Make Up Or Break Up? -- America And Her Allies
By Peter and Helen Evans (07/06/03)
Is it time for international divorce court or can we still repair our aging marriage over a nice, candlelit French dinner? Panelists at a recent Heritage Foundation presentation suggest that there might be a third way to carry on our "foreign affairs."
Operation Iraqi Freedom brought up some uncomfortable differences of opinion with our Allies. One squabble followed another; we just couldn't see eye to eye. Finally, there was some screaming and yelling and we went our separate ways. It seemed as though they just didn't understand us anymore. Sounds silly doesn't it, but that's basically what some people are bemoaning about our relationship with our "Allies". Opinions range from, "It's just a bump in the road and we'll make up" to, "It's time to part for good."
Let's get some things straight. Alliances are like business agreements; they are not vows to live together forever. The last time you had someone paint your house, we bet you didn't invite them in for dinner, too. No; they painted; you paid; everyone moved on. That's what allied agreements are... business. Each partner benefits from some defined action of the other.
Most of the concern is with the countries of the European Union. Our allied agreements with them were strongest when the Russian Bear was at their door. America and Canada and the free countries of Europe banded together in a multi-lateral alliance called NATO to counter the Soviet threat. During the Heritage event, it was suggested that, even during the 1950's, Europe and America experienced many, many differences of opinion; yet the common threat to our survival overshadowed all of these comparatively mild differences.
Then, in the late 1980's, the Soviet threat collapsed, and what happened? The old, repressed differences surfaced again. It's an intellectual pastime of one of the panelists to keep a running account of the differences of opinion between us; anything from how many hours in a work week, to belief in God. Current tally - 73 points! That's alot of differences to deal with. In other words, we never did get along.
Another trouble spot is East Asia. Our difficulties there are of a somewhat different sort. One main difference from Europe is that we work one-on-one with the various countries in this part of the world. For instance, even though Japan and South Korea still don't get along with each other, because we have bi-lateral agreements with each separately, we can call both "Allies."
Ah, but you say our relationship with South Korea is in trouble. Yes, this is another trouble spot we are responsible for. When you foster freedom and democracy catches on, people debate, people rant, people want to express their own opinions and make them known. With 60 new democracies in the world since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it's no wonder we're hearing more and more voices and more and more different ideas. Foreign affairs sure were alot simpler when we only had to deal with a few familiar tyrants.
So what was the consensus of the panel?
1. Stop thinking that alliances should last forever. They will change as needs, threats and priorities for each nation changes.
2. We should be looking for flexible, bi-lateral agreements rather than rigid, multi-lateral alliances. In the words of one panelist, "we should cherry-pick in Europe."
Our conclusion is that we don't need to feel obligated to remain in an increasingly unhappy marriage arranged for us by our Cold War parents, but we don't need to ignore anyone, either. Our best chance for fulfillment (and fun) is to let the rest of the world know what we stand for and that we will be glad to relate to them as grown-ups, as consenting adults. Even in our everyday lives, it's just common-sense advice.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Peter and Helen Evans
