Cybernetics
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 841
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
You are right, ideally for economic growth and maximisation of specialisation you would want open competition but we must also balance it with geostrategic concerns like security. Japan is worried about their agricultural industry if they open up too much. If they integrate with the global agricultural market its likely that there is less opportunities for their home producers, making them vulnerable in a blockade and for the Japanese their agriculture has a cultural component.
That's why Chinese experts, industrialists, scientists, leaders always stress 自力更生/self-reliance. A country as big as China cannot rely on other nations for its survival in key industries like agriculture. There will always be competition between big nations and food supply is a potential leverage/weapon. Hypothetically if China relies heavily on one or more countries for its food imports and they blockade China then it would be forced to use military force to open trade again. Thus it must prevent the possibly of using military force or be able to invade successfully with certainty when necessary. Its one of the reasons why Singapore requires a strong military ally if it wants to survive economically.
A stable world system(s) would be large free trade blocks underpinned by a militarily dominant state at the centre. Within the block one can achieve free trade, exploiting specialisation without fear of blockade since military power is held within the central state. Its the system the US tried to establish post WW2 on a global scale, but its eroded due to the military rise of China. Eventually I think we might settle in regional free trade blocks such as China + peripheries, NAFTA + SA, EU, CIS . At the centre of each trade block is only one nuclear state: China, USA, France, Russia. Nuclear power really matters in long term economic power IMO. This also gives Pakistan and India the possibility to craft their own trade blocks with themselves at the centre. Its not a given that its inevitable but gives the possibility in the condition of a strong economy and military.
Security is deeply tied to long term economic reliance/free trade. In the long term the core state cannot deeply depend (food and energy) on a country that they cannot theoretically invade. The situation is like: If you owe the bank a million dollars you are in trouble but if you owe the bank a billion dollars the bank is in trouble. Powerful nations can trade freely but not fully depend on sectors such as food and energy unless they have common strategic ambitions (even then its unsafe).
Theoretically if Canada supplied all the food and energy for the US, it would be fine since Canada dares not to cut off supply willingly and is easily invaded. If it does cut off supply, US military will take over very quickly. The US would not allow Canada to acquire nukes because that would prevent the US from having an certainty of success in invading Canada.
Historical texts in China show the stable arrangement of military force for the central state and the peripheries is 4:1. The core should maintain a 4x advantage over the peripheries to enable a stable system, setting the range for the size of a stable sphere of influence. This can be applied to any core/periphery relationship if the core weakens, the less periphery it can have a stable relation with.
For China to rise peacefully and avoid unnecessary war it must control the ability to feed itself.
Last edited:
