A world which once saw globalisation and interconnection as the panacea for the future is waking up, later than it should, to the dangers of dependency. At the national level, the UK and Europe especially will have considerable extra costs to bear to mitigate the dependencies which perhaps naïve and short-term strategic thinking, and blindness to the realities of political ambitions, have caused. Is it perhaps now manifestly essential that the UK needs to ensure a level of independence in vital sectors and products which at the minimum renders survival possible in adverse circumstances? It will be impossible to be self-sufficient in all areas, and, where there must be dependence, a strategy of sufficient diversity of suppliers and alliances with friendly nations will have to be enough. To be a strong partner to others the UK must itself have strengths to offer to maximise mutual interest.
Dependency at the individual level is a major danger and threat too. A dependency of businesses and people on Government or other agencies to bail out or subsidise whenever there is adversity is an undermining illness, which cannot be allowed to replace ambition, resilience and self-help. It is simply an unaffordable culture, which stifles growth and achievement.
ENERGY DEPENDENCE
Essentially our world stops if power, or energy, is cut off for a length of time. The lights go out but so do phones, the internet, all digital devices, communications, transport, defence systems, manufacturing, food production and food preservation, and more. When energy supplies are disrupted, recent experience shows how, as the world competes for what is available, the cost goes through the roof, and not just businesses but individual lives are seriously disrupted and the economics of life are transformed. Because of global interdependencies, there is social disruption too.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed a massive weakness in most of Europe, including Germany, because of overdependency on Russian gas. Despite the UK’s almost unique embracing of wind and solar power, it remains highly dependent on imported oil and gas, whether piped for example from Norway or brought by boat from the USA and the Middle East: but there is competition for these supplies. China too depends heavily on imported energy to power its industries, while the USA remains self-sufficient and an exporter.
The UK is ramping up non fossil nuclear alternatives, a two or three decades project, and unless or until an alternative such as hydrogen becomes a viable option, the UK will continue to need gas imports for some time to come, and surely if it can replace imports with home farmed gas then all the better. So too with oil. Therefore, there will have to be compromise with a green and net zero agenda. Evangelist activists for whom any carbon generating source is anathema cannot be allowed to force the UK into a strategy where dependence risks security. Energy is perhaps the most precious commodity in the world in terms of strategic importance, next to food and water. Secure alliances and sharing of resources between like-minded democratic nations should be given great weight when it comes to energy.
DIGITAL DEPENDENCE, CHIPS AND ALL THAT
If the internet fails, normal life in the UK, and most developed countries, will come to a halt. The world of digital, the cloud and rapidly advancing artificial intelligence are a dependence which represents an extraordinary “all eggs in one basket” approach. Perhaps too with digital failure affecting energy distribution, energy supply will be disabled. Is it a reasonable assumption that sophisticated hostile nations will have a capability to bring down the internet or at least seriously disarm it.? The globalisation hypnosis which beguiled the world into dependencies has, when normal order and supply chains broke down, exposed huge gaps in nations’ capabilities. Might the world be hypnotised by the wonders of the digital age to a degree that there is no back up minimum alternative if systems fail. So much activity is highly dependent too on microchip technology and high volumes of microchips themselves. All engineering of any complexity, and so for example modern weaponry for defence, depends on microchips of different levels of function and sophistication. In the last year microchip shortages particularly highlighted that modern car production grinds to a halt without them.
The consequences of the pandemic and the weaknesses of global supply chains have focussed attention on world dependence on a few core suppliers of microchips. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, with 54% of the market, and Samsung of South Korea are core, as are a number of U.S. companies such as Intel, Nvidia and Micron. China has some capacity, but it too relies on imports. There are grades of semiconductor and in some specialities the list is short. The UK has limited manufacturing capacity but has high-level excellence in chips. Notably, Apple uses advanced technology chips designed in the UK. The company Arm is UK based and is a leading designer of microchips, and numerous manufacturers globally depend on its technology. Apparently, the UK is a leader in technology for compound semiconductors, an increasingly critical know-how for example in electric vehicles. Should the UK be attempting to match the tens of billions in subsidies being poured into chip manufacturing by the USA and the EU? Probably not, as it cannot match the firepower, although it should retain and build some further capability in production. However, as friendly nations build up their factories, a diversity of supply will become available to the UK – and, if the UK majors on advanced microchip technology, maybe others’ dependence on that for their manufacturing will be tradeable for the UK dependence on their supply of the actual chips.
It is impossible to ignore China, but dealings with them today must be underpinned by recognition that China is sworn to weaken Western Democracies. As regards microchips, their dependence on imports could substantially be resolved in one swoop, being an invasion and takeover of Taiwan, giving them a commercial reason in addition to an ideological obsession with their ownership of Taiwan.
DEFENCE DEPENDENCE
For years European countries have been dependent on the USA to combat the Russian threat. The Ukraine war has reinforced that fact, as without the USA’s provision of military equipment Ukraine would not have survived. Others, such as the UK, have performed a good role, but the size of contribution is small relatively speaking. Other European countries will have to commit far more resources in future to military spending than in the past, simply to contain Russia, but also to have any real level of independence going forward. All will require alliances with each other, including the UK, and NATO, it is hoped, will grow stronger, albeit with the USA always its backbone.
This defence dependence becomes heightened when accounting for what experts seem to regard as the real future threat to peace, a possibly belligerent China. European nations perhaps have their heads in the sand about this. The USA is committed to back up Taiwan and should not at least NATO countries be committed to back up the USA in this respect? President Macron has sought to muddy those waters with a policy of Chinese appeasement. That policy failed with Russia which may be an object lesson for all to observe: appeasement of autocrats, whose valuation of human life comes low on the list of priorities, but who are committed to their own expansion of Empire, is a proven failed approach. They might willingly take all offerings but those will buy no respect. Only raw power seems a deterrent for them, as the Ukraine situation has determined. Other global threats include State and religious terrorism. Defence dependence will always exist in the sense of the interdependence of Western democracies, and Eastern ones such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, with each other. That interdependence and unwavering mutual support may be the only real defence, extending not just to weapons and other resources but also cyber protection and increasingly technological solutions. China continues a rapid expansion of its armed forces, both conventional and nuclear: it needs to know that, if it uses them, the forces lined up against them are at least a match – a principle which arguably prevented any nuclear Armageddon in the cold war years ago. That knowledge should facilitate the all-important on-going engagement and conversations with China to prevent conflict, but also to encourage compromise and cooperation on global trade and issues such as climate change.
If it is the prime job of government to protect a nation against outside enemies, and the only way to achieve that is through strong alliances, the answer on defence strategy is clear. Economic alliances with like-minded friendly nations will further strengthen security.
POPULATIONS GROW WEAK WITH ACCEPTANCE OF DEPENDENCY
Apart from areas of dependency at the national level discussed above, there are many others to be considered, such as food security (see Appetite Suppressants – A Panacea for Obesity? In these pages.) key minerals, steel, medicines and so on. In reality, total self-sufficiency in many areas is fanciful. The answer will lie in mutually helpful alliances of the type mentioned above with reliable friends not evident enemies.
However, national success, and at a business level and community level, hinges around the commitments of individuals to work, self -help and mutual reliance. A culture of dependency is undermining and weakens society and national will. Arguably, a dangerous culture of dependency is continuing to grow in the UK, fuelled by a philosophy which blames others for personal plight and expects a third party to correct hardships. In the pandemic it was a necessity for the State to insure risk for so many businesses and individuals through subsidies, furloughs etc. arising largely due to lockdowns, which there is little point in debating other than as learning for the future. But that has embedded perhaps dependences when the chips are down and an expectation that UKGOV has to come to the rescue in all weathers. This is compounded by recent further underwriting by government of energy bills, exaggerated due to the consequences of the Russian invasion, and by other personal supportive subsidies. It seems today that whenever a business sector needs investment or a factory to be opened or kept in the UK, there is expectation of some type of Government grant. That culture is unhealthy long-term. Surely industry will thrive by standing on its own two feet and government would do better to create as friendly as possible tax regime for investment, using subsidy more sparingly.
As to individuals, have state benefits become an excessive dependency? Nearly 4 million working age adults are exempt from work due to long-term inability to do so, the normal figure multiplied following Covid, with adverse mental health issues at the forefront. It is notable other nations are not in this position. Is it a fair question to ask whether mental health problems which are being medicalised have become too broadly defined? Are anxiety, stress and worry, bad moods and perhaps some loneliness, all of which are a part of normal life experience, something which people should be prepared to cope with themselves? The level of help people may need for these should be found perhaps in resilience building and, maybe most important, through relationships with other people, empathetic sharing and calling on the experience of others; is social media addiction lessening personal relationships which were once the resort to help, either because people do not have them or because they seek answers through the uncaring and misleading channels of random social postings? Resort to staying at home, perhaps even in bed, away from normal society interaction, and popping a few anti-depressants are lazy answers perhaps. The most vulnerable will always need and must receive society’s assistance. But, them aside, is there not a good argument that the default position should be that those receiving benefits should be asked to make a level of contribution, in terms of time and effort, if they possibly can?
The current UK pensions system did not contemplate the vast majority of the retired population taking home a pension for perhaps 15-20 years. And state pension is a minimum survival sum, with a far greater sum needed to provide any quality of life. The UK NHS and social care structures never contemplated such a large, and increasing, ageing population being kept alive by huge medical advances. Reform is generally acknowledged as necessary but most ideas that are raised assume a state dependency with the taxpayer footing the bill. This is simply unaffordable given especially the growing other demands such as climate change initiatives, as well as other public services. Surely it is time for open debate about ways the financial load can be spread through for example insurance products which are funded by people and their employers through their working life? Whatever the potential answers which will be muti-faceted for these weighty problems, a core path to getting there will be open and unselfish conversations; but perhaps most of all the critical path is a culture of becoming undependent where self-help and responsibility are matters of pride, and normal. The view that there is no point in working when possible state payments are sufficient should be unacceptable and called out as such.
THE DEPENDENCE DISEASE
The dependence disease is insidious and dangerous. The vaccines are already available to combat it. Getting doses delivered is a matter for honest and courageous decisions by governments. businesses and influencers. At the macro level it means some national independence and friendly reliable mutually dependent alliances. At the working and personal level, the expectation should surely be to find one’s own solutions within the working or social community, with a culture of personal ambition and mutual assistance, avoiding dependence wherever possible.
See also in these pages: Time for Undependence in Order to Level Up? and Improvements 2023
