What Good Are Alliances?

[Autolykos]

I'm starting this thread because of the following exchange over in "Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Bid...":

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Why are you worried about our alliances with other countries? We should have NO alliances.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 At which point I stopped reading.

Rather than try to present one side or the other as dishonest, crazy, or both, let's have a rational debate about this issue. What benefit(s) do you think alliances bring us? Do you think it's possible to have no alliances in this day and age? If not, why not?

I look forward to your responses. :)

- Rob

[bishop]

i see nothing inherently wrong with alliances so long as they are not legally binding (such as our "alliance" with taiwan). an alliance is analogous to a friendship with another nation/country, and friendships are good things imo. a good alliance is one that works for the benefit of the citizens of the allied countries - not to be confused with the governments of the allied countries.

alliances can result in increased information sharing (military, scientific, economic, academic, medical, etc..), trade agreements, joint ventures...

it has always been, and still is, good to seek and/or have allies. historically, countries that don't have any allies have been the most at risk from foreign powers.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: bishop i see nothing inherently wrong with alliances so long as they are not legally binding (such as our "alliance" with taiwan). an alliance is analogous to a friendship with another nation/country, and friendships are good things imo. a good alliance is one that works for the benefit of the citizens of the allied countries - not to be confused with the governments of the allied countries. alliances can result in increased information sharing (military, scientific, economic, academic, medical, etc..), trade agreements, joint ventures... it has always been, and still is, good to seek and/or have allies. historically, countries that don't have any allies have been the most at risk from foreign powers.

While I can't disagree with the above, alliance generally means more than a non-binding friendship. And, even if non-binding, if such a friendship leads us to place a particular interest in supporting another country, directly or indirectly, that would be wrong.

Our government shouldn't be deciding which countries are to be favored and which are not in regards to trade and other relationships. Currently we seem to have a strong alliance with Israel. This means that Muslim Americans (as just one example) are forced, through tax dollars, to support a state which they would, given the choice, oppose. This is immoral and wrong. Even if there were not financial aid to that country the influence of the government, in the name of "all Americans" would still be used in a manner that is in opposition to the wishes of many Americans.

Such conflicts are inherent and will quickly lead us down the path of "might makes right" and "majority rule" in our system of government, both principles which are in opposition to those on which this country was founded.

Alliances imply that our government will influence, or even force, "free citizens" in their interactions with those outside of our country based on some sort of friendship or agreement between those in power.

I would hold that such systems of influence are wrong and not significantly different from a government agency directing contract money to the friends of the director of that agency, just because of the friendship.

Keith

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Autolykos I'm starting this thread because of the following exchange over in "Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Bid...": Rather than try to present one side or the other as dishonest, crazy, or both, let's have a rational debate about this issue. What benefit(s) do you think alliances bring us? Do you think it's possible to have no alliances in this day and age? If not, why not? I look forward to your responses. :) - Rob

Various of the founding fathers rightly warned against entangling alliances with other nations. They did not object to trading with other nations or being friendly with other nations but they seem to have drawn the line at alliances.

Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."

George Washington said in his 1796 farewell address, "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests...The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

In that same address, Washington said, "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Later in the address he conceded, "Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

I'm with Washington and Jefferson on this one.

[ZNFYRH]

What constitutes an alliance?

I would suggest that an alliance is any foreign relation where one or both seek some kind of benefit.

The problem I have with that is that when one side or the other enjoys a benefit, what happens when the other side wants something?

There is the unspoken condition that if they don't give what they want they will take away the benefit.

Unless the nation is willing to say, "Go ahead, take the benefit away, because we're not helping you" then the alliance is actually a dependency.

I would say that an alliance is only good if a nation is willing to lose the benefit in order to stay out of an undesirable situation.

[Osborn F Enready]

In response to Robs thread starter:

Rob said: Rather than try to present one side or the other as dishonest, crazy, or both, let's have a rational debate about this issue. What benefit(s) do you think alliances bring us?

I fall squarely on the side of George Washinton here. Non-entangling alliances are always a benefit, since they can be cancelled or dropped at any time, and incur no "burden" on those not directly involved.

Entangling alliances are always a bad thing, because the nature of such alliances is to build a bridge between nations, societies that can have no ideological bridge, since they are diametrically opposed in one form or another. (religion, economics, laws, labor, rights, etc)

Rob said: Do you think it's possible to have no alliances in this day and age?

I think some nations, or societies, could be fully independent, but few. I think it is possible, and I feel it SHOULD be a goal to have NO entangling alliances with nations not held to the same concepts of law, economics, etc.

[ZNFYRH]

THAT is the term... entangling alliances.

Good to know... and I agree with Osborn.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: bishop i see nothing inherently wrong with alliances so long as they are not legally binding (such as our "alliance" with taiwan). an alliance is analogous to a friendship with another nation/country, and friendships are good things imo. a good alliance is one that works for the benefit of the citizens of the allied countries - not to be confused with the governments of the allied countries. alliances can result in increased information sharing (military, scientific, economic, academic, medical, etc..), trade agreements, joint ventures...

Agreed with this. None binding alliances work well because we can share whatever without being drawn into problems that arrise with our allies.

The NATO alliance was good for only defense agaisnt a possible superpower threat. One that might or might not have even been real given the number of nukes across the board. In the post cold war era such an alliance doesn't work because not every nation jumps aboard to every conflict. Afganastan, etc...

The only downside of none binding alliances can be they create hostility among citizens where a party doesn't follow thru with spoke word. Many people in Eastern Europe were not happy following WWII where the US didn't fill promises made by militry commanders to liberate their nations. Instead they fell under the Iron Curtain.

[Milton Bradley]

So with seeming universal agreement among the constituency, it makesone wonder how policies like NAFTA, of GATT could have ever passed both houses of Congress.


At least I hope it does.

[ZNFYRH]

I don't wonder at all.

Calculated attempts to establish other countries as dependent on the U.S.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Calculated attempts to establish other countries as dependent on the U.S.

.... and I would say, or vice-versa.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos What benefit(s) do you think alliances bring us? Do you think it's possible to have no alliances in this day and age? If not, why not?

Like the Founding Fathers' obsolete views on slavery, isolationist foreign policy succombed to global economics, improved technologies, and the actions of other nations. Washington and Jefferson presided over a geographically isolated nation in the late 18th century. Only weak Mexico and Canada shared borders with the new nation. They could well afford to keep European alliances at arms length, unless we needed military help as we did when the French navy sealed our victory at Yorktown.

The Industrial Revolution changed everything. America needed access to goods and raw materials from overseas. We traded with members of foreign alliances and their Third World colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The pressure for binding international agreements grew. Washington and Jefferson never faced such a global economic and political environment.

"Foreign entangling alliances" are here to stay. They will certainly change and evolve along with US interests, but this country will never embrace isolationism again. We simply can't.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: The Decider Like the Founding Fathers' obsolete views on slavery, isolationist foreign policy succombed to global economics, improved technologies, and the actions of other nations. Washington and Jefferson presided over a geographically isolated nation in the late 18th century. Only weak Mexico and Canada shared borders with the new nation. They could well afford to keep European alliances at arms length, unless we needed military help as we did when the French navy sealed our victory at Yorktown.

Canada was still largely controlled by Britain and, thus, by one of the world's major powers. Mexico still belonged to Spain and, thus, by one of the world's major powers. It's like us being Europe sitting between Cold War USA and Soviet Union.

The Industrial Revolution changed everything. America needed access to goods and raw materials from overseas. We traded with members of foreign alliances and their Third World colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The pressure for binding international agreements grew. Washington and Jefferson never faced such a global economic and political environment.

The Washington-Jefferson policy served us well throughout the 19th century.

"Foreign entangling alliances" are here to stay. They will certainly change and evolve along with US interests, but this country will never embrace isolationism again. We simply can't.

So, you're saying that having foreign entangling alliances makes such alliances right and that we shouldn't try to change them? Also, we're not talking about isolationism here! I wish some of you people would stop being so damned stupid about these things! Isolationism means no interaction with any nation - that includes no trade or friendly relations. Compare that to what the founding fathers advocated.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor Canada was still largely controlled by Britain and, thus, by one of the world's major powers. Mexico still belonged to Spain and, thus, by one of the world's major powers. It's like us being Europe sitting between Cold War USA and Soviet Union.

False analogy. British Canada and Spanish Mexico never threatened American security. It was rather the other way around. But for the British invasion in the war of 1812, Canada might very well be American territory today. And we know how well the Spanish protected Mexico against American aggression. Washington's and Jefferson's America was safe from Europe, but just in case we kept military relations with the French. They came in handy on occasion during the Revolution.

Quote by: Chancellor The Washington-Jefferson policy served us well throughout the 19th century.

The full global effects of the Industrial Revolution didn't impact America until late in the 19th century. But that didn't stop America from carving out a "sphere of influence" in Latin America called the "Monroe Doctrine" or expansionary wars against Mexico or foreign military adventures to protect American business interests in the Mediterranean (war against the Barbary Pirates). Nor did it stop the US navy from entering Tokyo Harbor to force the Japanese to buy American products. I suppose all those 19th century actions were envisioned by the Washington-Jefferson policy too.

My point is that as American economic interests expanded in the world, so did the American government's desire to protect those interests. Who else would defend American shipping from pirates? Do you think other growing industrial nations sat back and waited for another nation to spend money and men to protect the property of non-citizens? As the Industrial Revolution expanded trade, so did the national desires to protect that trade. It was cheaper and more effective to negotiate treaties with nations and then with allied groups. The alternative was to accept less trade and less growth, but you aren't proposing that option. You want it all--American economic progress and non-binding bilateral treaties with only "friends." America and every other first world nation rejected such naivete during the 19th century. The pursuit of national wealth and capitalism came at a heavy price--deadlier warfare and messy agreements and brutal colonies.

Quote by: Chancellor So, you're saying that having foreign entangling alliances makes such alliances right and that we shouldn't try to change them?

I never said that all alliances were good for America. I've seen good arguments against NAFTA. Nor did I argue that past alliances like NATO should not be reformed or abolished when their usefulness ends. But foreign alliances are a reality, right or wrong, good or bad. Such was not the case in 1789.

Quote by: Chancellor Also, we're not talking about isolationism here! I wish some of you people would stop being so damned stupid about these things! Isolationism means no interaction with any nation - that includes no trade or friendly relations. Compare that to what the founding fathers advocated.

You don't read much American history apparently. The term "isolationism" is used by politicians and historians to describe "a non-interventionist foreign policy which avoids what Jefferson termed 'entangling alliances' with other countries." Isolated nations can still trade and exchange diplomats with other nations, as you are proposing here. They just can't invade Mexico or Spanish Cuba or assist European allies against Nazi Germany. Some intervention/alliances were bad and some were defensible as America grew more dependent on global trade and security--that's my argument. No nation can live without foreign trade and diplomacy even if it wanted to. I didn't think I had to make that clear, but you're obviously an exception.

Isolationism - Definition of Isolationism

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: "Foreign entangling alliances" are here to stay. They will certainly change and evolve along with US interests, but this country will never embrace isolationism again. We simply can't.

LOL.....

Sorry, but I am not signed up, and won't comply.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready LOL..... Sorry, but I am not signed up, and won't comply.

I'm not surprised. Reality bites sometimes.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider "Foreign entangling alliances" are here to stay. They will certainly change and evolve along with US interests, but this country will never embrace isolationism again. We simply can't.

Argued from the man who likes the status quoe, and wishes to have the same entities retain power.

Quote by: The Decider The term "isolationism" is used by politicians and historians to describe "a non-interventionist foreign policy which avoids what Jefferson termed 'entangling alliances' with other countries." Isolated nations can still trade and exchange diplomats with other nations, as you are proposing here. They just can't invade Mexico or Spanish Cuba or assist European allies against Nazi Germany. Some intervention/alliances were bad and some were defensible as America grew more dependent on global trade and security--that's my argument. No nation can live without foreign trade and diplomacy even if it wanted to. I didn't think I had to make that clear, but you're obviously an exception.

The term isolationism is also used by the media, and the big two political parties in an attmpt to marginalize the view by ridiculing it without ever really defining it to the viewer. ( Just another tiny example of the prolific pile of half truths broadcast over the airwaves each day. )

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider Like the Founding Fathers' obsolete views on slavery, isolationist foreign policy succombed [sic] to global economics, improved technologies, and the actions of other nations.

Could you expand on that further, or is that what the rest of your post is supposed to be?

Washington and Jefferson presided over a geographically isolated nation in the late 18th century. Only weak Mexico and Canada shared borders with the new nation. They could well afford to keep European alliances at arms length, unless we needed military help as we did when the French navy sealed our victory at Yorktown.

First off, the claim that "[o]nly weak [sic] Mexico and Canada shared borders with the new nation" is false. Looking at this map, the nascent United States boredered on British Canada, Spanish Louisiana, and Spanish Florida. In 1800, Spanish Louisiana became French Louisiana (until the Louisiana Purchase in 1803). Also note that Mexico did not become independent from Spain until 1821!

As far as your claim regarding European alliances goes, the United States' early military alliance with France was a strong point of controversy during and after the French Revolution. Many Americans felt that the US was obligated to aid France in her European wars. In addition, there was enough in the way of international trade that both French and British Naval attacks on American shipping were a big deal in the late 18th century and early 19th century.

The Industrial Revolution changed everything. America needed access to goods and raw materials from overseas.

Right -- before then, it was completely self-sufficient!

We traded with members of foreign alliances and their Third World colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

As "we" had in years past!

The pressure for binding international agreements grew.

I fail to see how you have pointed out any such pressure.

Washington and Jefferson never faced such a global economic and political environment.

No? AFAIK, there was plenty of international trade going on in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

"Foreign entangling alliances" are here to stay.

Thanks for your opinion. :)

They will certainly change and evolve along with US interests, but this country will never embrace isolationism again. We simply can't.

Unfortunately, from where I am, you have not explained how this is necessarily true. I look forward to your attempts at doing so.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

Rob said: Unfortunately, from where I am, you have not explained how this is necessarily true. I look forward to your attempts at doing so.

Good points throughout your post, but I also have to say I share your intrest in seeing how this will be explained.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos First off, the claim that "[o]nly weak [sic] Mexico and Canada shared borders with the new nation" is false. Looking at this map, the nascent United States boredered on British Canada, Spanish Louisiana, and Spanish Florida. In 1800, Spanish Louisiana became French Louisiana (until the Louisiana Purchase in 1803). Also note that Mexico did not become independent from Spain until 1821!

I claimed that Mexico and Canada never threatened US national security. That claim is true before and after those nations gained independence. It's true for Spanish Florida too. The only nation that truly threatened independent America was Britain until after the war of 1812. In national security terms, we were essentially isolated. We could afford to spurn "entangling alliances."

Quote by: Autolykos As far as your claim regarding European alliances goes, the United States' early military alliance with France was a strong point of controversy during and after the French Revolution. Many Americans felt that the US was obligated to aid France in her European wars. In addition, there was enough in the way of international trade that both French and British Naval attacks on American shipping were a big deal in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Right -- before then, it was completely self-sufficient!

Where did I ever say that America had no foreign trade and no treaties? Where did I ever use the term "self-sufficient?" I argued that our early national economy was less entwined with other nations. The major exception, which I mentioned, was the French. Washington signed a Treaty of Alliance with France to secure French assistance during the Revolutionary War. I mentioned the Battle of Yorktown. Maybe you skimmed over those comments in your rush to counter my argument. Pity.

In any case, the French and the British were the only "foreign entanglements" Washington had to worry about after the Revolution. His successors weren't so lucky. As we approached the Industrial Revolution, our national economic interests around the world grew exponentially. Our political interests followed suit along with the other imperial regimes of the 19th century--Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Russia, the Ottomans, and Japan.

The "pressure" toward "foreign entanglements" I spoke of applied to the colonization of the world and it's impact on global trade. To cite just one small example, American whaling and merchant marine fleets were visiting ports throughout Asia and the Pacific in the 19th century. They wanted access to ports and legal protection from local governments. Either America negotiated treaties with colonial powers in places like China or it ceded an extremely lucrative marine trade to the Europeans. Washington never faced that problem. Perhaps he would have rebuffed America's merchant fleets, and other vulnerable overseas business interests, and weathered the political fallout. And maybe not. We'll never know for sure.

The "pressures" continue today, only worse. Our dependence on petroleum products requires treaties, agreements, and other "entanglements" to guarentee supply at a fair price. Our business interests overseas require security from local governments or permission from the same to invite American security forces to accomplish the job. Our transportation assets, like ships and planes, need security and access to foreign ports and infrastructure. Our legal system requires assistance from foreign police agencies to track and arrest fugitives. On and on and on it goes. Our nation---no first world nation---can disentangle themselves from these international relationships and sustain its global economic interests for long. But perhaps you can show the way with an argument. How does an isolationist America compete with a world full of avid foreign entanglers?