Until recently in world history, controlling trade routes meant controlling trade itself—and, by extension, the national wealth of a country. Empires rose and fell based on their ability to command these routes. The Opium Wars, initiated by Great Britain against China, stand as some of the most blatant examples of coercive trade practices. These conflicts involved not only colonial expansion but also the imposition of trades deemed illicit by modern standards—legitimized only by brute force, as Britain “ruled the waves.”
The World Wars were, to a significant extent, fueled by emerging powers seeking to challenge and dismantle British dominance over global trade. As industrial capacities soared to meet the demands of warfare, the post-war era saw a dramatic shift. The vast industrial machinery once used to sustain global conflict was redirected toward consumer production, and the focus turned to building broader, international markets.
The global cooperation that culminated in the Bretton Woods Agreement marked a departure from coercive trade practices. It established institutions and norms that promoted open markets and multilateral trade, fostering a shared belief that economic development and global commerce were not zero-sum games. Rather, multiple economic zones could benefit from trade and grow in the process, creating an era of relative stability and unprecedented economic expansion.
However, a new kind of trade war appears to be looming. This time, it carries a distinctly coercive tone. The very architect of the post–World War economic order now feels increasingly threatened. Confronted by internal economic challenges and the rise of competing global powers, it begins to wield non-economic tools—such as sanctions, tariffs, and geopolitical pressure—to maintain its influence. The rules-based system it once championed is being tested, and the global community faces a critical question: will the future of trade be shaped by cooperation, or return to the coercive patterns of the past?