BLOG #6

BLOG #6

“Political scientists suggest that negotiations between political leaders on trade issues gradually build trust, so that elites learn to form cross-national coalitions for subsequent collaboration. The founding fathers of the European Community, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, went further. They considered that economic integration would make war "materially impossible," meaning that interlocking of steel, coal, and other strategic industries would leave countries unable to wage war against each other (Milward1984). Thus, regions that are economically highly integrated may tend to have less internal conflict. It seems an obvious step from this result to the proposition that policies that promote trade within a region will increase intraregional security.” (Trade Blocks).

The idea expressed in the quote by the Trade Blocks follows a consistent behavior found among political economic idealist who see free trade as this monumental enterprise that will result in economic growth, independence and security. An assumption that as history proves has being totally mischaracterized which in result have led greater economic and socio-political issues for countries who have immersed in this modern neoliberal practice. Trade liberalization and most specific to the chapter we’re discussing, regional trade agreements and regionalism as a response to flaws of effective economic negotiations was supposedly conceived as a proposition to increase regional cooperation and overall security. This kind of communication between involved parties will ensure peace and viable mechanism to promote economic reforms, agreements outside economic initiatives and most importantly promote peace in the region. An example illustrated in the lecture was NAFTA. However, taking NAFTA for example, we notice that these agreements for the most part don’t necessarily translate into cooperation and security and most importantly they fail to or are unclear in their advancement of mutual negotiations.

The quote also talks about how with regionalism economic integration through collaboration would make war “materially impossible” is a complete fallacy. This idea is substantiated in the ideal that actors would act on the collective interests of all parties involved but as we have learned from other lectures that good will is far from the self-interests approach display by countries and that is also present in regional agreements. European Union and UNASUR expose the challenges of meeting all the needs of members. True these negotiations benefit dialogue and at least try to propose a less aggressive measure than conflict and war but as the G5 last week showed, the conflicts of international trade and global economy today are direct effects of a system that is clearly detached from the necessities of the common people and is solely centered in the needs of international organizations like IMF and the WTO that actively work not for the interests and benefit of a farmer in Iowa or in Indonesia but for big corporations and entities.