I apologize - I have not yet read your book (it's in my pile!), so I don't know how deeply you delve into the pre-history of weaponized interdependence. But of course, there is such a pre-history; as long as there has been a global, or even a long-distance trade economy, there have been choke points available for political uses. I wonder whether the Phoenicians exploited their hold on tin during the bronze age? Closer to the present day, and more closely analogous to present monetary arrangements, the gold standard was enabled by Britain's economic predominance in the 19th century. Much of the world's monetary gold was held in the vaults of the Bank of England. So if country A wanted to make a payment to country B, it might be able to do so by instructing the B of E to relabel the ownership of a stack of bars in its vaults. Very convenient, compared to physical transfer! But also obviously vulnerable to weaponization. My recollection, though, is that the B of E refused to engage in this weaponization - although that may have been due to practical considerations. As a matter of fact, both Britain and France shipped large quantities of gold to Canada for safe-keeping during (and starting before) WW2. After the defeat of France, Britain asked Canada to release the French gold to fund the war effort, but: "Canada saw its role as impartial banker challenged, and after a debate that dragged on for months, decreed that France’s assets in Ottawa would be frozen until the end of the war. According to the government, the time had come for Canada to 'distance itself from Britain’s international agenda [and] cease acting out of colonial obedience.'"
No worries! We don't get into the deep prehistory at all in the book, although we do mention the pre WW-I efforts of the United Kingdom to exploit its control of financial and insurance markets in the article - there is great work by Nicholas Lambert and Harold James on this. We do think that there is something different in the modern era, if only because economies are more profoundly and more intimately connected to each other than ever before.
I apologize - I have not yet read your book (it's in my pile!), so I don't know how deeply you delve into the pre-history of weaponized interdependence. But of course, there is such a pre-history; as long as there has been a global, or even a long-distance trade economy, there have been choke points available for political uses. I wonder whether the Phoenicians exploited their hold on tin during the bronze age? Closer to the present day, and more closely analogous to present monetary arrangements, the gold standard was enabled by Britain's economic predominance in the 19th century. Much of the world's monetary gold was held in the vaults of the Bank of England. So if country A wanted to make a payment to country B, it might be able to do so by instructing the B of E to relabel the ownership of a stack of bars in its vaults. Very convenient, compared to physical transfer! But also obviously vulnerable to weaponization. My recollection, though, is that the B of E refused to engage in this weaponization - although that may have been due to practical considerations. As a matter of fact, both Britain and France shipped large quantities of gold to Canada for safe-keeping during (and starting before) WW2. After the defeat of France, Britain asked Canada to release the French gold to fund the war effort, but: "Canada saw its role as impartial banker challenged, and after a debate that dragged on for months, decreed that France’s assets in Ottawa would be frozen until the end of the war. According to the government, the time had come for Canada to 'distance itself from Britain’s international agenda [and] cease acting out of colonial obedience.'"
No worries! We don't get into the deep prehistory at all in the book, although we do mention the pre WW-I efforts of the United Kingdom to exploit its control of financial and insurance markets in the article - there is great work by Nicholas Lambert and Harold James on this. We do think that there is something different in the modern era, if only because economies are more profoundly and more intimately connected to each other than ever before.
Wow, that's a remarkable story.