Open or closed alliance: which is preferable for Canada?

[Machjo]

Should Canada enter into open alliances which any contry can join, with the sole obligation being to destroy any government that violates another country's borders; or should it maintain closed alliances to which not any country can join?

Which do you think would be preferable?

 

[Tyr]

Canada's geography and lack of economic "punch" would dictate that it needs a loose alliance with other democratically elected countries.

That being said, it would be difficult to find a "true democracy". So we will have to pick and choose.

A loose (open) alliance with would be preferable and close geographic proximity would make the most sense.

Russia, Denmark and the USA would be optimal for geographic reasons and for historic reasons, the United Kingdom and France.

We could "tier" them in degrees of mutal defence.

Ist Tier
Russia
United States

2nd Tier
UK
France

3rd Tier
Denmark

Do we need to be in NATO? Not really (what is NATO these days other than a USA lapdog).

Who is the most immediate and/or long term threat to Canada. I can only think of the USA for geographic and economic reasons and to steal a line from The Godfather II

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer"

 

[MHz]

Why not work within the framework of things already in existence. The UN would be much more effective if the 5 who hold veto power were prohibited from voting on any issue. They would be the enforcers of resolutions that the world (minus the 5) decides on. So if a country was found guilty of human rights abuses (or invasion) then that UN body would decide who gets to clean the mess up. ie sending in Russia or China instead of one of the others who might have a friendly alliance with the one in violation.
If one of the 5 goes rouge then a world-wide boycott for all products and services that the world presently supplies.

 

[Tyr]

Why not work within the framework of things already in existence. The UN would be much more effective if the 5 who hold veto power were prohibited from voting on any issue. They would be the enforcers of resolutions that the world (minus the 5) decides on. So if a country was found guilty of human rights abuses (or invasion) then that UN body would decide who gets to clean the mess up. ie sending in Russia or China instead of one of the others who might have a friendly alliance with the one in violation.
If one of the 5 goes rouge then a world-wide boycott for all products and services that the world presently supplies.

True enough. The "veto" power has always been an albatross to the UN and blatantly abused by those that have it

 

[Machjo]

Why not work within the framework of things already in existence. The UN would be much more effective if the 5 who hold veto power were prohibited from voting on any issue. They would be the enforcers of resolutions that the world (minus the 5) decides on. So if a country was found guilty of human rights abuses (or invasion) then that UN body would decide who gets to clean the mess up. ie sending in Russia or China instead of one of the others who might have a friendly alliance with the one in violation.
If one of the 5 goes rouge then a world-wide boycott for all products and services that the world presently supplies.

But those 5 countries could object that they have to carry an unfair share of military defense. One way to work around that would be for the UN to create a force of its own, with each country having to pitch in the same percentage of its GDP. One possible framework could start with:

1. A force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men at any given time.
2. A mandate to destroy any government that should violate international law while always respecting international law itself.

This way its mandate is quite conservative, thus ensuring that it will not engage in any war without the full backing of international law, and thus reduce opposition to itself. A limited force would also prevent it from making other countries feel excessively threatened; if it needs back up, it could always establish alliances as needs be. And the fact that all countries would be pitching in financially would eliminate criticism of some countries carrying an unfair burden.

 

[Machjo]

The veto power is an archaic remnant of the Cold War. The UN needs an overhaul.

 

[Tyr]

But those 5 countries could object that they have to carry an unfair share of military defense. One way to work around that would be for the UN to create a force of its own, with each country having to pitch in the same percentage of its GDP. One possible framework could start with:

1. A force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men at any given time.
2. A mandate to destroy any government that should violate international law while always respecting international law itself.

This way its mandate is quite conservative, thus ensuring that it will not engage in any war without the full backing of international law, and thus reduce opposition to itself. A limited force would also prevent it from making other countries feel excessively threatened; if it needs back up, it could always establish alliances as needs be. And the fact that all countries would be pitching in financially would eliminate criticism of some countries carrying an unfair burden.

1. A force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men at any given time.

The UN cannot even get member states to pay their fees. What do you think a 100,000 man army would cost to feed/euip/train/house/deploy/yr... about a half a trillion dollars

 

[L Gilbert]

Why need an alliance at all? One has friends or one doesn't. A neighbor needs help, then help if you wish.

 

[Machjo]

1. A force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men at any given time.

The UN cannot even get member states to pay their fees. What do you think a 100,000 man army would cost to feed/euip/train/house/deploy/yr... about a half a trillion dollars

You might be right, but it would still be worth a try. It could save many countries a lot of money, as it would certainly be cheaper for many countries to pitch in for a common miitary force than to have them trying to maintain each their own force. In fact, this might kill two birds with one stone. Since countries could save money by joining such a force, many might do so, and the money saved from this could then be redirected at fuding the common force and leave them some money left over to pay their dues.

Though it might not work, it's not really fair to not even give it a chance.

 

[Tyr]

You might be right, but it would still be worth a try. It could save many countries a lot of money, as it would certainly be cheaper for many countries to pitch in for a common miitary force than to have them trying to maintain each their own force. In fact, this might kill two birds with one stone. Since countries could save money by joining such a force, many might do so, and the money saved from this could then be redirected at fuding the common force and leave them some money left over to pay their dues.

Though it might not work, it's not really fair to not even give it a chance.

Don't get me wrong. In concept it's a fine idea. In practice... well. that's something else

 

[MHz]

But those 5 countries could object that they have to carry an unfair share of military defense. One way to work around that would be for the UN to create a force of its own, with each country having to pitch in the same percentage of its GDP. One possible framework could start with:

1. A force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men at any given time.
2. A mandate to destroy any government that should violate international law while always respecting international law itself.

This way its mandate is quite conservative, thus ensuring that it will not engage in any war without the full backing of international law, and thus reduce opposition to itself. A limited force would also prevent it from making other countries feel excessively threatened; if it needs back up, it could always establish alliances as needs be. And the fact that all countries would be pitching in financially would eliminate criticism of some countries carrying an unfair burden.

I wasn't trying to say they should pay the costs, in fact it should take a coalition of all 5 to muster up a force that 'would be enough'. Now try that thought on any of the 5. 100,000 / 5 is 20,000 a piece who are paid by the UN only while doing UN duty. The rest of the world would still be more powerful simply by the power to isolate a single country from any international trade.

 

[Machjo]

I wasn't trying to say they should pay the costs, in fact it should take a coalition of all 5 to muster up a force that 'would be enough'. Now try that thought on any of the 5. 100,000 / 5 is 20,000 a piece who are paid by the UN only while doing UN duty. The rest of the world would still be more powerful simply by the power to isolate a single country from any international trade.

20,000 x 5 does not necessarily equal 100,000 in this case. We'd be dealing with 40,000 English-speaking troops (US and UK), 20,000 French-speaking (France), 20,000 Russian-speaking (Russia),and 20,000 Mandarin-speaking (PRC). How in the world would such a force co-ordinate its efforts. If we were to have such a small force, all 100,00 of these troops must be fully integrated into one united force, which would mean the necessity of efficient communications througout the force.

If we go by your model, then we'd a much larger force than a mere 100,000 to compensate for the relative disintegration of such a force in the event that the UN would need to launch a hard-hitting large-scale operation.

 

[Machjo]

Of course we could compensate by requiring recruits to all speak language X, but that could favour certain countries and thus put other countries on edge. That's why it might make more sense, if we are indeed to have such a small force (if this is to be an international military force capable of responding worldwide, then 100,000 is small), it would be more effective if it be a new UN force, all recruits needing to know a common language that all countries can agree to to ensure that this force doesn't risk simply alligning itself to a few countries.

 

[taxslave]

I think any economic alliance is a good thing, provided of course it is fair and respected by all parties, unlike the US multis treatment of NAFTA.
As for the UN to raise an army, they already have one of bureaucrats. To have military of 100000 with UN management would require at least 500000 cuberats and hangers on plus contract advisors. Good cure for the current bout of unemployment.