Love thy neighbour

The literature seems to suggest that smaller countries have indeed some options when it comes with dealing with dominant countries. Hirschman argues that smaller countries will find ways to influence the relationship with the larger country as long as the bigger country is not fully focused on this relationship, but when the bigger country does focus and exerts its will, the smaller country does not really have a choice but to comply. This was especially evident in the period leading up to the Second World War. Hirschman’s research also shows that the Netherlands are historically economically strongly connected with Germany, just as Canada is with the United States. Hirschman concludes that bigger countries have a natural urge to trade with smaller countries, as this increases their influences over these countries. However, Hirschman also finds evidence that some smaller countries could escape the wishes of bigger countries, just as in the case with the British Commonwealth and Southern America. On the other hand, these countries were geographically far away from the dominant country. The Netherlands and Canada border Germany and the U.S., which makes it easier for the larger countries to exert their will. Nonetheless, it is hard to tell from Hirschman’s study whether large countries are truly able to influence the trade of other countries. Nevertheless, the period after the Second World War saw a rise in the formation of bilateral, multilateral and unilateral organisations and treaties. Treaties like the FTA and organisations like the E.C. offered the smaller countries possibilities to increase their ability to resist the larger power’s wishes. For instance, Germany can not make unreasonable demands on Rotterdam port tariffs, as other countries will object to this in the E.C. (for instance France). The reports of the WRR showed that export policies can also be used for influencing trade relations. Institutions in Nord-Rhein Westphalia were not pleased by the strong recommendations made by the WRR, and its suggestion to move the export to other parts of Germany required the Dutch cabinet to state that this would not happen, while implying that this would happen anyway. Combined with the fact that the U.S. actively pursued a Canadian participation in NAFTA, this shows that both Germany and the U.S. value their trading relations with the Netherlands and Canada, and that the smaller countries do have some options. They also try to find alternatives to armed conflicts through bilateral, unilateral and multilateral agreements in order to force the smaller country to act the way it wants. The only question that remains is whether both relationships can be called interdependent. While it is obvious that the Netherlands and Canada are dependent of their bigger neighbour, it is hard to say whether Germany and the U.S. are as well. Germany needs a deep water port which the Netherlands provides, while Canada is the largest trading partner of the U.S.. However, Germany and the U.S. could try to find alternatives for these issues but chose not to. It can be postulated that Germany is more dependent on the Netherlands than the U.S. is on Canada, as Germany’s power over the Netherlands or other countries is restricted by various European treaties and organisations and geographically dependent on the Netherlands, while the U.S. has less official obligations to Canada, and is not dependent on its geographical location due to its size. Furthermore, both Hirschman and Onder invloed van Duitsland find that the Dutch and German economies are complementary to each other, while the Canadian and American economy might not be, as the American economy already holds every possible asset and aspect needed. As long as the Netherlands and Canada are able to provide what Germany (a port) and the U.S. (a significant market) need, both Germany and the U.S. will not complain about these relationships, or will try to find alternatives. This makes these relationships, in my view, semi-interdependent.