New Global Alliance of Democracies

[JonMusser]

i first had the idea for such an alliance about four years ago and it has been developing since i believe the world is much to small for a regional alliance to be elective of projecting power and protecting from current global threats Terrorism and the quickly expanding capabilities that were formally named third world countries as emerging global powerhouses

The United States and other Global Democracies should join forces in a NATOest of the world however its mission would be Terrorism and Global emerging threats to peace and prosperity.

This well have the breathing room to change from countering Iran or North Korea to Countering a possible future threat of China. and the alliances members can have tech sharing and all the great things NATO has i would even suggest the alliance having 2 to 4 nuclear powered carriers paid for by the member nations and crewed by members navies and have aircraft from multiple members the alliance can own a reserve of aircraft that can be deployed to a problem area let me be clear this is not the members owning the carrier or this reserve of aircraft it is the alliance or all the members of the alliance much like NATO AWACS.

i would think members may or may not be the following:
United Kingdom, Egypt, India, Chili, Brazil, Russia, Poland, Ukraine, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Canada and other democracies that have taken active approaches against Global threats. let me be clear i know that a lot of these members hate each other but one can see many of the members are worming to each other.
i would also suggest a allied ship air and land designs to save on all the alliances R&D. i would also suggest an economic partnership between each member to promote economic dependences that help countries come to gather and grow stronger.
in my prior post i said Nato should be disbanded but i aint sold on that i just do not believe it is as strong as it once was

Jon

so tell me what you think?

 

[Feanor]

Russia's a democracy? Or better yet... Ukraine?!

Nevermind that you basically have an arbitrary list of large and small countries which don't exactly share geopolitical goals.

 

[JonMusser]

Russia's a democracy? Or better yet... Ukraine?!

Nevermind that you basically have an arbitrary list of large and small countries which don't exactly share geopolitical goals.

did i say they do and yes i believe Ukraine is a democracy Russia i am being optimistic maybe and um i do believe most of these countries are fighting a against terrorist however also many of these have bad blood with china the 'Possible Threat' i can agree that Russia aint a democracy in most respects yet but i have optimism

 

[swerve]

Egypt is a democracy? That was sudden. It wasn't in the news. And Thailand? Hmm. Intermittently at best, & given what happened after the last election, you can't really say the current government was democratically elected.

 

[JonMusser]

please do not look at the countries look at the concept of the alliance

 

[Feanor]

did i say they do and yes i believe Ukraine is a democracy Russia i am being optimistic maybe and um i do believe most of these countries are fighting a against terrorist however also many of these have bad blood with china the 'Possible Threat' i can agree that Russia aint a democracy in most respects yet but i have optimism

You want these countries to form an alliance. To do that they must have cmmon goals for the purpose of which they unite. Yes?

And we have to look at the countries in your idea because that's the meat of the matter. Who is in and who the alliance is against.

 

[JonMusser]

You want these countries to form an alliance. To do that they must have cmmon goals for the purpose of which they unite. Yes?

And we have to look at the countries in your idea because that's the meat of the matter. Who is in and who the alliance is against.

okay my responce to this is i would like sugestions of possible members to an alliance such as this

 

[dragonfire]

I think there should be alliances just so that we evolve into a multi-polar world, uni-polarity (if the term is wrong apologies - but you get the idea) is not a good idea. Alliances not against anything but coutries with mutual interest having alliances in case of future conflicts and by treaty needing to come to the assistance of each other at each ones time of peril. Hopefuly such alliances would be broad based involve lot of interoperatablity and have arrangements of unified chain of command in times of war. Just the creation of such alliances shouldnt lead to war is all

 

[Feanor]

okay my responce to this is i would like sugestions of possible members to an alliance such as this

The first question on my part is what exactly are the goals of your alliance?

 

[JonMusser]

I think there should be alliances just so that we evolve into a multi-polar world, uni-polarity (if the term is wrong apologies - but you get the idea) is not a good idea. Alliances not against anything but coutries with mutual interest having alliances in case of future conflicts and by treaty needing to come to the assistance of each other at each ones time of peril. Hopefuly such alliances would be broad based involve lot of interoperatablity and have arrangements of unified chain of command in times of war. Just the creation of such alliances shouldnt lead to war is all

yes i like all that Dragonfire had to say and to Feanor i would say this alliances goals well be global capability able to project power global, and to not poise the world but to fight terrorism and secure global peace and ensure the world doesn't see a World War III

 

[Feanor]

Securing glbal peace is wonderful, but countries like the US, China, Russia, the EU member states, all have different pictures of what this world peace should look like. Russia, for example, seems to be favoring a return to 18-19th centuries great power balance. The US wants to remain at the head of a unipolar world, and China seems to be headed to replace the US at the head of a similarly unipolar world. The EU states all have varying goals, but in general seem to like the status quo. A powerful, but not too powerful US, a relatively powerful and recognized, but not too powerful Russia, and a China that is a factor, but not in their regional issues.

Granted my analysis is cursory and vague at best, but it's foolish to think that so many countries with divergent ideas of what global peace should look like will come together into a single alliance. Historically alliances are either alliances against someone, between great powers against other great powers, or alliances around somebody (Hegemonic Stability Theory provides a perfect model, if you're familiar with it) like the Warsaw Pact and NATO (though NATO was a combination of the two scenarios, at least initially). Hence why the goals you outline do not warrant an alliance of the kind you're suggesting. Current treaties and alliances cover the needs of counter-terrorist operations quite well with at best minor amendments.

 

[autumn child]

yes i like all that Dragonfire had to say and to Feanor i would say this alliances goals well be global capability able to project power global, and to not poise the world but to fight terrorism and secure global peace and ensure the world doesn't see a World War III

Interesting...and who exactly will cause world war 3? project power against who? and why would you categorize singapore as a democracy? interesting...why do you assume that democracy is always the good guy? :unknown

 

[The Swordman]

Alliance?

There is a great number of alliances, some of them spread worldwide (NATO, EU, UN, Commonwealth...), I approve the concept of goodwill and defense against terrorism but the new alliance agenda seems vague at best.
Regional cartels and temporary group of countries can easily be motivated in front of the pubblic opinion, a worldwide alliance with no real deal explained will look poorly.

The balance of powers needed to avoid major conflicts is played everyday on the economic markets, think about China affairs in Africa for example. There is no room left for idealism.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

 

[Gremlin29]

Forgive me for projecting onto the OP but I get the impression that he may be verbalizing what many often think regarding alliances, that being in for a penny, in for a pound. Or in other words, alliance members "should" support each other, all the time, every time. Sounds great, but it's not that practical.

So to this end I think that the OP may perhaps actually be proposing an alliance of mutually supporting nations with cultural similarities or better still sympathetic political wills. This has some merit of course.

 

[kato]

Quite seriously though: Any alliance that requires all its members to act on the whim of one or more of its members? You'll find zero takers for that anywhere. National sovereignty and all that. A number of nations, e.g. Germany, actually have laws against joining any such alliances that effectively prevent an independent foreign policy.

 

[swerve]

Quite seriously though: Any alliance that requires all its members to act on the whim of one or more of its members? You'll find zero takers for that anywhere. .

Indeed. The only alliances which have ever existed on such terms have been involuntary on the part of some members, e.g. the Warsaw Pact.

Also, the corollary of, e.g., the USA expecting Germany to follow its lead in country X is that the USA should have to follow when, e.g., Turkey or France wants to invade Y or Z. That part of it is generally ignored by those who complain that some allies aren't pulling their weight.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, this is actually a continuation of the other NATO thread (which I will return to in due course).

It's of course up to Germany if it wants to follow country X into country Y.

However, if Germany wishes to be in the business of hard security guarantees, implicit or overt, circumstance matters.

I.e. credibility is not damaged by a no to Iraq; it is, by a de facto no to A-stan (and other little things, not for this thread).

European nations, especially the large ones need to show they can and will. If they don't their neighbours will look to the US.

It's hard geopolitics, not emotion. If Germany or France, etc. wants to have US' influence, they'll have to earn it.

on a further note: I've only a third of the way through that efcr paper - but try and compare it to this report http://www.iai.it/pdf/Quaderni/Quaderni_E_16.pdf and discover how incredibly similar they are; though on the surface concerning what should be different subjects.

 

[Feanor]

It seems like he wants an alliance that will be US centric, and be inclusive of potential US allies, as well as exclusive of China. This is just not feasible. The only real point to it would be an anti-Chinese stance. But in that case the Europeans aren't terribly interested, which leaves the US in the company of such "great powers" as Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Russia wouldn't get on board, and probably wouldn't be invited to the table in the first place. India maybe, but I don't see it as likely. Who else does that leave for our perspective alliance?

I guess I have a problem with the nature of the alliance. You're asking regional and local powers to ally globally when they have no global interests, or enough weight to throw around to make the investment worth it.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I guess I have a problem with the nature of the alliance. You're asking regional and local powers to ally globally when they have no global interests, or enough weight to throw around to make the investment worth it.

Precisely.