Commercial warfare is where a company, country or cartel of countries to exert pressure or coercion to conform to their conditions.
The European Union originally was the European Coal and Steel Community, an organisation with aims to promote coal and steel production in Europe. It later developed into the European Economic Community, which was a customs union to try and help individual countries to develop their commerce. This developed with the treaty of Maastricht to a European government that also wanted to extend it to control how each individual country was run. So, what was originally a commercial device developed into a system that now controls the lives of its inhabitants, with punishments on countries for not conforming, many taking the form of withholding grants or funding that they originally paid into.
But there is a problem of cherry picking EU law and International laws depending on which gives and advantage to the EU. ‘Heads we win, tails you lose.’ Much of EU law contravenes international and world trade agreements that specifies that no country should have more favourable trade terms than others, all being equal, but most EU laws favour EU countries above all others.
You are finding with Brexit that many projects that the UK jointly funded the UK is now being excluded or limited in this fashion. You paid into the service and are still paying for it, but we will now only give the UK a 2nd class or 3rd class return for those payments. Not paying is counted as breaking international law, but supplying less of a product than was agreed is perfectly acceptable. Under international laws its not. You pay an agreed value for a service, you get that service, not doing so a default.
But there have also been other forms of takeovers of the system.
A number of countries have sponsored their industries to underbid industries in other countries, so wrecking those industries there, then buying out those industries cheaply and providing employment, usually getting grants and advantages from acquiescent government sources not provided to domestic firms, to make sure they have a permanent hold on those industries, the governments openly discriminating against local sources in favour of international ones. The idea is that it is unethical to provide money for a local industry to survive, but it is ethical to give money to an international firm to take over the industry. Many wannabe businesspeople and wannabe paragons of industry in government who would never make the grade see this as good business when it weakens their own country and leaves it open to undue economic pressure. Do as we want or we will close your factories or pull out, leaving it in a depressed state, staying around only when the going is good, dropping it when it isn’t.
So, you have a situation where the local economies can be supressed and kept in check in favour of the supplying industries in other countries, being international, the local governments having little control except in cases of extreme abuse.
Supply lines can then be set up to increase the dependency, called streamlining and efficiency, but with a motive of locking the system into place.
It becomes too costly to fail. For a few thousand the banks will destroy a person’s life and dependent employment as there is little effect and little chance of consequences for it to the bank. For a few billion the banks will give billions more just to keep it running so it fails outside their jurisdiction, having moved quickly on and left it for subsequent people to sort out. The bank crash was of this form.
International firms can make private deals behind doors with the government to evade their responsibilities, making them unaccountable, extracting billions of pounds unfairly while paying millions in fines.
The inadequate and loophole-based tax systems around the world means the local population pays the bills for the infrastructure, the international firms getting the free benefits, immoral and illegal deals being made behinds the scenes with over cosy, wined and dined government officials.
The move towards Globalisation and Internationalism means that local accountability and local advantage is now in the past. Decisions can now be made thousands of miles away that has a drastic effect on communities. They won’t see the effects, just hear about them in the news.
But, this is ever the way with moves towards large and large control units, divorced geographically from their effects. The more stages within the system and longer control structure the more arbitrary decisions can be easily made, many individuals only returning if they need re-electing, but a system that only allows for ‘acceptable’ candidates, the candidates that may represent their community or affected by the conditions being priced out of the running through funding and support from the distant control. Any local dissent is closed down against an organised and well-funded central control running the process.
They have the means to find problems or discredit local people and hide similar problems or conceal failures with those higher up in the system.
Recent events suggest that some form of commercial warfare is actually being taken to give and advantage to certaion groups or countries.