About the author: Edward Price is principal at Ergo, a global intelligence, consulting, and forecasting firm. A former British trade official, he also teaches at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs.
Is war coming?
I don’t mean “war” in the sense of what’s going on in Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza. Anyone who had the stomach to watch the footage of the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack has seen the start of a war. I mean war—general war—a war consumptive of everything and everyone. For want of a better phrase, the unspeakable: World War III. Are we living through the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand or the invasion of Poland in 1939? Or can we still change course?
I have pondered conflict everywhere from Berlin’s military archives to museums in Tokyo, from the war zone in Ukraine to buzzing markets in post-war Vietnam. I’ve always asked myself the same question: Can the 20th century repeat in the 21st?
I am of two minds.
As things stand, my head says no. The events of the recent past are not the onset of a third World War. Why? Well, the U.S. and China have not declared war against each other. Neither, indeed, have the U.S. and Russia. Nor Israel and Iran. This is the litmus test. Great-power conflicts require conflict between great powers. That isn’t happening. Russia attacked a democracy. Hamas massacres innocents. But the mood music is still very much more local, more proxy, than global or direct.
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza are linked, as I argued recently. But they are not yet a Third World War.
Just look at the line-up. Calmer minds in Tehran know entering this war could hurt Iran far more than Israel. U.S. carrier groups have made that point. Hezbollah appears to have backed down. A feint? Who knows? But neither is Russia attacking Poland or the Baltics. We have nukes too. Plus, China remains wary of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. In sum, the world can tolerate a struggle in Ukraine. It can tolerate Israel in Gaza for months. It can permit China’s harassment of Taiwan. It can bear these things and essentially remain at peace.
On the other hand, my guts say yes.
Just look at the exact same things. Madder minds in Tehran want Israel gone. Not defeated, gone. They cheer Hamas on, sending money and arms. Russia has refrained from striking Poland and the Baltics due not just NATO, but because Kyiv is putting up one hell of a fight. Should a U.S. president take America out of NATO in 2025, all bets are off. Meanwhile, there’s China. China is wary of the U.S., yes. But President Xi Jinping must have Taiwan. His entire project demands it. So the world cannot tolerate an endless struggle in Ukraine, or Israel spending years in Gaza. And China cannot wait forever to take Taipei. Something must break. As Honest Abe said: a house divided against itself cannot stand. The house, in this case, is the whole world.
All that remains is why. Why has the world, in less than a decade, become so very insecure?
Simple. The West won World War I. We won World War II. But no, not the Cold War, despite what you may think. The mess we made of this third clash was to imagine that 1990 was another 1890—more security and the closing of a frontier—and not another 1790, the opening of a revolution, the beginning of madness and of war. If the purpose of the Cold War was to destroy the Soviet Empire, we won. If the purpose of the Cold War was to guarantee a world at peace, we fumbled. More than fumbled. Far worse, we shared our know how and our tech with China—Communist China—thinking we could be friends.
He who would have peace, prepares for war. He who would have peace, does not place faith in commerce—plastic toys and cheap garden furniture.
It’s not all bad. We won’t see a resurgence of Japanese or German empire-building. The Showa imperial dynasty gave way to Sony as Japan’s global brand. Birkenstock replaced Blitzkrieg. But Russia and China are not on board with international liberalism. That is our ultimate failing. Not realizing that autocracy meant, and always means, war. That, in turn, ultimately explains the terrible feeling of vulnerability that so many outside these war zones feel. We know that we’ve messed up. We know what it could mean.
Whether the world sees another truly global conflict remains to be seen. But that’s hardly the point. The point is that—instead of a world secure—it could.
Guest commentaries like this one are written by authors outside the Barron’s and MarketWatch newsroom. They reflect the perspective and opinions of the authors. Submit commentary proposals and other feedback to ideas@barrons.com.
Read the full article here