Over the past few months, we have all come to understand the importance of not depending on a single source for agricultural products, energy, raw materials, components and weapons. And many other things besides. In the United States, Europe and China, the hunt for dependence has begun. No one, anywhere in the West at least, wants to find themselves in the position of having to wait for Chinese approval to obtain the magnets they need for their automotive industry. No Chinese manufacturer wants to be dependent on Nvidia’s graphics microprocessors and computing platforms. No American company wants to depend on the Chinese for rare earths and critical materials. Europeans are realizing the subjection they have placed themselves in by having no serious player in digital messaging, digital currencies, data centers and critical materials, not to mention their long-standing dependence on fossil fuels from elsewhere. None of these countries wants to depend on others for food. Many of these countries, for other reasons, wish to reduce their dependence on foreign workers, without whom, however, most of the essential, invisible tasks, without which no society could function, would not be fulfilled. Finally, the ultimate dependence, we are often, consciously or unconsciously, dependent on people we let die for us, at work or in combat, without really wanting to see them, because they are far away, bearing our shame, Ukrainian combatants in the trenches of the Donbass or Uyghur workers in the workshops of Shein.
What price would we be willing to pay to escape these dependencies?
First of all, sovereignty is inflationary. This is quite obvious when it takes the form of customs duties, which are designed to reduce the incentive to buy foreign products. It’s just as obvious when it means depriving ourselves of foreign workers on our soil, or of products made by foreign workers overexploited at home. Just as obvious when it comes to ensuring the production of vital agricultural products. A little less obvious when it comes to diversifying our sources of supply for critical materials, rare earths, electronic components, microprocessors and fossil fuels. Even less obvious, but just as real, is the need to invest in domestic resources and plants to recycle materials already in use, or to develop new sources of energy, or refining facilities for materials that are widely available in their raw state, but which are now mostly refined in China. Already, in the United States, inflation is returning, due to this anti-Chinese obsession, the main threat to American sovereignty, and due to an anti-immigrant policy which makes the American economy appear totally dependent on the 31 million foreign-born workers, almost half of whom are still in an irregular situation, and on whom all American industries and services depend. We can therefore expect the issue of inflation, i.e., purchasing power, to weigh more heavily than ever in the next elections in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Europe.
Secondly, sovereignty is fiscally costly: to be sovereign, you need to embark on very heavy investments, which the private sector will not always find useful to initiate. In particular, the public sector will have to insist on the development of large and very large mobile nuclear power plants, and do what it takes to help private companies automate production that they can no longer outsource to foreign workers. More generally, the State will have to intervene more actively through regulations to encourage consumption of local products and to impose barriers, whether tariffs or not, to foreign production. Sovereignty will require additional taxes or tough budgetary choices.
Secondly, sovereignty is geopolitically constraining. It forces us to diversify our alliances, multiply our sources of supply, and beware of our enemies, even among our allies.
Finally, the quest for sovereignty is militarily demanding: To be truly sovereign, one must produce one’s armaments domestically, or at least by reliable allies, not depend on them, or at least not on just one, to renew them, to have spare parts at one’s disposal, and to have a full right to use them. What’s more, there can be no true sovereignty without combat readiness. Simply put, you can’t be sovereign unless you’re prepared to die for your children’s freedom. Who is prepared to do this in the United States, where more and more people are willing to commit troops to foreign theaters of operation? In Europe, where the idea of dying for Kiev or Vilnius doesn’t enthuse anyone? Except in China, where patriotism still seems indisputable?
Yes, freedom has a cost. But it also brings benefits: in economic terms, it’s the nations that first became aware of the risk of shortages, and had the strength to respond to them, that developed the technologies to replace these shortages: the United Provinces, with the dye industry, when they were too dependent on cereals. Great Britain, with the fossil coal industry, when previous energy sources dried up. More broadly speaking, the fight against scarcity and the quest for sovereignty have been at the root of most of the major innovations and alliances of the last two millennia. In Europe today, it can still lead to a scientific and technological surge, and to the coming together of nations that understand that their sovereignty depends on rational altruism towards their allies.
Poorly thought-out, the quest for sovereignty will lead to recession, inflation, xenophobia, dictatorship and war, as is the case with all the national-populist attempts we see flourishing today in the United States, Europe and Asia.
Well thought-out, the desire to be sovereign can be an opportunity for neighbors to work together to create a more dynamic, fairer, more innovative, more sustainable and more peaceful world.