Electrical Grid Interdependence

I think most are familiar with the Democratic Peace Theory (potentially first hypothesized by Immanuel Kant) which states that liberal democracies do not go to war with one another. it’s an interesting concept that gives rise to its own debates, which really aren’t all that important to this posting. I, for one, think that there’s a lot more to be considered than the simple fact of a country being a democracy. Instead, I prefer to focus on effective and stable governance (not good governance) to help explain why countries such as China with less liberal values and more authoritarian styles or India’s democracy that’s plagued by corrupt institutions/politicians/bureaucracy still share relatively peaceful values. I may be wrong in the long run. My poorly thought-out argument looks more like this – governments are stable because the people have no monumental reason to overthrow it since they are reasonably provided for (even if just at a subsistence level) and thus the nation as a whole has no violently pressing need to be militarily aggressive outside its borders because they have enough within them.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that globalization has linked economies so well that peaceful cooperation becomes more and more likely and necessary. Of course, it just so happens that well-run liberal democracies are the best-linked, and so perhaps that’s why they’re the least feared. According to this idea – is there reason to be afraid of China? I’m not sure, but I lean towards no. Are they really going to attack and attempt to take-over entire countries, or might they just play more of a hegemonic role one day of asserting themselves in situations economically dear to them as a new world police?

And anyway, aren’t most conflicts internally fought now? How many externally fought conflicts still exist? It seems people are more concerned with who shares the intra-country spoils (which is often internationally passively accepted in the good name of sovereignty) than the actual inter-country spoils.

All of this background brings me to some sort of point–which I know I rarely get to, but perhaps it’ll be clearer now:

Today I went to a Rotary Meeting in which the speaker proposed a new form of global cooperation. His is based on connecting all electrical grids across borders and thus simultaneously sharing one of the most precious of resources–electricity. Of course, being from San Diego, he went straight to renewable energy sources, which could or could not have their day in investment worldwide, but regardless, the main idea remains. Interconnect all nations so that they all rely on one another for energy, and energy distribution can be more efficient and effective while bringing about world peace.

It’s funny to hear a Westerner come into India and give his two cents about how India is going to magically foster peace and improve the fortunes of itself and its neighbors through interconnecting the electric grids. I know I say that as if I’m not a Westerner, but at least I’ve been living, reading, and talking to people here for the last four months. I’m starting to see how I probably was and still am seen by the locals. Anyway, 50% of India’s people are without electricity and that equally applies to many of its neighbors who all sit on a prominent list of hardship, if not failure. We’re talking Pakistan (what democracy?), Bangladesh (floods), Nepal (Maoist revolutionaries), Sri Lanka (perpetual civil war), Bhutan (struggling to replace monarchy), and Myanmar (military junta). So, they wouldn’t be getting a lot from these countries, but rather having to give, something they already are unable to do for themselves. Second, if you happened to catch the pro-democracy Buddhist crackdown in Myanmar/Burma, you might’ve noticed that the two largest and closest powers to the situation really had little to say on the topic. Why? China props up Myanmar’s junta in return for electricity from its many dams that China has built for its own benefit only. India said nothing to protect its hopes of obtaining more natural gas from the junta as well. Both are energy issues, both relate to interdependence (and one directly to a “grid”), but both are the justification for looking the other way on outrageous acts! Would it be even worse if India, too, received electricity as well? Who knows?

My point is that these are issues that on the surface don’t appear. Just convincing India that it has a reason to care about Pakistan is a large step, but to provide it with a dear resource? I’ll save the relationship of India and Pakistan for another day, but I’m not all together sure that many Indians don’t relish in the fact that they’re the only regional country without MAJOR debilitating issues, but just a lot of problems that they’re able to sweep under the rug with talks of becoming a superpower. (Notice I didn’t say a lot of little problems – India has a lot of problems that I refuse to ignore/belittle)

In conclusion, electrical grid interdependence seems wholly unlikely on a large scale, but rather possible for smaller localities such as regions in the Himalayas or remote tribal areas near Pakistan or Myanmar. Here, the positives will outweigh any potential drawbacks, and the scale of the projects will slip under the national reactionary radar. But beyond that, I don’t buy into it being the secret to regional peace and stability. I’m sure it couldn’t hurt, but proposing it as a bit of a godsend is more or less naive. The speaker seemed to suggest that electricity equals development, which has its merits if you consider that no corporation truly wants to invest in a country where stable electricity is not an option. However, I believe corporations more so want to invest where they can rely on good and solid governance with sound property rights that will protect their investments. Thus, this brings us back to the above refutation of the Democratic Peace Theory that I espouse. You don’t necessarily require democracy for “peace,” but rather a stable country where at least the limited subsistence of citizens can be acquired. The question then becomes – can that type of society exist without prior development? And if not, where is that development supposed to come from then? And to that, I have no reasonable answer… at least yet.