How do you prevent your interests from being hijacked when in an unequal partnership? This is a question I have been thinking about recently.
For example, America will often pressure smaller and weaker allies to increase their defence spending. It does this to offset its own responsibility for the defence of those allies, but also hopes to encourage allies to take part in coalitions, thereby increasing legitimacy. Think about countries like Canada and Japan, which are highly dependent on the US security umbrella. These dependent countries do not want to spend cash on beefing up a military for the sake of US interests. They worry about entanglement in American “adventures.” They know that they can free ride on American military power to a degree, but do not want to risk abandonment by flouting American “requests.” Thus, they hedge. They react to US pressure by increasing the quality of their forces while simultaneously decreasing the quantity of forces. This satisfies American demands for increased defence spending while simultaneously negating the possibility deployment of expeditionary forces due to lack of numbers. For example, Japan has constantly been upgrading its force structure under pressure from America, but the overall number of ships and planes has been going down. Canada refused to join America in Iraq because it couldn’t spare any more than the 2500 troops it deployed Afghanistan (which has “broken” our army). This is an interesting strategy that maintains alliances without forfeiting foreign and military policy.
I know there must be reams of work done on this sort of thing out there, and I think I remember an example of an ally of Rome doing a similar thing so if anyone has any thoughts or sources to share, please leave them in the comments.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « “The World’s Stupidest War”
- » Uncanny!
COMMENTS / 8 COMMENTS
Curzon added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 1:47 am“I know there must be reams of work done on this sort of thing out there, and I think I remember an example of an ally of Rome doing a similar thing so if anyone has any thoughts or sources to share, please leave them in the comments.”
Sure. Plenty of Roman allies in Italy, southern Gaul, Spain, the Greek city states, and even Egypt tried alliances in some way or form for a while. It temporarily worked, but all eventually became vassals and were swallowed or conquered, becoming officially administrated Roman territories. It’s also interesting to note that token alliances from neighboring weak states were eventually abandoned in favor of mercenaries.
Arcane added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 2:58 amCanada is also required by NATO to dedicate at least 2% of GDP to military spending, which they’re not doing, so that’s one reason we’re pressuring them to increase spending. Right now only four NATO countries are doing this: France, Britain, Bulgaria, and Romania. See here:
http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?article=128Also, I think the whole “quality vs quantity” argument you’re citing is bogus and this is the first place I’ve seen it. The Canadians have had a very high quality of training for decades and have always performed well next to American or British troops. One argument you’ve ignored is that while the quantity of Canadian troops have declined as a result of spending cuts, Canada’s military industrial base has declined significantly due to the same cuts and their military is being forced to use equipment so antiquated that combined force operations with the United States are becoming more and more difficult to do. To a large extent, you can find the United States supplying Canada and its European allies with newer, high-tech equipment at the USA’s expense because the EU and Canada simply won’t spend the money to modernize. It’s a shame.
IJ added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 1:26 pmWhat are the public interests nowadays?
Energy security is one of the dynamics now driving the US military. In fact last year the US tried to convince other members of NATO to use their collective military force to protect the energy needs of alliance countries. However few were interested, making their own arrangements with suppliers; NATO member Turkey, for example, is trading for Iranian energy against the wishes of the US, an example that could tempt more countries to follow suit.
Moreover the alliance is being challenged in Asia by the CSTO. Will NATO fall apart, resulting in the US teaming up with China, militarily, for energy security – as China wants to encourage?
Younghusband added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 5:50 pm@Arcane Good point on Canada. I agree that Canada is a bad example for the title argument of this post, but I think it stands as a good example of strategic force use to avoid entanglement.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 7:06 pmYH: not to distract from the main argument of the post again, but is it really correct to say that Canada did not participate in Iraq because its army was too stretched? It could have sent a token force, but did not.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 7:20 pmBut otherwise, good point about hedging. The beefed-up Canadian presence in Afghanistan could be partly seen as “payment” for not particpating in Iraq. Conversely, I have read an argument that Australia’s particpatory stance has much to do with its distance from the natural US security umbrella. It needs to keep reminding the US that it is there and is an important ally. This prompted Gwynne Dyer to write: “Australian defence policy consists primarily of sending Australian troops to every American war, in the hope that if one day Australia needs to have the favour returned, Americans will feel grateful enough to come and help. If the United States invaded Mars,
Australia would send a battalion along.” – despite the rhetorical tone, I read this not as an insult to Australia by the way, but a simple reflection of the geopolitics involved.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 22 Nov 07 at 7:35 pm@vKT Yes, that was the rationale used to justify not sending troops to Iraq, a decision the PM is proud of to this day. It could have sent a token force but already had guys dying in Afghanistan, why have more die for the US in Iraq?
Obviously these nations have to “remind” the US that they are there for geopolitical reasons. Take Poland for example, which has absolutely no interest in Iraq except for what it gets from the US for being there. The problem is if you align your foreign policy too close to the bigger partner you risk not having an FP of your own. Thus Canada opted out of Iraq, saying it didn’t have enough troops to spare, but reminding them we are fighting “shoulder to shoulder” in the ‘Ghan, which has brought enough benefits in itself.
There are a lot of pundits in Canada (Granatstein, Bland) that say we should align even closer to the US. Some think we need to separate more. The current PM would probably have sent troops to Iraq. It is a tricky balancing act when you are in an unequal partnership (ie. we depend on the US more than they depend on us).
A.E. added these pithy words on 23 Nov 07 at 10:39 amThis article also has some useful information on the subject
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
