Economic interdependence is an indispensable aspect of international relations. When there is economic interdependence, national economies depend on each other through investment and trade. Economic integration has previously been viewed as promoting security and peace (Jackson & Nei, 2023). After the Second World War, for example, the building of partnerships among European economies resulted in the founding of the European Union (EU). This has been instrumental in preventing member states from going against each other (De Baets, 2022).

Hence, this paper addresses the following research question: Can economic interdependence successfully lessen the threat of international wars, or does it carry weaknesses that might result in conflict? This paper argues that although economic interdependence can lessen the possibility of international wars by ensuring that conflict will lead to severe economic problems, it also brings disadvantages that could be taken advantage of, possibly aggravating tensions and resulting in conflict. Thus, when unaided, economic interdependence is inadequate to guarantee world peace and, therefore, should be accompanied by additional strategies.

Singlehandedly, economic interdependence is incapable of promoting and sustaining peace. Essentially, although economic interdependence is widely asserted and believed to be a powerful strategy for thwarting conflict, it cannot guarantee long-term peace. Economic interdependence could lead to severe weaknesses that could be manipulated or misused. This could escalate tensions (Farrell & Newman, 2023). As explained by Egger and colleagues (2024), national economies become vulnerable to economic coercion or pressure when dependent on others. This happens when more powerful economies wield their force or influence to control the weaker economies' behavior. Instead of collaboration, such dynamics breed conflict and hatred. Historical cases confirm that trade disruptions and economic crises can result in hostility (Egger et al., 2024). Before the First World War, trade was the mechanism that made European countries profoundly dependent on each other. However, such interdependence failed to stop the war (Copeland, 1996). According to Copeland (1996), trade disruption and economic competition were the significant forces that caused the conflict. These tensions were further aggravated by the Great Depression’s economic insecurity (Copeland, 1996). This proves that, on its own, economic relations are not adequate to deter war. Furthermore, economic interdependence is incapable of averting wars driven by ideologies and instigated by non-state entities. According to Gries (2022), ideological impetuses usually prevail over economic forces, meaning conflicts could still arise irrespective of economic interdependence. Specifically, Gries (2022) claims that “ideological motivations often overshadow economic considerations, leading to conflicts regardless of economic interdependence” (p. 298). Terrorist organizations and other non-state actors, for example, do not get swayed by economic interdependence. They can still disturb the peace despite well-built trade ties between countries (Gries, 2022). Therefore, economic interdependence cannot ensure and maintain peace without help despite its ability to cultivate harmonious relationships. In order to successfully stop conflict and create lasting stability, it is crucial to address core territorial, ideological, and political tensions through other strategies besides economic relations.

As previously mentioned, economic interdependence also leads to vulnerabilities that can be misused to aggravate tensions. For instance, countries dependent on only one trading partner can become susceptible to economic blackmail (i.e., a stronger nation exerts economic influence to attain political objectives) (Dorussen, 2023). Economic sanctions, a type of economic pressure or intimidation, can disrupt the targeted country's economy and exacerbate tensions instead of promoting peace. One example is how Russia exploited natural gas supplies to coerce European nations. By taking control of the gas supply, Russia can coerce these countries to pursue its political goals (Egger, 2024). In 2009, Russia severed the gas flow to Ukraine, resulting in large- scale energy deficiencies throughout winter in Europe. According to Egger and colleagues (2024), this incident proved that being economically dependent on one supplier can eventually be exploited as a political weapon. This then creates conflicts instead of lasting peace. Also, vulnerabilities in the supply chain can arise from economic interdependence. Supply chain disruptions can generate grave outcomes when countries depend too much on imported products/services (Dorussen, 2023). Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, nations that heavily depend on other countries for medical supplies suffered severe shortages. This compromised international relations and domestic turmoil (Farrell & Newman, 2023). Gries (2022) explains that such dependence on worldwide supply chains makes economies less resistant during crises and increases their vulnerability to outside shocks. Ultimately, national security can be threatened by economic interdependence. Countries might face security threats if they rely on foreign or imported supplies. Dependence on imported oil, for example, can expose a country to supply interruptions or price maneuvering of exporting countries (Jackson & Nei, 2023). According to Copeland (1996), such dependency could weaken the capability of a country to deal with global crises on its own, forcing it to enter into an agreement that goes against its national interest. Hence, economic interdependence produces significant vulnerabilities that could be taken advantage of. Such a mechanism could inflame tensions and stimulate conflict.

Lastly, economic interdependence can result in unequal power relations. In this case, more robust economies apply excessive and unjustified influence over less powerful economies. This leads to a condition where weaker nations heavily depend on stronger countries, giving the latter the power to wield political and economic control (Dorussen, 2023). This situation can result in resistance and bitterness that later undermines international relations (Egger et al., 2024). Stronger countries frequently exploit economic sanctions to intimidate or pressure their weaker counterparts to miscarry. This would result in heightened hostilities. In the 1990s, for instance, sanctions were enforced on Iraq to undermine the Hussein government. However, it backfired as it brought about sweeping misery and torment among the Iraqi people. It only amplified resistance and stimulated anti-Western sentiment (Egger et al., 2024). Cases from the past reveal that economic interdependence has sometimes fallen short of averting war. Despite substantial trade between Japan and China before the Second World War, resource competition and territorial disputes resulted in hostilities (Nyakomittah & Mareri, 2023). According to Nyakomittah and Mareri (2023), this illustrates how economic relations can fail to dissuade war if deep-seated territorial and political disputes remain unsettled. In addition, economic interdependence could widen and worsen prevailing inequalities that result in heightened insecurity. Stronger countries can dominate markets, resulting in social instability and economic inequalities in weaker nations (Farrell & Newman, 2023). Such unequal power relations could become a hotbed for tensions and conflicts, as manifested in various corners of the globe where economic manipulation has resulted in hostilities and resistance. Hence, although capable of producing shared benefits, economic interdependence could also result in heightened tensions and power inequalities (Farrell & Newman, 2023). This confirms that economic interdependence cannot thwart international wars on its own.

On the other hand, advocates of economic interdependence claim that it can lessen the risk of war as it makes conflicts severely damaging to both directly and indirectly involved economies. As stated by Jackson and Nei (2023), “Economic interests can help us have a more peaceful world than we already have” (p. 2). Supporters assert that conflicts are prevented when national economies become interdependent due to investment and trade. Such dynamics make the costs of engaging in war more significant than any possible gains, making conflict much less appealing (Dorussen, 2023). For instance, the integration process of the EU has successfully averted tensions among the member states. War became distasteful due to the economic gains from free trade and a single market (Nyakomittah & Mareri, 2023). Thus, the EU perfectly illustrates how economic interdependence can successfully deter conflicts. After a long history of wars, European countries built economic partnerships that resulted in the creation of the EU. Mutual dependence and cooperation arose from this integration, which significantly lessened the risks of conflict (Copeland, 1996). The EU’s achievements reveal how peace can be promoted through economic interdependence that harmonizes and reconciles the member states’ economic interests.

Still, despite these accomplishments, economic interdependence cannot cultivate world peace if unaccompanied by other strategies. It should be reinforced by other approaches to resolve prevailing ideological and political disputes. The economic interdependence between Japan and China prior to WWII, as previously stated, failed to stop conflict because of widespread nationalistic sentiments and unsettled territorial disagreements (Nyakomittah & Mareri, 2023). Likewise, the economic relations between China and the U.S. have failed to eradicate the likelihood of clashes over the South China Sea, Taiwan, and other crucial issues (Gries, 2022). Hence, economic interdependence is not enough as a singlehanded solution. It should be strengthened by other strategies, namely, powerful international institutions, efficient conflict resolution procedures, and diplomatic engagement to resolve ideological and political issues that could provoke war.

In order to reinforce the ability of economic interdependence to reduce the threat of international wars, it is necessary to toughen international institutions and diplomatic engagement. As asserted by Mross and colleagues (2022), preemptive diplomacy can settle disputes before they turn into a full-blown conflict. Diplomatic initiatives (e.g., multilateral talks and treaties) reduce the threat of war by creating mechanisms for consideration and negotiation. Furthermore, international organizations are instrumental in endorsing peace and resolving conflicts using multilateral cooperation. The UN, for example, has been extremely useful in resolving conflicts and keeping peace (Mross et al., 2022). As Wallensteen (2021) explained, regional organizations (e.g., ASEAN, NATO) and the UN help promote security by deploying peacekeeping missions and initiating negotiations. Effective conflict resolution initiatives usually consider economic interdependence alongside other strategies. For instance, the integration process of the EU formed economic relations and used powerful political institutions and comprehensive diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts (Nyakomittah & Mareri, 2023). Keeping peace in the region is highly dependent on this multidimensional strategy. Therefore, a multifaceted model that combines economic interdependence, well-built international institutions, and diplomatic engagement is needed to lessen the threat of international wars successfully.

Economic interdependence can reduce the risk of international wars by raising the economic costs of conflict. However, it also brings in vulnerabilities that could be manipulated and, thus, escalate tensions. Hence, if solely applied, economic interdependence cannot guarantee world peace. Policymakers can ensure global security and peace by focusing on multifaceted models of preventing and resolving conflicts. Solid institutional and diplomatic structures should reinforce economic relations to effectively lessen the threat of international wars.

References

Copeland, D. C. (1996). Economic interdependence and war: A theory of trade expectations.

International Security, 20(4), 5-41. doi:10.2307/2539041

De Baets, A. (2022). The view of the past in international humanitarian law (1860–2020).

International Review of the Red Cross, 104(920-921), 1586–1620. doi:10.1017/S1816383122000145

Dorussen, H. (2023). Economic interdependence, globalization, and peaceful change. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/edited- volume/34235/chapter/290268012

Egger, P., Syropoulos, C., & Yotov, Y. V. (2024). Analyzing the effects of economic sanctions: Recent theory, data, and quantification. Review of International Economics. doi:10.1111/roie.12724

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2023). Wars without gun smoke: Global supply chains, power transitions, and the future of conflict. MIT Press. Retrieved from

https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/48/2/164/118107/Wars-without-Gun-Smoke-Global- Supply-Chains-Power

Gries, P. (2022). Beyond power politics: How ideology motivates threat perception—and international relations. International Studies, 59(4), 289–314.

doi:10.1177/00208817221132147

Jackson, M. O., & Nei, S. (2023). Can trade prevent war? Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/can-trade- prevent-war

Mross, K., Fiedler, C., & Grävingholt, J. (2022). Identifying pathways to peace: How international support can help prevent conflict recurrence. International Studies                           Quarterly, 66(1). doi:10.1093/isq/sqab091

Nyakomittah, K., & Mareri, L. (2023). War, peace, and diplomacy: An analysis of the strategic history of the international system. International Journal of Research and Innovation in                      Social Science, 7(5), 1634-1641. doi:10.47772/ijriss.2023.70626

Wallensteen, P. (2021). International conflict resolution UN and regional organizations: The balance sheet. In P. Wallensteen, A Pioneer in Making Peace Researchable (pp. 253-                                268). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62848-2_13

Reflection Questions

1. Provide one example of a place where you have used rhetorical appeals or source material to support your argument. How does this enhance your essay? (2-3 sentences)
   • I employed source material and rhetorical appeals, for instance, when discussing how

Russia exploited natural gas supplies to wield political power and control over European countries. This improves the essay by giving an actual illustration of economic pressure/coercion. It demonstrated the possible conflicts and vulnerability that economic interdependence could create.