New Global Alliance of Democracies

[JonMusser]

I remember hearing one of John McCain’s security advisors advocating this very idea, so it has been thought about. His idea was basically to expand the NATO structure to include pacific and South American allies (Australia, Brazil, Japan ext).

In principle i can see the sense in replacing NATO with a larger alliance system, NATO is geographically outdated and lacking a validating threat. However as Feranor stated these different nations need to share geopolitical goals for any wider alliance system to be feasible in the long term. This is the exact problem NATO is facing now, without the Soviet threat, the US/UK, Franco and German geopolitical objectives are all starting to diverge. In a wider mutual defence alliance system you would have to ask yourself is it really in Denmark’s interest to counter Chinese expansion in South East Asia? Do you really think Australia will care enough to risk a confrontation with the worlds second greatest nuclear power over the Baltic nations? I don’t think so. The alliance members need to have more than having a democratic government and being US allies for a wider alliance system to work, that's why without a real threat a global democratic alliance is doomed to failure.

- i did not know John McCain had this idea before me however it is what i would like to see a global version of NATO with maybe no Thailand or Egypt or any those countries that are not real Democracies but countries that share some geopolitical goals as well as a future Alliance that may counter China if it decides to play a game of global take over in south east Asia
- Yes i do believe an alliance should support its members in all aspects if you decide to go through the trouble of signing a treaty then they should go through with there commitments and fight the war let me clarify if the alliance member is doing the attacking then by all means stay neutral. but if someone attacks an alliance member then it is time to go all in this is why alliances are made no restrictions on what your troops can do its time to go all in.
- Grand Danois i actually have always seemed to agree with you and this is no different completely agree and is actually what i am trying to say thank you so much
- this alliance well be American Centric yes but according to geopolitics much of the future well be US centric: New Statesman - The next 100 years
the united states is the main global power it is uk replacement so i am sorry to be focused on american interest but thats where the world is right now!

Jon

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

- i did not know John McCain had this idea before me however it is what i would like to see a global version of NATO with maybe no Thailand or Egypt or any those countries that are not real Democracies but countries that share some geopolitical goals as well as a future Alliance that may counter China if it decides to play a game of global take over in south east Asia
- Yes i do believe an alliance should support its members in all aspects if you decide to go through the trouble of signing a treaty then they should go through with there commitments and fight the war let me clarify if the alliance member is doing the attacking then by all means stay neutral. but if someone attacks an alliance member then it is time to go all in this is why alliances are made no restrictions on what your troops can do its time to go all in.
- Grand Danois i actually have always seemed to agree with you and this is no different completely agree and is actually what i am trying to say thank you so much
- this alliance well be American Centric yes but according to geopolitics much of the future well be US centric: New Statesman - The next 100 years
the united states is the main global power it is uk replacement so i am sorry to be focused on american interest but thats where the world is right now!

Jon

I saw an interview with him on BBC's Hardtalk program. It was a vague idea of a global democratic alliance along the lines of NATO. I don’t know it was ever McCains official policy but it was obviously being talked about at that level.

The problem is just because a two geographically separated nation’s share a system of government does not mean they share the same geopolitical goals. From that geostrategic perspective the only goals Denmark shares with Australia is a) having a rules based international system & b) they are allies with the US. All members’ interests have to be served by an alliance, even a hegemonic alliance, or it will not work. That’s why a global alliance will not be viable in the long term if the only common denominator is the involvement of the US. A more feasible outcome is a US dominated European Alliance (i.e. NATO) and a US dominated Pacific alliance (already exists through relationships with the US and Australia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand & Taiwan). This is the de-facto situation because it is the only realistic outcome for a US dominated global alliance system, Two or three regional alliance systems. Simply this is because most of the US’s allies have regional interests, and the US has global interests.

 

[JonMusser]

I saw an interview with him on BBC's Hardtalk program. It was a vague idea of a global democratic alliance along the lines of NATO. I don’t know it was ever McCains official policy but it was obviously being talked about at that level.

The problem is just because a two geographically separated nation’s share a system of government does not mean they share the same geopolitical goals. From that geostrategic perspective the only goals Denmark shares with Australia is a) having a rules based international system & b) they are allies with the US. All members’ interests have to be served by an alliance, even a hegemonic alliance, or it will not work. That’s why a global alliance will not be viable in the long term if the only common denominator is the involvement of the US. A more feasible outcome is a US dominated European Alliance (i.e. NATO) and a US dominated Pacific alliance (already exists through relationships with the US and Australia, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand & Taiwan). This is the de-facto situation because it is the only realistic outcome for a US dominated global alliance system, Two or three regional alliance systems. Simply this is because most of the US’s allies have regional interests, and the US has global interests.

- well before i wanted a global alliance i wanted regional alliances so i could go for a Pacific alliance a African Alliance an Mid East Alliance so on and if that what it would take then i am okay with another major thing i want to bring up Democracies may not have same geopolitical goals but Democracies are more civil and better represent an american message i guess

 

[autumn child]

I would think that alliance in the form of Developed countries vs Developing countries is more likely since they have more issues in common. It will definitely be non-military alliance. As for regional alliance, US roles will be deminished as seen in the rescent fiasco with the east asian community idea.

Agenda for developed world: Ideology (human right, democracy), environmental issues, Job migration

vs

Agenda of developing world: pragmatism (what ever method that works is fine even if sacrifice have to be made), stability (social and political), protecting its infant economies from foreign abuse

When faced with so many issues, i don't think political ideology alone is enough to justify an alliance...especially a military one.

 

[Schumacher]

- .... take then i am okay with another major thing i want to bring up Democracies may not have same geopolitical goals but Democracies are more civil and better represent an american message i guess

Yeah, why did you put 'democracies' in the name anyway ? From what you've said, there's not much 'democracy' among your proposed member of this alliance nor does your intention have much to do with 'democracy'.
Judging from your intention for this alliance, I think a more appropriate name would be something like the 'Global Alliance of nations to help Uncle Sam foot the bill to avoid losing to China its precious status of a super-duper power.'
I have my doubts with the degree to which many of your proposed alliance members will share this obsession.

 

[Awang se]

"Either you accept democracy or we will smart bomb you to smithereens" If this is what democracy is all about, then it's just the other side of the same coin.

 

[Feanor]

"Either you accept democracy or we will smart bomb you to smithereens" If this is what democracy is all about, then it's just the other side of the same coin.

It's more like "either you do what we want you to or we bomb you to smithereens". At least that's the way great-power politics tends to work in dealing with smaller countries.

 

[Gremlin29]

I would take the inference of a "democracy" and "smart bombing to smithereens" to mean the US?

 

[Feanor]

Well in the modern world yes. In the past practically every major power has dealt with weaker nations along those lines. (notably, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions for a reason)