Post-Colonial Capitalist Peace Theory

Matt Hunt

Professor Shirk

International Relations

5 October 2015

Post-Colonial Capitalist Peace Theory

In discussing security among once hostile relations, it is important to note that economics plays an important part in mending ties. I will therefore be analyzing the connections between states and their prior colonial holdings through the context of economic incentive, displaying how private industry is crucial to state security.

The historically dynamic relationship between Great Britain and the United States is often overlooked. To take a closer look at the main reasons why Great Britain and the United States have stable relations, the history of their interaction must be analyzed. From its birth as a nation, the United States and Great Britain were off to cold diplomatic terms. As the War of 1812 signified, Great Britain was bitter over its loss of tax base in the colonies. Nonetheless, the Spanish American War signaled a shift in Anglo-American relations. The typically pro-Spanish Great Britain decided to support the United States under the American guarantee of Cuban independence. But what could have caused this shift from suspicion to support? I argue that Capitalist peace was the main factor in the warming relations between Great Britain and the United States.

Throughout the period known as the Great Rapprochement, the cultural and political objectives of the United States and Great Britain began to merge (Reuter). Great Britain sided with the Spanish prior to the US reassurance of a free Cuba because a US operated Cuba could have severely damaged Great Britain trade in the Caribbean. Great Britain realized that a war with America would not be beneficial to their economy. By focusing on economic backlash, Great Britain had established a positive relationship with the United States.

Capitalist Peace theory can also be applied to the relations of United States and Great Britain and their former colonial holdings. Specifically, westernized multinational companies like Coca-Cola promote a connection between the former colonies and their former rulers. Because these companies can be seen as entities with and without borders (and in the United States’ case, can even be recognized as people), their interests can connect countries that may have very different cultures. For instance, the Philippine islands, once American colonial holdings, reestablished trade with the United States upon its declaration as a nation. In 2006, 16% of its imports came from the United States. As can be seen by trade, the Republic of the Philippines now has a very strong relationship with the United States. Meanwhile, India and Great Britain have had relatively smooth relations following India’s independence. Coincidentally, corporations like British-based gasoline giant BP have ties in India, where it reigns in the automotive lubricant business. These companies, which have lobbyist voices in Congress and Parliament respectively, can pressure the political agenda to be in favor of peace with their countries of operation. As with the case between Great Britain and America, the economic relations between countries leads to a reawakening of the cultural similarities between states, therefore supporting secure relations.

                  Ultimately it is trade between private entities operating within countries that secures peace. Historical relations between Great Britain, the United States, and their respective former colonies indicate that Capitalist peace theory best describes how relations between once bitter powers can be softened through the economic coercion of the private sector.

William C. Reuter, "The Anatomy of Political Anglophobia in the United States, 1865–1900," Mid America (1979) 61#2 pp 117-132