Two Views: Would Widespread Economic and Political Freedom Create Global Peace?

Among a certain subset of people in the world, there is a strong belief that the primary requirement for “world peace”—that nebulous phrase used by politicians, college freshmen, and contestants on the Miss America pageant alike—is freedom. Primarily what they are talking about in these instances is political and economic freedom guaranteed by individual countries. I am not one of those people, and this is why.

It is important to note that a given group of people with political freedom depends largely on the values that they hold. For example, in 2005 Hezbollah was elected to power in southern Lebanon. Considered a terrorist organization by the United States government, this is hardly the type of political party to promote peace in the Middle East. The political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the so-called “Freedom and Justice Party”, was also elected by a large majority to power in 2012. (Subsequently, President Morsi was, along with other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, removed from power and charged with murder). While both of these parties were elected through fair elections within the last ten years, neither of them hold values which would increase global peace.

The other freedom suggested as a requirement for world peace is economic freedom. This is more promising. Probably the best example of an international free trade arrangement is the EU (European Union). No country in the EU has gone to war with another EU member country—this is quite impressive, especially considering the previous history of the continent. This phenomenon extends beyond the European Union to democratic countries in general. Researchers theorize that the reason for this is that in a country with an open economic market, it becomes unnecessary and unprofitable for countries to go to war as resources are easily distributed between countries. War is no longer a necessity to re-distribute scarce resources but a distraction from more profitable methods of production.

On the other hand, it is possible that the more or less widespread global peace we in the democratic nations of the world have been experiencing is a fluke in the annals of history. (More or less, because a majority of countries in the world are currently or have recently been involved in some type of armed conflict). The reasons that global peace might not be sustainable even with widespread global economic and political freedom come down to the age-old reasons for conflict which currently democratic and economically free governments have at the moment been able to avoid—land and the resources associated with land.

Although the world as a whole is potentially able to support a significantly larger population than it currently is doing, the essential problem is that the largest percentage of increase in population will occur in regions that are less able to support a large population, while a decline is projected to occur in regions more able to support a larger population. For example, the latest UN projections predict the population of Africa will double, while that of Europe will decline by 14%.

Historically, a frequent source of conflict is a large population of young people with less access to resources. The inequality of consumption globally is well established—statistics such as, the 12% of the world’s population which lives in the United States and Europe accounts for 60% of global private consumption, while the third of global population which lives in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2%.

Not only is inequality widespread and the global population rapidly increasing, there is evidence that water will in the quite near future become a resource lacking in many areas of world. Less than one percent of the water on the planet is usable for humans and animals. According to the UN, by 2030 nearly half of the world will be living under areas of high water stress.

My purpose in stating all these statistics is not to scare anyone or to present an overly pessimistic view of the world. And I do believe that economic and political freedoms are beneficial and even necessary for a country to live happily and well. But they are not enough. Freedom is what you make of it, and conflict is not something that can always be prevented.