Response Paper

Like most of Friedman’s theories and concepts, The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention sounds very nice. He states that, because countries that are now at each other’s throats will not only be participating in the same global market, but because companies try to keep their suppliers diverse, they will be producing products for the same major supply chain. Friedman claims that no two countries that are part of the same supply chain will go to war because the other companies in the chain and/or the major company/companies for which the chain operates will think of the warring countries as unstable refuse to trade with them, severely injuring their respective economies. He states as examples that this has worked India and Pakistan in 2002 and China and Taiwan.

While I sometimes find Friedman a little too optimistic about the effects of and pervasiveness of globalization, I am pretty much with him on this one. What is key here, is that the people of globalize countries grow, in a way, less idealistic and more selfish. In Taiwan, for example, the people were willing to vote for less independence in order to prevent conflict with China and keep their economy rising; people were more concerned with a better quality of living for their family in the present than with sacrificing for an ideal. While that sounds a little callous and material, it does seem to be logical and effective in preventing war and death.

One of the things he admits will be a problem will be the unflattenable nature of some of the more stubborn nations out there. He mentions Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan among others. Friedman argues that, since most companies are not going to see putting major parts of their supply chain in these countries as a viable option, the way to make sure that they do not suddenly and violently unflatten the world is to prevent nuclear proliferation. This, in my opinion, is where he leaves some stuff out. Freidman does not cover the fact that there are only two ways that we have been trying to prevent nuclear proliferation: a) threatening the countries with an attack if they do not comply with UN and/or US demands, and b) economic sanctions. If your goals is to flatten the world until it reaches the point where nobody wants to fight with anybody else, there are some problems with our current methods. If we threaten to attack a country, we build animosity towards and within that country, making it even less likely that a company will want to put part of its global supply chain there. Also, if we actually attack a country, then we have destroyed any infrastructure that might allow it to be flattened any time in the near future. Finally, if we impose economic sanctions, and the country on which they are imposed is too stubborn to give in quickly, then the country trades less with other countries and becomes less a part of the flat world. Their people become more desperate, less excited to participate in the global economy, more angry at those who are participating, and more likely to endorse an attack on another country.

Unfortunately, I do not have a viable solution to this problem. Economic incentives would be nice, but it is difficult to put those into effect without it seeming like the country is being bribed not to proliferate.