Free Trade vs. The Fight for Survival
Free trade is one of the world’s great engines of prosperity.
It works best when nations exchange goods like electronics, clothing, or quality Italian olive oil. Everyday products move across borders, raising living standards, driving innovation, and creating interdependence that discourages conflict.
But not everything can be traded so easily. Some resources are too strategic, too central to survival, for nations to leave them to the whims of markets. These are the materials nations will fight over: oil, iron ore, and rare earth minerals.
Yet, governments and institutions often lump both categories, everyday goods and strategic resources, into a single story called “free trade.” It’s a neat narrative, one that encourages faith in the system. But it’s misleading. No government goes to war over iPhones or quality Italian olive oil. Wars are fought over oil fields, iron mines, and the metals that power modern technology.
When trade involves consumer goods, everyone wins. That’s why every successful government champions the idea of free trade. But when trade involves resources tied directly to survival, control becomes the priority. That’s when conflict begins.
Today, several regions stand as flashpoints where resource competition could erupt into conflict.
The Arctic
Melting ice is exposing untapped reserves of oil, gas, and critical minerals. Russia, the US, Canada, and even China are positioning themselves for dominance in this frozen frontier. A new cold war, literal and metaphorical, may emerge as nations race to secure these resources.
Africa
From cobalt in the Congo to lithium in Zimbabwe, African nations hold the keys to the green energy revolution. China has invested heavily in mining and infrastructure to lock in supply chains, while Europe scrambles to catch up. The United States, under Trump, appears to have abandoned serious competition, ceding ground to rivals.
The Lithium Triangle
Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina together control the majority of the world’s lithium reserves. This single region could decide who leads in electric vehicles, batteries, and renewable energy. Expect intense competition and possibly coups or proxy wars, as outside powers maneuver for influence.
The Cultural Perspective
This divide between consumer goods and strategic resources reflects deep cultural differences.
Universalism vs. Particularism (Trompenaars): Free trade relies on universalist principles, rules applied equally to all, open markets, and predictable contracts. But when key resources are at stake, nations shift to a particularist approach, bending, breaking, and ignoring the rules to secure advantage.
Free trade represents the Bridge Builder, linking nations through interdependence, lowering barriers, and fostering stability. Conflict over resources embodies the Dedicated Rule Imposer, guarding survival by enforcing strict control, even at the cost of cooperation.
These differences reveal how nations behave when faced with abundance versus scarcity and prosperity versus survival.
Why It Matters
The fight over resources isn’t abstract; it reshapes everyday life.
When free trade prevails, consumers benefit from lower prices and wider choices. But when nations hoard survival resources, costs rise, shortages appear, and economies become unstable. The scramble for oil raises gas prices. The race for lithium determines the affordability of electric cars. Rare earth monopolies threaten the entire tech supply chain.
The deeper consequence is cultural. If the world leans toward free trade, cooperation, and shared prosperity, it will reinforce trust. If it leans toward resource nationalism, distrust hardens, conflict spreads, and the system fractures into competing blocs.
How the world treats its most vital resources—as spoils of war or as shared assets—will set the terms of life for all of us.
Join us for more cultural perspectives on TikTok and YouTube
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
