Trade ties do not guarantee peace, but they raise the cost of conflict

A popular claim says countries that trade heavily with each other do not fight. History offers counter-examples, so the strong version of the claim does not hold. We think a weaker version is still worth defending: deep economic ties raise the price of conflict for both sides, and that gives leaders reasons to look for other options.

The reasoning is simple. Ties create shared interests, constituencies on both sides that lose from disruption, and channels for communication. They do not remove hostility, but they make war a costlier choice.

The strongest objection is that dependence can be turned into a weapon. A country can use control of a critical product or route as leverage. We agree that is a real risk, and an argument for diversifying dependencies, not for cutting ties altogether.

What would change our mind: careful evidence that, once other factors are accounted for, trade intensity makes no difference to the likelihood of serious disputes.

For readers who want the data, there are long-run series on trade and on conflict that make the comparison possible.