Three Pillars of Freedom (2024)

As the civilization and states goes up and down, we've seen some repetitive patterns which can be used to define how civilization survives. I propose a theory of three pillars of freedom on which a sovereign nation power resides. A nation is considered a stable if all these pillars are strong. These three pillars are hard power and can be exercised by a civilizational state or nation. It is independent of political system and cuts a lot of soft-power hubris into plain numbers.

It's a useful tool to see why alliances arises automatically when the values of allies can be diametrically opposite.

The theory of the "Three Pillars of Freedom" presents an compelling framework for analyzing the longevity and stability of civilization state or a nation.

1. Food Independence:

The ability to produce enough food domestically has long been essential for societal stability, as evidenced by the downfall of ancient civilizations like the Maya, Anasazi, and Khmer due to food insecurity. Food independence not only ensures resilience during crises but also fosters self-reliance. Reliance on food imports exposes nations to external pressures and disruptions. Additionally, surplus food can be a diplomatic asset, allowing nations to forge alliances and exert influence through soft power strategies.

1. Maya Civilization Decline: Prolonged droughts in the 9th century severely affected Maya agricultural production, leading to the collapse of urban centers.
2. Fall of the Khmer Empire: Deforestation and unsustainable agriculture led to a decline in crop yields, making the Khmer Empire vulnerable to external pressures.
3. Dust Bowl and the Great Depression: Severe drought and unsustainable farming practices in the 1930s led to food shortages and malnutrition in the United States, exacerbating the effects of the Great Depression.
4. Bengal Famine of 1943: Wartime disruptions, excessive exports, and ineffective governance led to a devastating famine in British-ruled India, highlighting the region's vulnerability due to its lack of food independence.

To determine the ranking of countries on the three pillars of independence (food, energy, and technology) on a scale of 1 to 10, we can use a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Here's a general formula that can be used as a starting point:

Food Independence: FI = 0.04 × FP + 0.03 × FS + 0.02 × FA + 0.01 × FTWhere: FP = Food Production Index (based on agricultural output, yield, and self-sufficiency) FS = Food Security Index (based on availability, access, utilization, and stability) FA = Arable Land Percentage (percentage of total land area suitable for agriculture) FT = Food Trade Balance ( Net exports / GDP) 

I took some liberty in modifying food trade balance definition as country GDP plays a major role in purchasing power if the country has to import. If Argentina has to import food, it's very difficult for it impeding it's food independence whereas when EU wants to import food, it doesn't impact it's food independence that much as it's much higher GDP.

I used the above formula to come up with this table.

India has ascended to the pinnacle of food self-sufficiency rankings, surpassing the US and Western European nations for the first time, owing to a significant increase in the food production index.

Apart from the US, recognized as a dominant force in global food production, other nations experienced slower growth rates while India continued its trajectory of improving food production, asserting its status as a burgeoning powerhouse.

Critics may argue that despite progress, hunger persists in India. However, addressing hunger and nutrition issues extends beyond food independence; it encompasses energy self-sufficiency as well.

Furthermore, despite China boasting a higher food production index, its food freedom independence score remains lower. This disparity primarily stems from limited arable land, which reduces resilience to climate change, constrained to specific geographic regions.

Conversely, India's expansive arable land, spread across diverse landscapes, ensures enhanced food security compared to regions with concentrated arable areas and high production yields.

2. Energy Independence:

In today's world, energy stands as the cornerstone of economic and military might. Nations able to meet their energy needs through domestic production or secure long-term agreements gain a crucial strategic edge over import-dependent countries.

Energy independence ensures uninterrupted supply chains, facilitates trade and military operations, and shields against price shocks and geopolitical tensions. Surplus energy reserves empower nations to wield influence globally, using them as leverage in negotiations, forming alliances, and shaping the international energy landscape.

Although it seems commonplace in our era of diverse energy sources, the advantage of an energy mix is a relatively recent development, contrasting sharply with past civilizations' reliance on singular energy sources.

1. Decline of the Byzantine Empire: The Byzantine Empire's gradual decline was partly attributed to its lack of energy independence, leading to difficulties in maintaining industrial and military capabilities, ultimately contributing to its fall to the Ottoman Turks.
2. Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor: Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was driven by its lack of energy independence, particularly its heavy dependence on imported oil. The U.S. embargo on oil exports prompted Japan's preemptive strike to secure energy resources in the Pacific.
3. Arab Oil Embargo of 1973: The embargo highlighted the vulnerability of nations lacking energy independence, causing severe economic consequences for oil-importing countries like the United States. This event underscored the importance of energy independence and the risks of relying on external sources.

To determine the ranking of countries on the three pillars of independence (food, energy, and technology) on a scale of 1 to 10, we can use a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators. Here's a general formula that can be used as a starting point:

Energy Independence: EI = 5 × EP + 3 × ER + 2 × EE Where: EP = Energy Production Index (based on domestic production of fossil fuels, renewable energy, and nuclear power) ER = Energy Reserves Index (based on proven reserves of fossil fuels and potential for renewable energy) EE = Energy Efficiency Index (based on energy intensity, energy conservation measures, and adoption of efficient technologies)*/ 

Please be aware that the Energy Independence Score is contingent upon the availability of data and assumptions made at the time of assessment. It's a qualitative measure, not solely quantitative.

Energy Resilience is another crucial factor, although distinct from energy independence. The United States and Russia lead in energy independence with their highest Percent Rank, enabling them to leverage their energy autonomy, thereby bolstering their military prowess. Energy independence also fuels industrial capabilities, with fossil fuels currently playing a pivotal role in powering manufacturing and electricity generation for major economies, alongside sources like solar, nuclear, and wind energy.

Despite being a major global producer, China maintains a relatively modest energy independence Percent rank, primarily due to its reliance on fossil fuel imports to sustain its manufacturing sector.

Asian powers such as China and India are actively enhancing their energy independence by ramping up solar energy production to generate surplus electricity and exploring methods to store excess energy, such as through hydrogen storage. Similarly, Europe has expedited investments in hydrogen technology after recognizing its overreliance on energy imports from Russia, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict. This realization has spurred Europe to accelerate the adoption of manufacturing and production technologies centered around hydrogen.

Consequently, Europe, China, and India are aligning their energy policies toward reducing dependency on fossil fuels, which often necessitate procurement from geopolitically unstable regions and maritime routes. India's relatively lower energy independence score reflects its position in the Percent Rank comparison.

By diversifying their energy sources away from fossil fuels, nations and regional blocs not only mitigate carbon emissions but also enhance their energy independence and security.

3. Technology Independence:

Technology Independence: In the era of rapid technological advancement, a nation's ability to develop and manufacture cutting-edge products across various sectors – commercial, personal, and defense – is paramount. Technology independence not only fosters economic growth and innovation but also ensures national security and strategic autonomy.

Nations that rely heavily on imported technologies are susceptible to external control, supply chain disruptions, and potential restrictions or sanctions that can cripple their industries and impede their technological progress. By developing indigenous technologies and manufacturing capabilities, nations can mitigate these risks and achieve self-sufficiency in critical sectors.

Moreover, technological independence allows nations to develop advanced defense systems, cybersecurity measures, and cutting-edge military technologies, enhancing their national security and deterrence capabilities. It also enables them to stay ahead of the curve in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biotechnology, which will shape the future global landscape.

A lack of technological independence or progress played a significant role in the decline or conquest of nations and civilizations by more technologically advanced adversaries. Here are a few notable examples:

1. Decline of the Ottoman Empire: The Ottoman Empire's failure to adopt modern technologies in the late 18th and 19th centuries, combined with economic stagnation and political instability, left it vulnerable to military defeats by technologically superior European powers.
2. Conquest of the Aztec Empire by the Spanish: Despite their advanced achievements in agriculture and architecture, the Aztec Empire was conquered by Spanish conquistadors due to their significant technological advantage in weaponry and warfare, as well as the devastating impact of European diseases.
3. Defeat of the Chinese Empire in the Opium Wars: The Chinese Empire faced military defeats against the technologically superior British Empire due to their resistance to adopting Western technologies, leaving them ill-equipped to counter modern British military tactics and equipment.

Technology Independence: TI = 4 × TR&D + 3 × TM + 2 × TP + 1 × TEWhere:TR&D = Research and Development Index (based on R&D expenditure, patents, and scientific publications)TM = Manufacturing Index (based on industrial output, advanced manufacturing capabilities, and technological complexity of exports) TP = Technological Preparedness Index (based on ICT infrastructure, internet penetration, and adoption of emerging technologies) TE = Technology Exports Index (based on the share of high-tech exports in total exports) 

The United States, Japan, and Germany stand out as pioneers in technology independence. However, Germany's manufacturing index may have suffered due to conflicts, with available data only extending up to 2021. It's worth noting that the manufacturing index is intricately linked to the energy production index.

On the other hand, China, the UK, and France hold intermediate positions in technology prowess for varying reasons. Meanwhile, countries like India, South Africa, and Mexico lag behind in terms of technology independence.

India's recent governmental initiatives to bolster manufacturing are expected to yield ripple effects, potentially enhancing both research and development (R&D) capabilities and technology export indices.

Hard Power Sovereignty Index

All these independence scores contribute to sovereignty index. The weightage of These scores varies differently during peace-time and during war-time.

• During Peacetime: During periods of peace, a more balanced approach might be favored, with equal or near-equal weightage given to all three pillars. This reflects the importance of maintaining self-reliance and independence across all three domains for long-term stability and resilience. In times of peace, nations can afford to prioritize economic development, technological progress, and sustainable resource management. A balanced approach to food, energy, and technology independence helps ensure a stable foundation for growth and preparedness for potential future challenges.

Hard-power Sovereignty Index during Peace-time: HPSI(P) = 0.24 × FI + 0.25 × EI + 0.25 × TI + 0.25 × GDP(scaled)Where: FI = Food Independence Score EI = Energy Independence Score TI = Technology Independence Score GDP(Scaled) = GDP Scaled between 1 to 10 

• During Wartime: In times of war or heightened military conflict, the weightage might shift towards prioritizing energy and food independence over technology independence. Access to reliable energy and food supplies becomes critical for sustaining military operations and ensuring the well-being of the population.

Hard-power Sovereignty Index during War-time: HPSI(W) = 0.35 × FI + 0.35 × EI + 0.1 × TI + 0.2 x GDP(scaled)Where: FI = Food Independence Score EI = Energy Independence Score TI = Technology Independence Score GDP(Scaled) = GDP scaled from range 1 to 10 

While some contend that superior technology independence, particularly during wartime, propelled the US into superpower status, it's crucial to acknowledge that technology autonomy was cultivated during periods of peace through the establishment of various institutions.

This represents a unique intersection where soft power significantly influences hard power, as attracting talented minds becomes pivotal in bolstering technology prowess.

Now, let's delve into the sovereignty index table.

The table above unmistakably underscores the United States as the preeminent sovereign state, boasting substantial hard power alongside unquantified soft power. Alongside stalwart allies such as EU member states, the UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea, the US is positioned to continue as the primary guarantor of power and sovereignty.

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine starkly illustrates the vulnerability of nation-states outside established alliances and those not part of the G20. Ukraine's lack of significant hard power and absence from any major alliance left it exposed to invasion.

The Role of Alliances and Partnerships in Enhancing the Sovereignty Index of Middle Powers:

Numerous middle powers are currently on the sidelines, awaiting the evolution of the next world order. Countries like India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa possess the potential to bolster alliance hard power during wartime.

However, US allies, with the exception of Australia and Italy, experience a decline in sovereign power points during wartime.

According to the presented data, the prospective leader of the next world order should strive to unite middle powers.

Remarkably, both the US and Europe suffer greater losses in sovereign points compared to Russia and China combined during wartime. This trend echoes historical precedents, such as World War II, where dominant superpowers, like the UK, yielded sovereign supremacy to emerging powers like the US.

United States:

US foreign policy appears to be deviating from conventional hard power principles:

The estrangement of Saudi Arabia has pushed it closer to China, with Saudi Arabia gaining significant sovereign points during wartime due to its vast fuel reserves. Efforts to ostracize Saudi Arabia following the Jamal Khashoggi murder failed to serve US-Saudi interests, leading to enhanced ties between Saudi Arabia and middle powers like India and Russia.

US-India relations are currently strained, marked by US interventions in Indian domestic affairs and its silence regarding Imran Khan's arrest in Pakistan. This has fueled suspicion and distrust, exacerbated by attacks on Indian consulates and embassies in the West, highlighting a disconnect with Indian sensitivities.

Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa are increasingly adopting positions contrary to US interests, inviting Russian and Chinese influence in their respective regions.

It appears that selective left-leaning narratives have permeated US foreign policy, diluting the realism of hard power. The initial emphasis of alliances like NATO on hard power, rather than lofty ideals like democracy, has been overshadowed, potentially eroding the projection of soft power to attract global talent.

China:

China seems to capitalize on US missteps, avoiding replicating them while upgrading relationships with key players like Russia and Saudi Arabia.

However, China risks neglecting hard power points associated with alliances. By refraining from formalizing military alliances and escalating border disputes, especially with neighboring countries like India and the Philippines, China undermines its potential to foster alliances in an era dominated by digital currency and global interdependence.

Multi-Polar World:

While the US envisages a China versus the West scenario, emerging sovereign states are more inclined to pursue foreign policies aligned with their own interests. US foreign policy cannot simultaneously prioritize left-leaning, self-serving ideals while ignoring hard power.

Similarly, China cannot achieve superpower status without rallying its Asian neighbors. Middle powers are unlikely to align uniformly with one camp, instead negotiating with existing and emerging superpowers to ensure their interests are safeguarded.

India:

India stands at a pivotal juncture, facing the imperative of forging military alliances with middle powers. Rather than mere partnerships, the development of military alliances is crucial. While these potential allies may not align precisely in terms of governance and human rights principles, mutual respect and admiration exist. Saudi Arabia and Japan emerge as promising candidates for such alliances, offering opportunities for joint military capability development.

Saudi Arabia:

Despite its energy surplus, Saudi Arabia possesses significant hard and soft power capabilities. By fostering stronger ties with India, leveraging its vast talent pool and food resources, and partnering with Japan for access to cutting-edge technologies, Saudi Arabia has the potential to bridge deficits and emerge as a powerhouse on the global stage.

Japan:

Japan must proactively seek solutions to fortify its security and revitalize its economy. With a declining population and limited appeal for immigration, Japan's reliance on the US for defense needs could become unsustainable, especially during global crises. Given its extensive investments worldwide, Japan should deepen engagement with countries like Saudi Arabia and India.

By forming formal treaties with India and Saudi Arabia, Japan can elevate its strategic partnerships. In particular, Japan could collaborate with India and Saudi Arabia to ensure the security of energy sea routes, thereby enhancing regional stability and bolstering its own energy security.

Conclusion:

This article aims to bring a pragmatic perspective to the decision-making processes of nation-states, emphasizing the changing roles of middle powers and their significance in shaping global affairs.

• As the dominant superpower, the United States should prioritize a balanced approach, emphasizing both hard power and a comprehensive understanding of its allies, middle powers, and adversarial nations.
• Middle powers like India, Saudi Arabia, and Japan can address deficits in their independence scores by collaborating and pooling their efforts.
• China, aspiring to superpower status, would benefit from adopting a less confrontational stance and fostering better relations with its Asian neighbors. Harmonizing its military and economic policies, which often have conflicting objectives, would be crucial for China's long-term stability and regional influence.