Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Pax KapitalAuthor(s): Robert WrightSource: Foreign Policy, No. 119 (Summer, 2000), pp. 67-69Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLCStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149531 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 07:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:07:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wright

PAX KAPITAL ROBERT WRIGHT

editorial for the New Republic in which I tried to envision a post-Cold-War world. One scenario I hopefully trotted out

was "world peace sponsored by capitalist democracies"-a vision I captured pithily with the phrase "Pax Kapital."

Not pithily enough, apparently. A recent Lexis-Nexis search disclosed a total of three uses of the phrase "Pax Kapital" in the entire history of humankind-all in the New Republic and none since 1990. When it comes to memorable phrasemaking, Walter Lippmann, the New Republic alum- nus who popularized the phrase the "Cold War," still has an edge on me.

Of course, the problem wasn't just my phrase. There was also the matter of all those wars that kept breaking out. They continue to complicate life for those of us who claim that the spread of market economies will have a pacifying effect.

But I am undaunted. First of all, given how many artificial boundaries the Cold War had frozen

in place-Yugoslavia being Exhibit A-it's not shocking that the Cold War's end should bring some transitional instability. How long will the "tran- sition" last? It depends, in part, on how soon U.S. and European policy mak- ers realize that often the surest path to enduring peace is the creation of new, small, more homogenous nations--that is, "partition." It is much easier for U.N. troops to police borders than neighborhoods. And once borders are firm, nationalities can grow secure in their political identities and begin the economic and political maturation that abets lasting peace.

Second, note the economic context in which recent wars have occurred-roughly the context that aficionados of the Pax Kapital sce- nario would predict. The core logic behind this scenario is that in the information age, advanced capitalist states are intertwined with each other extensively and intricately. The extent of their economic inter- dependence makes war a more non-zero-sum game-a lose-lose game, a game you win by not playing. And the intricacy of this linkage, its fine-grained, microelectronic nature, means that more and more busi-

R O B E R T W R I G H T is author of The Moral Animal (New York: Vintage Books, 1995) and Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny (New York: Pantheon Books, 2000).

SUMMER 2000 67

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:07:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The New Era

ness elites have acquaintances, even friends, in other countries. All this helps explain why war among Western European nations-which for much of the modem era seemed the natural state of things-is now all but unthinkable, and democracy, which tends to accompany mature capitalism, seems to aid the cause of peace further, though I think the pacifying role of democracy per se has been overrated.

In this view, one reason war persists is that part of the globe remains underglobalized. The organic economic interdependence that is most fully developed in Western Europe and North America hasn't engulfed, for exam- ple, Africa and the lands of former Yugoslavia. Both were latecomers to the Industrial Revolution, and in both cases the Cold War further retarded the growth of market economies. So neighboring states and ethnic groups still lack the rich intertwining of interests that can dampen hostility-and that, judging by the direction of history to date, will sooner or later come to pass.

In a sense, Pax Kapital is less a bold prediction about the future than an accurate description of the present. Just as Pax Romana was a peace that prevailed within the limited sphere of the Roman Empire, Pax Kapital is a peace that now prevails within the realm of advanced, high-tech capital- ism. And few observers envision disruptions of that peace. South Korea versus North Korea? Maybe. South Korea versus Japan or Taiwan? No.

One difference between Pax Romana and Pax Kapital is that the former couldn't possibly have enveloped the world. The technology of the day didn't permit such imperial reach. But today's technology does permit Pax Kapital to envelope the world. Indeed, that ongoing envel- opment is to a large extent what we mean by globalization.

Economic integration isn't the only thing that can now enmesh the world's peoples. So can political governance. I believe we'll see more and more of that-govemance of the world economy (as with the World Trade Organization [WTO] and the International Monetary Fund), of the environment (via an amalgam of treaties, some of which may eventually be enforced by wTo sanctions), and, yes, of international tension (maybe even a United Nations that actually works as intended).

The most compelling incentive for broader and deeper supranational gov- ernance may come from terrorism and crime. As more lethal technology becomes accessible to smaller groups, including groups of one, more states will see civil order threatened. Policing will increasingly need to be a coop- erative international venture, and increments of national sovereignty will have to be surrendered. As supporters of the Chemical Weapons Conven- tion realized, if you want to convince other nations to submit to surprise

68 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:07:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wright

international inspections, you have to agree to submit your own nation to them. So, too, in the realm of cybercrime and cyberterrorism: It's hard to gain influence over what's done on foreign computers without grant- ing foreign influence over what's done on domestic computers.

These new threats-terrorism or crime involving biotechnology, computer networks, even nuclear weapons-could prove as destructive as war between nations has historically been. A Pax Kapital of global reach, in short, would not be nirvana. But it would be a start. When everyday police work requires international coordination, peace among nations is the first step toward peace within them.

It

Gado- Kenya

SUMMER 2000 69

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:07:02 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions