I am starting work on a paper on Taiwan/China trade issues. Do readers have suggestions for good books or articles on ways in which trade does/doesn't affect political sovereignty?
I'm not looking for stuff about globalization in general (e.g., the issue raised by much of the French Left that global trade shifts power away from the national government, and towards various multinationals). Rather, I'm looking for material (historical, or present) about bi-lateral trade--especially in the context of bi-lateral situations where one trade partner is much larger, or otherwise more powerful, than the other.
For example, Danish trade with rising, powerful Germany in 1880-1939 does not appear to have harmed Denmark's sovereignty; then when the Nazis did invade in 1940, Denmark's numerous business contacts with Germany helped convince the Germans to allow a limited degree of Danish autonomy during the first years after the conquest. On the other hand, threats to U.S. business interests in Haiti led to a U.S. invasion in 1915 that, arguably, might not have taken place if Haiti had fewer business ties to the U.S. in the first place.
Extra credit for Volokh Law School students who suggest factors, backed by examples, which make extensive bi-lateral trade more/less likely to impair the sovereignty of the smaller partner.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
When did you start your own school? Is it affiliated with a university?
Vide: the Saudi-US trade relationship. Do you think that it impairs Saudi sovereignty? US sovereignty? If "yes" to both, which impairment is greater, and why?
The part that's weird, however, is that the Taiwanese are the sophisticated economy.
I wouldn't say the Danes or Haitians are as good. Bismarck's Germany had no big issues of national pride surrounding Danish autonomy -- especially considering the long history of autonomy within the German Empire, by, e.g. Bavaria, and Haiti is culturally very different from the United States.
the trade relationships developed with Spain in Texas and California that produced U.S. sovereignty through economic migrant dominance in those areas;
the 1893 overthrow of the King of Hawaii (by U.S. economic players with short lived and disavowed U.S. military support);
the 1864 used of naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands to enforce trade rights granted in treaties by Japan;
the Bryan-Chamorro treaty with Nicaragua in 1914, through which the United States obtained the right to protect the Panama Canal, and its proprietary rights to any future canal through Nicaragua as well as islands leased from Nicaragua for use as military installations. This treaty also granted to the United States the right to take any measure needed to carry out the treaty’s purposes. This treaty had the effect of making Nicaragua a quasi-protectorate of the United States;
the treaties with the Dominican Republic (in 1907) and with Haiti (in 1915), giving the United States the right to collect and disperse customs income received by these
nations, and to use force to protect customs officials; at least in the case of the Dominican Republic this was in support of a 1904 default on external debts to the U.S.;
the ongoing debate in the U.K. of the impact of the originally trade oriented E.U. treaties which for the first time created de facto judicial review of U.K. legislative action;
the 1917 U.S. military intervention in Cuba in support of the bilateral sugar export trade;
lease arrangements that led to abrogations of full sovereignty, such as the Panama Canal, Hong Kong, Macau, Guantanamo Bay, and Kwantung Leased Territory (first with Japan and later with Russia after the Russo-Japanese War);
the East India Company relationship with the various sovereign states of the Indian subcontinent; and
the impact of economically important expatriate Asian communities in Fiji.
Well, not after the Second War of Schleswig and the annexation of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein in 1864 . . . There are, by the way, still Danish-speaking enclaves in present-day Germany (Sydslesvik/South Schleswig)with rights guaranteed by international agreement (the Bonn-Copenhagen Declarations) and German law.
My Danish grandmother (born in 1889) hated Germans to her dying day. Danes have long memories, and she lived to the age of 96.
Best,
David Singh Grewal
www.davidgrewal.com
Similarly, the use of force under the pretext of 'trade' to force unequal treaties on China in the dying years of the Qing dynasty.
During the 1980s, Saddam Hussein borrowed lots of money from Kuwait to help fund the Iran-Iraq war. When the bills started coming due, he, as they say, took his tank to the bank.
Not a happy example for the Taiwanese.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.