No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. What do you think about this observation?
In Thomas L. Friedman’s 1999 book The ‘Lexus and the Olive Tree’ the following observation was presented: “No two countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald’s”. While that statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, his point was that due to globalization, countries that have made strong economic ties with one another have too much to lose to ever go to war with one another. While the observation may have been true, the conclusions to be drawn are unclear. The global expansion of McDonald’s restaurants is a relatively recent phenomenon when put into the context of the history of warfare, and, with a few notable exceptions, has proceeded into relatively stable markets.
The 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia is a counterexample to the theory, both countries having McDonalds at the time (started in 1990 and 1999, respectively). Other conflicts that provide possible counterexamples, depending on what one considers “a war”, include the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Kargil War along with ongoing skirmishes between factions of India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_McDonald%27s_franchises
The appearance of McDonald’s does not end an existing state of war: the states of Lebanon and Israel have been under a state of war since 1973, with South Lebanon occupied until May 2000 and a significant flareup in 2006, which did not hinder the establishment of McDonald’s franchises in Israel and Lebanon in 1993 and 1998, respectively. The two countries engaged in a brief state of warfare in the summer of 2006.
Still, are McDonald’s investments a sign that countries are headed for freedom and peace? What do you think about Friedman’s views on globalization? He has written other books about the subject.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
24 Answers
scions get disinherited. couples split up. folks argue with bosses. etc. if ppl always acted rationally, & if money/security were always ppl’s number one priority, and if groups never turned to mobs, and if all leaders everywhere were sane and in complete control of/agreement with their ppl at all times, and if things were “progressing” (an assumption humans make), and if ppl became truly ok with other races, religions, hobbies, and so on, and if jealousy was gone, and IF….
Fat people don’t feel like fighting….
Amend the song to, “Send Lawyers, Happy Meals and Money”
Fat people are lazy.
Alright, I’m totally just kidding but I really do think that is a crazy and remarkable obversation.
It’s the secret sauce. It lessons testosterone levels. After a Big Mac, large fry and a Diet Coke. Nobody wants to fight. They just want to go to sleep.
Nothing to add but, I found this very rather interesting.
Answering just the original question of “What do you think about this observation?,” it made me smile. Even though I hate McDonald’s. Except the sweet tea, which I could drink gallons of.
Hey. Fat people will fight. Haven’t you all ever seen a super heavyweight bout? Or Sumo wrestling?
That’s interesting. Wonder how long it will hold out.
Russia and Georgia, for example have McDonald’s. It seems that hostilities break out, skirmishes are conducted, and more, but only on a somewhat limited scale, without the formal declaration of war.
India and Pakistan both have McDonald’s. So do Greece and Turkey.
Israel and several middle eastern countries that don’t get along have McDonald’s.
China, Taiwan, Korea, and other Asian countries have McDonald’s.
Several Central and South American countries have McDonald’s.
An interesting observation but I think that’s mostly coincidence. Better to say that two countries that each having McDonald’s have not warred with each other yet.
… globalization is a form of neo-colonialism, yes it works in theory, but so does world peace!
So long as “men beat men into lines” to quote Loren Eiseley, we’ll have war… how’s dem burgers?
Perhaps we’re currently going about diplomacy the wrong way? Instead of using economic sanctions when other countries do something we don’t like, we should be increasing our economic ties? Interesting.
that statement sounds like it was meant to be more figurative than literal..also, have you ever HAD a McGriddle? One of those keeps me happy until…well I eat my next McGriddle. And Sweet, ice cold, delicious, yummy tea? Forget about it! Also, the chicken selects are incredible…what were we talking about again? Apple pies! Apple Pies!
McDonalds usually only exist in areas with liberalized economies, which usually only exist in nations with liberalized governments. States with liberalized governments usually do not go to war with each other.
McDonald’s is a kind of sign that countries are becoming more interested in economic conditions. They understand that if people are fat and happy, they won’t rebel. Sometimes this economic change is also associated with democracy and political freedom, but not always (see China). I think that if there is a relationship, it goes the other way around—first stability in a country, then McDonald’s.
As an indicator of relative stability, McDonald’s could be weakly correlated. As you point out, India, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine and others are counter examples. I think that @phoenyx is onto something when he says that perhaps we should increase our economic ties. This has historically been a way of protecting oneself against bankruptcy. We owe China a lot of money, so they can’t afford to let us go bankrupt. As we’ve seen recently, here in the US, our government can’t afford to let certain monopolistic firms go under.
It’s not quite the same when we loan them money through the World Bank, and the IMF, but it does build ties, and it makes it more difficult for them to engage in wars. Plus US loans overseas go primarily to US companies who are building large infrastructure projects. Those ties are somewhat tenuous, but they are something. I’m sure McDonald’s follows soon after.
Mostly, though, I think that McDonald’s is a kind of stamp of approval rendered because a nation has attained a certain level of stability.
Introduction of McDonald’s could indicate a willingness to adopt a more culturally homogeneous approach, which could be more encouraging of peace between previously differing nations??
A couple thoughts…this quote came to mind
“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.”“ Frederic Bastiat.
Anyways, First, correlation doesn’t mean causation. Second, as you rightly point out…it’s not true (kind of puts a dent in a categorical statement). Third, I think it is entirely context dependent what trade can achieve.
If you’re dealing with an entrenched dictatorship and the trade enables their economy to improve, then there is certainly the chance that the people’s motivation for democracy/freedom could diminish. Look at the OPEC states. Friedman makes an argument in his most recent book (Hot, Flat and Crowded) that the price of oil is inversely correlated with freedom/democracy in oil dependent states. As most of that oil is being exported to foreign countries then this would suggest that the extent of trade (at least in some products) solidifies corrupt regimes, and provides vast revenues for spreading ideologies which are fundamentally (pun intended) at odds with promoting group hugs between the east and west.
So yes I think trade can help freedom/democracy/peace, but the problem is that if that is the main aim, then the trade has to be regulated or linked to end goals. Otherwise in most western countries once the trade itself because a motivator because of the financial benefits or the need for the product (eg. oil), then the countries which may be democracy rich but resource poor can in fact turn a blind eye (think of the influence lobby groups have in democracies) to the human rights abuses, corruption etc…that permeates the country they are trading with. Then the economics of trade can actually act as a stumbling block to pushing democractic reform in trading partners.
Not all McDonald’s customers are fat, by the way.
@Critter38 – I read his most recent book too and the correlation between petrodollars and dictatorships makes sense to me.
Agreed. It was also nice to read his arguments for what was necessary to tackle climate change.
@robmandu – I think Greece and Turkey are beyond fighting.
Friedman’s quip may be most applicable in nations where the army is deeply involved in commerce—for example, China and Egypt.
@lpress – Welcome to Fluther! Can you give an example when it’s not applicable?
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
