Merchants of peace: Major Chambers of Commerce historically anti-war

[Axulus]

In recent years, however, evidence has accumulated that the 20th century’s two big wars were statistical anomalies. Sophisticated studies have shown that commerce is correlated with peace—not an absolute correlation of course, but a strong one. Wars happen less often between nations that trade extensively than between nations that don’t. The best-known exemplar of this point of view is Harvard’s Steven Pinker, whose book The Better Angels of Our Nature: How Violence Has Declined is a fascinating look at how life has improved while we weren’t noticing, and how sudden death in war or by other violence has become rarer.

Surprisingly, chambers of commerce can help illuminate the war question. And indeed, why shouldn’t this be? Chambers of commerce are organizations of businesses, which in turn are the soldiers of commerce. Presumably the behavior of these chambers may at times reflect the overall views and tendencies of business. In a look at chamber history in North America, covering the years from 1768 through 1945, I have found that major chambers, time after time, used their influence on the side of peace.

Several examples follow

http://www.acce.org/magazine-archive/summer-2014/merchants-of-peace/

 

[lpetrich]

Seems like reversing cause and effect. Good relations will allow more commerce than bad relations.

Also, it's not for nothing that "trading with the enemy" laws exist. What would you think about a business that sells lots of weapons to ISIS?

 

[dystopian]

I don't know; this seems a more recent thing rather than a long-term historical trend. Going back centuries, we tend to find that nations that were engaged in heavy trade with each other would often go to war to try and become the dominant partner in the trade relationship; something often driven by the merchants themselves. Or maybe the problem is that the author is specifically looking at North American examples to draw his conclusions from, which seems like a flawed way to look at it since North America is pretty anomalous for a number of reasons: surely a continent divided by only a few powers that to a significant extent are geographically and politically isolated from the rest of the world over this timespan will behave quite differently when it comes to its business interests than European or Asian countries during that timeframe.

 

[Togo]

The examples follow a pattern - the avoidance of war with a major world power for reasons closely connected to trade. The chambers did little or nothing to discourage the numerous small conflicts that the US involved itself in in Central and South America over the same period - at a rate of almost one a year. Nor does it mention the Monroe doctrine, whereby military might was used to extend US trade. It doesn't mention the support granted to US shipping in the Far East, or the use of gunboat diplomacy on recalcitrant trading partners. The 'peaceful' nature of the chambers of commerce seems to only extend to powers not small enough that the nation might bully them with impunity.