For thousands of years a vast spider web has covered the world. Threads of this web link the countries of the world together. Some threads are thicker and more important than others, and some nations are more tightly woven into the web than others.
This image illustrates the global system and the international institutions and organizations that together serve to bind the world's states together. The past 60 years in particular have seen an enormous growth in the number and breadth of international institutions. Given these facts, it's no surprise that the United States' relationship to these institutions remains an important political issue.
Recently, there have been two different plans in the presidential races concerning international institutions that are worth a look. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani made a speech in London last week advocating a massive expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into new countries worldwide. On the Democratic side, John Edwards proposed the creation of a new international institution for intelligence-sharing concerning terrorism and extremism.
Mr. Giuliani's call for the expansion of NATO reflects an impetus that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Former President Bill Clinton oversaw the first major round of post-Cold War NATO expansion when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined. That round of expansion in turn facilitated NATO's 2004 expansion into the rest of Eastern Europe.
Now, while the idea itself is not new, the possibility of expanding NATO into a worldwide defense alliance is something different than seen before, and due to its seemingly beneficial nature, does not often garner extensive opposition. However, it is a dramatic mistake that could entail very serious consequences.
In Mr. Giuliani's speech, he cited five countries that he thinks should be in NATO: Israel, Singapore, India, Japan and Australia. He also says that there are undoubtedly many more that could join.
Apart from the fact that NATO would need to change its name, the expansion of the defense alliance will inevitably create more tensions throughout the world than the amount of security it will bring to the United States. Bringing in Israel would create an obvious and dramatic backlash in the Middle East and an increased perception that the United States has an agenda in lockstep with Israel's interests. I think that perception would create a net loss of security. Singapore is a semi-authoritarian country that stands in sharp contrast to the democracies currently composing NATO, whatever its economic and geographical significance. Clearly these two countries shouldn't even be considered as possibilities.
The other bad side to Mr. Giuliani's plan would be adding Australia, India and Japan to the alliance. The United States already has defense treaties with both Australia and Japan. If they formally join NATO along with India, the Chinese government may interpret this as a direct threat to its country.
In essence, the United States would be throwing a ring of military bases and anti-Chinese countries around the entire periphery of China. During the Cold War, this strategy impaired many attempts to negotiate with the Soviet Union. If this strategy is carried out today with NATO, tensions will rise and the security situation will deteriorate as China reacts to this new threat. In the end, the attempt to gain security through expanding alliances will fail, as it represents a threat to the worldwide balance of power. This will make conflict more likely, not less.
A plan that at least is less destructive than Mr. Giuliani's plan is Mr. Edwards' idea for a "Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." The basic idea here is simply to create a formal system for sharing intelligence among nations threatened by terrorism. This international institution would ensure that any threats detected by one country's intelligence apparatus would quickly reach any threatened nation that is part of CITO.
While this is a noble goal, I don't think it is particularly necessary. Intelligence agencies have been working together for decades and undoubtedly have a framework for sharing important intelligence.
Furthermore, intelligence agencies are inherently secretive organizations; some agencies will not want to share their intelligence simply because it may compromise sources or methods used to obtain it. The bottom line is that if the agencies don't agree with this idea, it seems likely to fail despite whatever legislation may be passed.
Despite the continuing importance of international institutions to the United States, the two plans recently presented to expand NATO and create an intelligence-sharing alliance don't have the right qualities for success. Mr. Giuliani's plan is like letting Rosie O'Donnell into Skull and Bones. It defeats the purpose and makes everyone mad. Mr. Edwards' plan has some good points, but is likely just election-year puffery. Hopefully, the presidential candidates can come up with something that has a little bit more staying power.
Andrew Wagner ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in history and political science.
