From the Japan Times: The rise of the middle-ranking powers.

     The security environment since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States has clearly demonstrated the limits of the United Nations, or even the U.S. as the world's sole military superpower, to maintain international security. However, like-minded mid-level powers with similar intentions could complement what the U.N. or the U.S. lacks, effectively generating sufficient clout to stabilize the global security environment.   

     Japan, Australia, Germany and Canada might be just such powers. They share common values as free and democratic countries. Moreover, they are nonnuclear powers with no permanent seats in the U.N. Security Council. All are longtime allies of the U.S. In fact, over recent years these countries have already had many opportunities to demonstrate their ability and willingness to contribute to international security if called for. They all also share a recognition that global stability directly serves their own national interests.

     Nevertheless, subtle differences among these countries may influence their bilateral cooperation or coordination with the U.N. or the U.S. As a result, they must complement each other's advantages, characteristics and interests in order to optimize their role in promoting international security.

     While the proposal put forward here is an interesting one it has one major failing, it ignores the fact that such coalitions fail to work as desired due to  each nation putting its needs ahead of those of their partners.   It is most assuredly better to work with allies rather than going it alone, but any nation that wishes to have a real affect on the world must also be prepared to act alone when need be.  The time for loose multilateral organzations like the UN are past, they are remants of the last century, dinosaurs that somehow survived into the age of mamals.  The only effective alliances are those based upon deeply held and shared convictions and codified by clear and concise treaties and agreements.  The UN is a dsicredited organization in the eyes of nearly every American, yet in many places it is still seen as the great panecea where the worlds problems can be solved through talking.  Ignoring the fact that the UN is more often than not a key contributor to the problems it is called upon to fix.  And when they do try to fix them they quickly descend into a fiasco of immoral behavior and a vertiable financial black hole.

     Multilateralism has a place in the world, but not in the formalised, corrupt framework that the United Nations represents.  The way of the future is coalitions of the willing, bypassing the staid and bloated beuracracy of transnational organizations for the expediency of actually getting the job done in a timely and effective manner.

     The author also ignores that while Australia, Canada and Japan have indded been stalwart allies to the US the reliabillity of Germany to the same alliance is questionable.  For a nation of her size, wealth and military potential Germany has deployed a tiny force in Afghanistan and has largely held them out of combat for fear of the public reaction to causalties at home.  Austarlia with its small population has managed to send forces to both Afghanistan and Iraq and to carry out smaller missions in and around the south-west Pacific region.  Why then can Germany not supply another 6 or 8,000 troops to the NATO force in Afghanistan?  Because they have decided that they don't want to take any risks so they focus instead on intergrating into the EU's ERRF while leaving the NATO nations doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan dangling in the wind.  Alliances only work if the allies are willing to carry their share of the load. 

     The concept is a good one, it just misses the point, the middle rank powers can have a greater effect on the international scene if they join together to work outside of the failed trans-national structure, and that they keep the interests of their own nations in proper perspecctive to the inerests and goals of the alliance.  When that happens this could work, but I remain sceptical.

See my concept for a loophole free and effective alliance for the Pacific rim and Indian ocean here

Posted by: raging tachikoma at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 5 kb.