The Grand Alliance:?
Too Grand for America?
Brenna Michelle Taylor
September 2007
?The notion of
the global integration of democracies as set forth in “The Grand Alliance?is
an idea both extremely pertinent to the issues currently facing the international
community and fairly conventional on the grounds of alliance building.?The Grand Alliance is conventional in that,
like most alliances, it seeks to accomplish the objectives of ensuring safety,
security, and cooperation among its members through a strategy of
convergence.?What makes this alliance
different from those previously and currently entered into by the United States
is its comprehensive and overarching nature.?
It is this seemingly minor difference that may be the deciding factor as
to whether or not America will be likely to join such a grand alliance.?Given the general trepidatious nature of
American insight when it comes to joining international, multilateral
alliances, the Grand Alliance may be suspect to such US hesitance based on the
required sacrifice of sovereignty that must be conceded in order to build a
stable, efficient alliance.?Thus, the
question surrounding the notion of building this Grand Alliance is not that of
whether or not the United States would ever join, but, instead, of what
conditions must exist in order for America to join.?Based on the history of American alliances
such as NAFTA and NATO, the US must recognize the immediate and long-term
benefits of joining an alliance before even considering sacrificing any fraction
of its sovereignty.?As seen with both
NATO and NAFTA, the US is indeed capable of joining relatively stable
alliances.?However, within such
alliances, the United States has always held itself in a position of
superiority over other members, which in and of itself contradicts the very
nature of an alliance.?Thus, there is a
pressing need for change in the American mentality towards international
relations.?As the world grows smaller
and smaller as globalization takes its toll, it is becoming more important for
the US to move towards a collective management model of global governance.?
It is possible
that the US will soon find itself face to face with monstrous mega-nations such
as China. Without a stable and balanced constituency, neither America, nor
Europe for that matter, will be able to balance the ever-growing power and
might of a non-democratic China.?The
issue of China and the debate over whether or not it is accurate to consider
the country an “enemy?to the United States is a scenario worthy of its own
research paper. For the purpose of this one, however, only the broader
implications of the debate will be analyzed.?
Thus, China’s role in the issue of whether or not America is likely to
join the Grand Alliance will primarily be limited to that of a driving,
motivational factor.?Due to the
exponentially increasing economic might of China and the lack of responsibility
on the part of the government to follow and abide by the rules of a global
economy, China is becoming more and more dangerous to the interests of both
Europe and America.?In the event of an
economic implosion in China, the global market would be devastated and the
effects would be felt worldwide.?Thus, in
facing this monstrous China, a cohesive body of individual nations- beginning
with the Unites States and Europe- is needed in order to form a formidable
opponent worthy of balancing and overcoming China’s power. It should be noted that this notion of an
alliance among democracies should not be viewed as some sort of ideological
war, but rather as the common denominator between otherwise individual, divided
nations.?In the event of a
European-American convergence, it can be inferred that this would have a
magnetic effect in attracting other democratic nations such as India and Japan
to join. ?
?It is
fairly simple to logically outline the need for and effects of a Grand
Alliance, but, in reality, it is a much more complex scenario.?Unfortunately, the world is not cut and dry
in nature with an apparent “good?and “bad?side for everyone to join.?Instead, it is extremely multifaceted and
each individual nation is primarily concerned with its own security and
well-being. Thus, there are many
dissenting interests in the international arena, all of which hold equal
importance.?In studying the history of
American alliances and the manner in which the United States acts within them,
it quickly becomes evident that there is a double standard within American
mentality towards alliances.?For instance,
consider the role that America plays within the North American Free Trade
Agreement.?Having come into effect on
January 1, 1994, NAFTA is an agreement between the United States, Canada, and
Mexico that lifted most tariffs on products traded between the countries and
set out plans to gradually phase out the remaining tariffs within the following
15 years.?There have, undeniably, been
many positive effects of this agreement on all parties involved, but the
alliance does not possess the balance and stability needed to be effective in
the long run.?In short, while NAFTA is
intended to be a matrix model alliance, it actually takes the form of a star
model alliance with America at its core, only bilaterally connected to the
other parties.?Thus, the United States
seems to hold itself in a position of superiority to the other member parties,
taking it upon itself to “head?the alliance.?
This is both hypocritical and counterproductive.?How can one country in an agreement such as
this expect fair and responsible actions on the part of other members when it
does not display these qualities itself??
Furthermore, acting with this double standard will only end up hurting
the United States in the long run by crippling the cohesion and efficiency of
the alliance and eventually rendering it unable to function.
?Presently
surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement is a debate over whether or
not Mexican truckers should be allowed to cross the United States border to
transport goods to the US and Canada.?
Those who argue against this initiative argue that this will cause
American highways to become more dangerous and will reduce American jobs.?Others go on to say that the openness that
NAFTA has brought amongst the member parties is actually damaging the sovereignty
of the US.?This is exactly the mentality
that will doom any prospect that the Grand Alliance may have in coming to
fruition.?Until both the American public
and the American elite realize the fundamental importance of building fair,
balanced and stable, small-scale alliances, it is unlikely that it will embrace
the idea of entering into a grand alliance.?
What conditions must then exist for The Grand Alliance to be a feasible
option in America’s future??First and
foremost, it starts with the people.?
Although government officials are responsible for making policy
decisions, public opinion and support is what lies at the core of the
decision-making process.?As with the
current debate surrounding NAFTA, the public is only partially informed.?The average American citizen who receives his
or her worldly knowledge through the avenues of CNN and FOX News is not aware
of the day to day benefits that NAFTA brings to the US agricultural businesses,
not to mention the fact that it has accounted for 55% of US agricultural export
growth since its implementation in 1994.?
Instead, they hear about illegal immigrants and insecure borders, and
are easily swayed by policy-makers with an agenda.?Thus, the initiative towards the global
integration of democracies must start with diffusion of accurate information
amongst the American people.?
?As has been
the case since 1973, the United States has made conscious efforts to move from
a Single Management Model to a Collective Management Model in the realm of
global governance.?Such efforts,
however, have all too often proven unsuccessful.?Although the US made headway after 1973 with
the formation of the G5 and G7, this progress was stunted with the introduction
of the Reagan Administration.?Upon
entering into office, Reagan cut back on convergence and returned to a more
unilateral approach to global governance.?
Today, we find ourselves in the same predicament as 1973 in
acknowledging the need to move from a single to a collective management
approach towards global governance.?
Unfortunately, however, the US is in a much more dangerous position
today than it was thirty years ago.?In
today’s world there is the threat of rogue nations and non-governmental
extremist groups acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities, of a looming economic
disaster in the global market, of massive human rights violations throughout
the world, and of global warming and environmental catastrophe.?In a world of such uncertainty and chaos, the
only way to ensure stability for the future is to act today.?More importantly, however, it is time for
change in the way the Unites States responds on a global level.?Military action must take a back seat to
diplomacy for the time being and a shift must be made from pragmatic realism to
strategic realism to avoid the trend of minimizing the risk for today and
increasing it for tomorrow.?On the
contrary, primary focus must concentrate on the implications of today’s actions
on tomorrow’s world.
After the
attacks of 9/11, the American public is acutely more aware of US vulnerability
to a constantly shrinking world.?
Unfortunately, however, there seems to be a lack of urgency when it
comes to acknowledging the pressing need for the United States to be involved
in a strong, stable alliance.?The United
States has lost several and tested many of its allies since entering into
military action in Iraq and although this seems to be common knowledge among
the American public, there is no proceeding initiative in place to counter such
negative effects.?It is as though the
American public seems to think that the United States can act alone on the
global arena without repercussions.?
Although the US did, indeed, enjoy the position of global hegemon in the
years proceeding the Cold War, the international community and global arena
have drastically changed since then.?New
powers are emerging that pose legitimate threats to the United States, and the
Unites States is no longer big enough to repel such threats alone.?Thus, it is absolutely imperative that
America become part of something that is big enough to balance this
threat.?The first step on the path to
the Grand Alliance must be the diffusion of this information and the sense of
urgency surrounding it to the American public.?
Whether this information is diffused through the media or through the
educated elite who govern them, the message must be sent.
It is
important to focus intently on the United States?participation in the Grand
Alliance in particular because without American support, the Grand Alliance is
unlikely to be the cohesive, extensive environment that it is intended to
be.?Without the US present to help
galvanize the participation of more questionable candidates such as India,
Japan, and Russia, there is unlikely to be any reason for such nations to join. Furthermore, it is extremely important for
the United States to join a stable alliance before it finds itself isolated,
weak, and vulnerable to destruction.?The
most efficient way to go about this integration into a Grand Alliance would be
both gradual and transparent.?The United
States must learn to concede part of its ego for the greater good of forming a
stable, balanced alliance that will ensure a safe environment in an uncertain
future.?The sacrifice of a little bit of
sovereignty now is well worth having all of the democratic nations in the world
in your corner in the future. ?/span>
?/span>