically it has often produced a deeper awareness of the differences between peoples and stimulated mutual fears. Trade between countries produces conflict as well as profit. If past experience holds, the Asia of economic sunshine will generate an Asia of political shadows, an Asia of instability and conflict. — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 587

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges the liberal peace-through-trade assumption; echoes Milgrom’s law merchant materials where institutions—not commerce itself—enabled cooperation. — connects to: The Eurafrica model, not universalist free trade, shaped 1960s trade policy — Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the…, 715
• SEED: Angle: why the ‘trade equals peace’ doctrine keeps resurfacing in policy discourse despite repeated historical failures.