Globalization was once seen as a force for peace and cooperation. But in the 21st century, the very interdependence created by global supply chains, financial systems, and digital infrastructure is being turned into a strategic weapon. This phenomenon — known as weaponized interdependence — enables states to coerce others by manipulating their position in critical networks. This article defines the concept, explores its origins, highlights real-world examples, and assesses its implications for global security and economic sovereignty.

Defining Weaponized Interdependence

Weaponized interdependence refers to the strategic use of global economic and technological networks to exert pressure, extract concessions, or punish rivals. Powerful states exploit their centrality in systems like banking, logistics, semiconductors, or internet infrastructure to constrain the choices of others.

Coined by political scientists Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman, the term emphasizes how states with node control— dominance over key hubs or chokepoints — can conduct surveillance, deny access, or impose costs on others dependent on those systems.

Key elements:

• Network centrality: Dominance in systems others rely on (e.g., SWIFT, GPS, undersea cables).
• Dependency asymmetry: One side needs the system more than the other.
• Coercive leverage: Ability to extract compliance through threats or restrictions.

Historical Background and Theoretical Origins

While economic coercion is not new, the digital age and hyperconnectivity have transformed its scale and precision. Weaponized interdependence builds on:

• Classical geopolitics (e.g. controlling sea lanes or trade routes).
• Sanctions theory (using trade and finance as pressure tools).
• Network theory (understanding power from system centrality, not just resources).

The post-Cold War expansion of globalization made the world more interconnected — but also more vulnerable. From the early 2000s, the U.S. used financial and technological dominance to pursue counterterrorism and foreign policy objectives. China, Russia, and the EU have since developed similar capabilities.

Strategic Instruments of Weaponized Interdependence

Financial Networks

• SWIFT cutoff: Disconnecting banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication to block cross-border transactions.
• Dollar dominance: U.S. uses its control of dollar clearing systems to sanction adversaries (e.g. Iran, Russia).
• Asset freezes and banking bans: Leveraging regulatory jurisdiction over global banks.

Technology Platforms

• Semiconductor embargoes: Restricting chip exports to China, Iran, or Russia.
• App bans and software licensing restrictions: Preventing access to tools like Android OS or advanced AI APIs.
• Cloud and digital services: Blocking or throttling foreign firms from U.S.-hosted infrastructure.

Logistics and Supply Chains

• Export controls: Limiting access to critical inputs (e.g., rare earths, aerospace components).
• Port and transit bottlenecks: Redirecting or delaying shipments for political reasons.
• Transportation chokepoints: Using dominance in freight or satellite navigation to create pressure.

Data and Surveillance Infrastructure

• Surveillance via data centralization: States with server and cloud dominance can conduct intelligence operations globally.
• Censorship and filtering: Controlling what information flows across borders (e.g. China’s Great Firewall or data localization mandates).

Energy and Resource Dependency

• Pipeline leverage: Russia’s use of gas to pressure Ukraine and EU states.
• Oil embargoes: U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan and Iranian oil exports.
• Critical minerals: China’s dominance in rare earth processing as a strategic tool.

Case Studies in Weaponized Interdependence

United States

• Iran sanctions regime: Leveraged financial networks, banking pressure, and secondary sanctions to isolate Tehran.
• Huawei restrictions: Used chip export controls and software access denial to weaken China’s tech ambitions.

China

• Rare earth threats (2010, 2020): Informal export restrictions against Japan and threats to cut supplies to the U.S.
• Economic pressure on Australia and Lithuania: Trade restrictions in response to political actions.
• Digital Silk Road: Building alternative infrastructures (e.g., BeiDou navigation system, TikTok, WeChat) to reduce foreign dependency.

Russia

• Gas blackmail: Curtailing energy exports to influence EU policies.
• SWIFT and mirror networks: Developing SPFS (Russian alternative to SWIFT) to reduce vulnerability.

European Union

• Anti-coercion instrument: Legal framework to deter weaponization of trade.
• Digital sovereignty agenda: Investments in cloud, AI, and chip manufacturing to reduce strategic dependencies.

Risks and Critiques

Economic Fragmentation

Weaponized interdependence accelerates decoupling, reshoring, and bloc formation, undermining global economic efficiency.

Norm Erosion

Using civilian networks for coercion blurs norms around trade neutrality, economic openness, and technological interoperability.

Vulnerability of Smaller States

States with limited diversification options are highly exposed to pressure from system-dominant powers.

Retaliation and Escalation

Coercive use of interdependence invites countersanctions, technological nationalism, and retaliatory decoupling.

Defensive Strategies: Navigating a Weaponized World

Strategic Autonomy

• Building domestic capabilities in key sectors (chips, pharma, energy).
• Reducing single-source dependencies through diversification.

Network Redundancy

• Creating alternative systems (e.g., digital payments, internet governance).
• Supporting open-source platforms and decentralized protocols.

Regulatory Resilience

• Investing in export control regimes and trade law frameworks.
• Enabling countermeasures through multilateral organizations.

Alliance-Based Mitigation

• Coordinated resilience strategies (e.g., EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council).
• Sharing threat intelligence and jointly funding critical tech initiatives.

Conclusion

Weaponized interdependence represents the dark side of globalization — a world where connectivity becomes coercion, and access becomes leverage. As states compete for influence in a multipolar world, the ability to shape or disrupt global networks is becoming as important as military power. Navigating this environment demands not just economic strength, but also strategic foresight, regulatory agility, and international cooperation.