it is believed that in order to provide all of his population with consumption resources, the country should stop importing food. I personally disagree with this reform, as not all countries have access to all resources the nation needs and this trend can lead to poor relationship between countries.
First of all, it is impossible for a country to rely totally on its own resources, intending to provide with its nation. The main reason is that due to geographical location, as well as the climate one can have something, while one cannot. For example, due to its tropical condition, South America provides various nationalities with its unique fruits by exporting, benefitting financially and helping others. Another pretty good examples can be countries which have an access ti the sea and which are not. Because one can sufficiently provide the population with marine products, however, the second one cannot. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia, because of its dry climate, most of the fruit and vegetables are imported. Therefore, it can be challenging to a country like Saudi Arabia to stop importing food resources, as it will not be able to grow it within its region.
Secondly, ending the act of import and export, may definitely result in cold relationships between governments. As it is true that many countries strengthen their friendly relationships by exchanging good and products. For instance: one country is rich in oil and other valuable metal recourses; at the same time, one can have flourishing marine industry. In this case what makes them interdependent is those things they are rich in. This may lead to stronger cooperation between two countries.
In conclusion, some assume that country should be the only provider of all food resources to its population. However, I consider this trend to be negative, as it is impossible to one country to have access to all variety of food, as well as it can worse cooperation between countries.