Allies helping allies
 

On a separate thread I said the following:

"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."

It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.

Is this a mistaken notion?

LOL

Awww really, MMM?

Anyway, my thoughts on this topic have been made fairly clear in other threads. I'll just sit back and read, for a change.

Too bad. I was curious to hear your explanation as to what is wrong with allies helping allies.

Wha-? AGAIN!?

Aight, I'll make it short and simple cause I really don't wanna engage in this conversation once again: it is WRONG if the help comes in the form of blatant violence, which happened to be the case (and still is every time the US joins in on a military takeover).

I think at some point we were talking about what if N. Korea were to invade Japan, should allies like the US send military support. In this case it would involve shooting N. Korean soldiers so they don't kill Japanese soldiers. If this isn't the definition of an ally, I don't know what is.

So precise violence is ok, but blatant is not?

How do you apply this logic to a friend (ally) that you are walking home with, who is suddenly physically attacked?

You help to kick the attacker's ass.

weapon export country vs weapon export country

catch22

Not necessarily by means of arms... you can try to help your ally disolve the problem by using diplomacy. Say if you were in a governmental position and don't agree with your ally country's actions, would you still hold this position? But yeah, I don't think it's offensive though, it's the internet.

Read closely what I wrote. If your ally is in trouble, I believe it is your responsibility to help them. That help MAY be in the form of military support or arms, but then again it may not.

I don't understand your question. Can you give an example?

France- USA in the recent (2008-9, don't remember) Israel-Liban conflict. France was considered an ally of the USA, yet the president chose not to support this conflict, because he didn't agree with the USA's actions. So would you if you were in France's president's position, still hold this stance? Would you still rush to your ally's help?

I think it depends a little situation to situation. For example, if Japan decided to invade N. Korea, I don't think France would be expected to help Japan, even if they are allies. France could even say, "We do not agree with this action of our ally." However, if N. Korea were to invade Japan, I think France, an ally of Japan, should feel responsible to help Japan in some way.

It is not a country's or an individual's responsibility to agree with one's allies all the time. However when an ally is in trouble you should help them, even if you don't always agree with them.

It's not an offensive position on its own.

But to use that as a justification for American involvement in say, the Middle East, is not really sufficient.

If you gave that answer to me on the subject of Israel for example, I would take issue with it.

the point
 

In theory, you are entirely right.

From my point of view, your example with "DPRK attacking Japan" is a bit unreal :)
Much more powerful China would be better example, IMO.

Israel is a touchy subject, and has been for centuries. How about the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? France was an ally of Iraq, but couldn't get behind this action and helped with the military response to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

My thoughts: An alliance is merely like a memorandum of understanding - basically saying they are "friends". There may be a notional duty (in honour or even under international law - but even then it's only a "contractual" duty in nature) to assist, but there can never be requirement or strict obligation to do so.

The reasoning to me is simple. Each nation possesses its own sovereignty, and must answer to its own political body (in most cases of the western world nowadays - its people). Whether assistance is ultimately rendered, must always be subject to the will of the political body - in which the sovereign powers are vested.

If there were any sort of strict compulsion to assist an ally under attack - a nation entering in to a treaty would effectively be surrendering elements of its sovereign powers to its ally - its ally could effectively declare war for the nation by antagonising whoever they want.

Just to illustrate the point, say your ally suddenly decided to endorse slavery and human trade for whatever reason - something that your own nation finds abhorrent. A neutral nation (which decides to be a defender of human rights) implements offensive measures against your ally (possibly military action or more likely economic embargos - which can be just as effective or even more devastating in some circumstances etc). Surely your own nation, answering to the ideals and wills of your own people, cannot be bound to assist in something that your nation's populace finds reprehensible?

Isreal isn't really a touchy subject.

The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey here in relation to what I said. Are you asking me whether Frances actions were justifiable? I don't know.

Iraq annexing Kuwait was only a big deal because it went against US interests. The USA had no problem funding Saddam while he was commiting atrocities against his own people. Let's not forget that the USA was Iraq's ally too.

For me helping an ally is like this. If I'm allied with a naion and they are agreeively attacked by someone else for no reason, or a flimsy reason. I come to thier aid cause hey, you mess with my friends, you mess with me. However, it doesn't mean I have to help an ally if they are being a jerk to someone simply because they think I will help them.


Ronin4hire, I disagree about Isreal. Isreal doesn't marginalize anyone, they do what they have to to survive because said "group" would kill every Jew in the area if they had the chance. That's just how it is. It's like liveing in a country where a third of the population not only hates your guts but want you dead, your family dead, your pet dog dead.

No, of course not. Allies become enemies and vice-versa pretty consistently through history. If an ally acts in a way a country's people find abhorrent, then it is time to make some hard decisions.

Touchy, sensitive, evokes strong emotions, whatever we want to call it, I am not going there here.

What I am saying is, and ally is an ally and if they are in the right you come to their aid. If they are in the wrong, then you may want to rethink how good an idea being their ally is, as both the US and France did.

Well I just did so you don't need to worry.

I'll say it again.

The USA supports a state that systematically marginalises and oppresses a significant population.

Sure.. but your original statement doesn't say anything like that.

And I think your narrative of history isn't correct. The US and France didn't decide Iraq were in the wrong. They decided Iraq were no longer acting in their interests.

If Kuwait weren't in control of as much oil as they were I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have lifted a finger.

That was really more of an extreme example, to illustrate the problems with an idea that an alliance places any kind of strict requirement on a nation to act in anyway. The real point is that whatever a country does must depend on what is in their nation's interests.

So even in a scenario where their ally is attacked, and they agree with the ally, it would be quite proper for them to refuse to provide any aid outside diplomatic support - for example if their own economy was sufferng an economic depression and can't afford millitary or economic aid - and the nation's populace consider that domestic problems are higher priority.

At the end of the day, nations will and must always act in their independent national interests. Alliance treaties serve to promote co-operation (usually economic) in times of peace, and in times of war, provide a casus belli to join the fight if the nation wants to anyway.

To be clear, my original statement did not address an issue when an ally acts in a way you don't agree with. That's different than "needing help".

The world condemned Iraq for its actions in Kuwait. There were over 30 countries working together militarily to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. But it is a situation where one country invaded another with unprovoked, and the world responded first with attempts at diplomacy, and then force. Allies working together to right a wrong.

I think your examples are a little extreme here as well. If Japan were invaded by N. Korea next week, France would have a hard time, I think, saying, "We tried to talk to them. They didn't listen. Good luck!" That would be especially if other allies were rallying to help.

I see your point, so my point doesn't stand. My bad. Anyway, but I think that an ally can be in need of your help even if you don't agree with their actions, though. And if you really depend on them, you are forced to help even if you don't want. (I.E France VS USA, Canada and USA)

Don't be so naive.

Allies working together to promote their interests more like.

Where was the world during the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur?

Did you read the part where I said: I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. ?

Not really. What I'm saying is that nations will do what is best in their national interest, regardless of alliance treaties - usually they go along with it because it is in their national interest. In your example, France will only have a "hard" time because not going along with your "friends" obviously has adverse consequences - other things remaining equal. But if there were in France, currently more pressing concerns, these consequences (e.g. deterioration in international standing and reduced potential for future economic partnerships) may become secondary. It's all a balancing exercise. If they were currently faced with projected financial deficits for the next five decades and uncontrolled domestic riots or something then I can't see France committing any serious resources to a war effort on the other side of the globe.

Kuwait was for oil of course and world markets. That's a no brainer. Rwanda and Durfar have nothing to offer anyone but headaches. The US learned that when it tried helping Somalia.

I think we are saying the same thing, but in different ways. Yes, oftentimes helping your allies IS in your national interest. In the most recent Iraq War it was VERY unpopular among citizens in Japan and Australia for their countries' forces to participate. But they did anyway.

No country would send so much help it would put the country in debt for five decades. I think Australia sent 8000 troops. Japan sent non-combat support. I agree, there is a balance struck, but still that commitment to help, even tiny, is maintained.

Although I think, even that tiny commitment is also due to national interest - not from some ultruistic motive, comradership or obligation under any treaty. Had Australia not been so influenced by the US as a primary trade partner, and maybe some perception from our government that Iraq was of some real threat to national security, I highly doubt even those 8000 troops would have have been sent.

You are going back to my original point. As was stated earlier, if you are walking down the street with your friend, and he gets attacked, what do you do? You fight back. If you don't help your friend, you will likely lose him as a friend. Friends help each other out. It's not about altruism... that is part of the relationship.

Not exactly. We've been using the term "friend" to describe an ally a bit here, but that's not entirely correct. If my friend were attacked, I'd help simply on emotional grounds or some sense of comradeship - without expecting anything in return. If I were running a nation, and there was no net benefit to my people (e.g. an expectation that if my nation gets attacked my ally would be willing and able to help my nation, and that the benefit of this outweighs the costs/reasons for not helping), then I wouldn't offer help. And even if there is a net benefit to justify the assistance, the level of assistance will be in line with the expected net benefits. Hence, there is no real "obligation" to help just because they are our allies.

The point of having an ally is essentially, to know you are not floating alone in the ocean. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine. You need some help, I'll do what I can. I need some help, you got my back.

If Japan is being invaded, and asks for France's help, and France declines to help them for no other reason than there is no profit in it for them, then France would be lambasted by all it's other allies. The relationship is a commitment and a promise. If you are allies you are supposed to have a degree of camaraderie, or else it is meaningless.

Well France would not decline simply because there is no benefit, only if there is no net profit which factors into account the consequences of the lash back from other allies. Alliances only work when there is mutual gain in pursuit of that alliance. Once a party feels there is nothing to gain, it is as you say, meaningless, and not worth pursuing.

Anyway, I think your actual position is somewhat different to a strict interpretation of the words in your original post - which is probably why there's a bit of comment on it.


I think the comment people are making is that the commitment to allies is not unqualified.

I never stated in my original post that an alliance didn't have qualifications and mutual benefits.

This is the same as a friendship in many ways, or just relationships in general. It must be a two-way street. We see this in marriage. When it becomes a one-way street, and one party abuses the relationship or one party stops redeeming any benefit from the partnership, it is dissolved. This is nothing new.

However, when the relationship is good it is expected that the parties will work to help each other when needed. This is the point: the relationship ITSELF is mutually beneficial, until it isn't.

I grow corn. You grow wheat. I don't want to just eat corn, just as you don't want to just eat bread. I give you corn and you give me wheat. Not only can I now eat corn AND bread, but I can also make cornbread. And so can you. The sum is greater than the parts.

I honestley find myself confused.

Both sides make compelling arguments.

History also shows our mistakes

YouTube - Blackadder - How did the war start? (eng sub)

but despite it all I must admit I still lean toward allies...not so much the making of conflict but if it comes to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with them!

Yeah I read it. I'm disputing the idea that any of it was done for humanitarian reasons.

You sort of seem to think that it was part "doing the right thing" and part self-interest.

But again.... in your defence I don't think what you originally said was that controversial. It is just lacking in some contexts. That's all.

Not sure about you, on face value, this sounds very unqualified to me!

Making alliances is like entering into commercial contracts. There is no "real" duty or requirement (despite a so called "legal obligation") to fulfill the terms - you just have to weigh up which more beneficial - paying the cost of breaching the contract (including reputational cost) and taking up some other opportunity; or sticking with the terms of the contract and forgoing an alternative opportunity.

Treaties and alliances is why ww1 became such a blood bath. Once one nation got into it, everyone else allied with one side or other got draged into it as well. The US used to have a saying, "free trade with everyone, treaties with no one." They need to go back to that. Trade with every nation, cause trade is all we want. Don't make treaties with anyone, cause we don't want to get draged into thier personal problems, we just want thier trade goods.