Does trade promote peace? This is a received idea since Montesquieu’s “sweet commerce”. However, we will see that it is rather the opposite.
Trade promotes peace: the theory of sweet trade
In On the Spirit of Laws , Montesquieu makes the connection between trade and peace:
“The natural effect of commerce is to bring about peace”Montesquieu, of the spirit of the laws
Indeed, trade promotes mutual knowledge, travel, exchanges with others. As a result, he softened morals, both on a political and individual level.
“It is almost a general rule that wherever there are gentle morals, there is commerce, and that wherever there is commerce, there are gentle morals.”Montesquieu, of the spirit of the laws
It also creates mutual interests between nations. If the business elites of country A do business with those of country B (investments, flows), political leaders should be less inclined to break these ties through war. Indeed, political and economic elites are often closely linked, and the wealth provided by trade benefits, in certain cases, both parties.
However, it is very easy to find examples in history of countries closely linked by trade which went to war with each other. The best known is that of the First World War. Trade between France and Germany was very high in 1914, which did not prevent the conflict. So we need to dig deeper to understand the relationship between trade and war.
Trade, wealth, power… and war
Let us start from the postulate that trade is a source of wealth, which allows the increase in the power of the State which controls it. This wealth makes it possible to build or strengthen one’s military capacity: to set up and equip armies and fleets. On this subject, read our article The thalassocratic system in Thucydides.
It is indeed also necessary to protect this source of wealth. The development of war fleets goes hand in hand with that of commerce. We have already talked about Melos , who was forced to confront the Athenians despite its neutrality. Its geographical position would allow anyone who controls it to pose an unacceptable threat to the Athenian economic system . Today, the West is obliged to protect its lines of communication in the Red Sea from Houthi attacks through war .
This last example shows that trade can turn into vulnerability. When a state becomes overly dependent on its trade for supplies and wealth, its lines of communication become a target. This is where France’s maritime strategy came from in the 18th and 19th centuries . Faced with the superiority of the British squadrons, France fell back on naval warfare. It seeks to hinder British supplies, and to drive up the price of insurance (like today in the Red Sea). On this subject, read chapter 6 of The Measurement of Force .
Trade, one interest among others: it only modestly promotes peace
Trade therefore increases wealth, military capabilities and provides vulnerability to attack. But this does not detract from the relevance of the argument of mutual dependence, however invalidated by historical experience. For what ?
The question to ask is in reality: are there interests greater than those of commerce, which could push political entities to go to war despite strong commercial ties? Asking the question reveals the futility of linking trade and peace. Political interest remains greater than economic interest.
Without reviewing the causes of wars, innumerable and always singular, let us simply note that there are many cases in which a state would have an interest in going to war against another despite strong commercial ties.
Failing to honor one’s alliances has a political cost much greater than the temporary destruction of economic ties. This is a small part of the mechanism that leads to the First World War.
A balance of power with a threatening power on the verge of overthrow. England has long based its policy on the balance of power on the European continent.
Political opportunity: the seizure of a key territory can bring long-term gains far beyond the economic costs of a conflict. This is the calculation made, wrongly, by Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Finally, a marked ideological opposition does not prevent maintaining commercial relations. But the latter will carry no weight if a conflict breaks out between two political entities with incompatible political projects. This is the case with Germany’s expansion at the start of World War II.
NB Many examples centered on Europe and the contemporary period. Do not hesitate to note in the comments other cases where political interest has swept aside economic interest… or the opposite.
*
To conclude, does trade promote peace? No, or at least very modestly. Making the agent of peace trade amounts to giving him power that he does not have. Indeed, the political project of a nation does not resolve to maintain good commercial relations with its neighbors or competitors. Commerce and wealth are means to a larger political end. It is according to this political end that wars are declared. The depth of economic ties can therefore only marginally counterbalance the weight of political data.
On the contrary, by its very existence commerce favors war because it is necessary to protect it against its competitors, or because it provides an adversary with an opportunity to influence the political decisions of a nation through violence.
To go further:
On Montesquieu: Catherine Larrère, “Montesquieu and “sweet commerce”: a paradigm of liberalism”, Cahiers d’histoire. Critical History Review.
On maritime strategy, Hervé Coutau-Bégarie, Traité de Stratégie, Paris, Economica, 2011 .
