Response Paper for 1/29

The Dell Theory of International Conflict seems to, in theory, be able to reduce global conflict but I do not believe it is capable of eliminating the problem altogether. In “The World is Flat”, Thomas Friedman defines The Dell Theory of International Conflict by stating “no two countries that are both part of a major global chain...will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.” I believe this theory has a great impact on countries decisions on war because international companies, as explained in the book, are relying on stability in the countries that they do their business in. The second a country goes to war, it will no doubt lose its economic stability and more than likely cause serious problems to the different international companies and their global supply chain. Even after wars have been won or lost, the counties involved lose their credibility of stability and international companies will look elsewhere in the increasingly flat world to take their business and supply chains. The theory has already proven to reduce global conflict in 2002 during the India and Pakistan events. Because a war would ultimately hurt both countries, it caused these countries to think, as Friedman puts it, “three times instead of just twice.” This is why I believe that the theory can reduce global conflict but I am not sold that it can eliminate it altogether mainly because there are always too many variables to war and conflict that go far beyond economic factors. For example, if the Taiwan 2004 parliamentary elections had ended in the Democratic Progressive Party’s favor, which was expected, and Taiwan began claiming itself its own motherland, would China stay back in its own borders purely because both countries were apart of the same global supply chain? If this were to happen, the long history of conflict between China and Taiwan, I believe, would outweigh the theory and conflict would surely ensue.