|
The Myth of
Interdependence
John C. Hulsman,
Joshua Bridwell, and Eric Hamilton
It is undeniable that
the era of globalization that exists today has led to a
more economically interconnected world. Global markets
are increasingly intertwined and the massive exchange of
capital across borders occurs on a daily basis.
Production, once designed to promote national champions,
is becoming increasingly international in scope.
According to the World Bank, “global production
sharing—sharing different stages of manufacturing of a
product between countries—involves more than $800
billion in manufactures trade annually, or at least 30
percent of world trade in manufactured
products…highlighting the growing interdependence of
countries in international trade and production
operations.”
As realization of
this phenomenon increases, it is disturbingly common for
analysts to develop false conclusions based upon a
superficial understanding of globalization. Perhaps the
most prevalent and beguiling mirage of all is the notion
of a universal “interdependence.” Implicit in the
arguments of interdependence proponents is the premise
that interdependence affects all nations to roughly the
same extent --that it acts as a blanket phenomenon,
restraining all that are involved to the same degree.
Clearly this is not true.
Consider this
hypothetical. Would Australian foreign policy have been
affected if it had strenuously opposed America’s efforts
in Iraq? Would Canberra have been likely to abrogate the
ANZUS treaty because of its people’s opposition to the
Iraq war? Hardly, as Australia undoubtedly benefits from
the American military alliance serving as life insurance
in the volatile Asian region. Would it be likely to
impose an embargo on the U.S.? Nonsense, as it greatly
benefits from trade with America. In fact the opposite
is true: it has long been a goal of Australian foreign
policy to secure a free trade agreement (FTA) with
Washington --Iraq war or no. Would Australia refuse to
continue closely sharing intelligence with America?
Impossible, as the Bali
bombing illustrated that
Canberra is a major
target of Al-Qaeda, along with the United States. Or
would certain Australian diplomats simply snub Americans
at cocktail parties? For in the end, that is what
“disapproval” with America often amounts to.
While interdependence
does mean that there is always mutual vulnerability, in
the case of the
U.S.
and Australia
(and indeed in every case), this is not the salient
feature of the relationship. Rather, Australia’s far
greater dependence on the U.S. conditions foreign policy
decision-making at the highest levels --but not
necessarily the other way around.
The Wilsonian habit
of misunderstanding the nature of interdependence is far
from an esoteric error. For despite what many foreign
policy practitioners believe, policy outputs flow
naturally from first principle intellectual assumptions.
By overrating the universal impact of interdependence
theory, Wilsonians naturally see the present order as
fundamentally multipolar, and devise policies to fit
this ‘reality.’ Unfortunately, the real world does not
correspond to their assessment, thus dooming their
policy initiatives to failure.
In the turbulence of
a changing world order, one particular paradigm has been
almost totally neglected. Ironically, we have abandoned
realism—the one doctrine that can best navigate our role
in the uni-multipolar world we find ourselves in. For,
if we hold that the attempt to remake our global history
of conflict and chaos into a hopeful future of peaceful
order is but an illusion, then we must accept the
anarchic nature of our world and attempt to live in it
as best we can. Specifically, we must create policies
that recognize and place our national interest above all
other priorities.
This reality is
largely reinforced by the current nature of
interdependence. The Wilsonian view suggests it binds
all states with equivalent strength, while the realist
outlook allows that interdependence in the economic
arena is very much part and parcel of the modern world,
but does not in fact affect all states equally. As
illustrated by the U.S.-Australia hypothetical, a power
hierarchy characterizes interdependence. Countries that
possess the preponderance of power are able to
significantly influence the policy outcomes of weaker
states (assuming such states do not perceive overriding
security/geopolitical concerns). Such will it ever be.
The authors are all affiliated with The Heritage
Foundation (http://www.heritage.org).
Dr. Hulsman is a Research Fellow In European Affairs at
Heritage's Davis Institute.
|
