Lordre: Commonwealth

Showing posts with label Commonwealth. Show all posts

Should Jamaica become a Republic of Reparations?

If the Jamaican people vote to become a republic, this is their right and cannot be denied. These people deserve to be a fully independent nation if it is their desire, established in a referendum.

Jamaica ‘doesn't want’ Prince William amid slavery protests. However, does pleading for reparations really begin a country on a path to greatness and independence. Others would think self-sufficiency is a better path than such dependency and the request for financial lifelines from the colonial power.

Britain can afford to pay reparations to Jamaica, and such a gift would be good for relations between the countries. However, the idea can be quite easily disputed by those of us inclined, perhaps, to overthink things.

Everyone is an injured party

Reparations for historical injustices of this type are hard to justify, and the arguments for such a thing expose themselves to compelling counterarguments. Does Jamaica want all of Britain's actions to be undone, which would include the territory's creation and population in the first place? Will Spain pay its share of reparations for the period 1509–1655 when slaves were moved there and exploited by them? The UK could argue that removing Spanish rule helped to pave the way for getting rid of slavery eventually, and can try to assign a value to this action as part of the reparations that should be deducted.

What of the indigenous people, the Arawak? Are they not a wronged party, and will they not receive their own reparations from the current majority of the population for being usurped by them? The Jamaican population were victims of history and didn't have any choice but to usurp these people, but then neither did people in the UK have any choice about being citizens of an imperial power. The indigenous people may deserve an autonomous region in a federated state, so they can properly assert any demands they might have.

The Scots make the case that they were colonised, and many Irish in Northern Ireland still consider themselves colonised by Britain. Should their taxes also help compensate Jamaica? What if the United Kingdom eventually dissolves or parts break away? If we break up as a country, is there any party left to pay the reparations? Should we all hunt down descendants of the Norman colonisers who started the pattern of conquest and exploitation back in 1066, to demand reparations from whatever personal estate they own?

Many British people are Black, and the identity of the British has profoundly changed over the centuries. Are their taxes equally going to go on reparations? If not, can others be exempt on the basis of genetics test results? Or will someone have to judge each person in some sort of test, and decide if they look or sound enough like an imperialist?

Jamaica should choose greatness

If Jamaica becomes independent, it should set itself on the path of greatness, not the path of begging. They should ask for nothing from the British, because asking just reaffirms their place as the colonised and sets them up for greater dependency. A financial lifeline to a population of victims can be cut off at any moment, and is hardly a blessing. Does Jamaica want to be vulnerable to British sanctions in the event that we decide to meddle, and does it want to rely on us and our own American masters for defence and security too?

Perhaps there is an irreconcilable contradiction between being a country created and populated by Britain as a political entity, and then accusing Britain of being at fault for woes it needs to compensate for. We are talking about a country that's value arose during British rule, and trying to ascertain what part of it was stolen by not repaying people for their labour. But if you calculate that value, is it not offset by the rest of the value (buildings, infrastructure, the financial value of having links to the British Empire, et cetera)? Much of what the British government has already given could be considered invaluable reparations already. The immeasurable value of letting the country exist at all goes beyond the value of any possible reparations. There are infinite numbers of nations that cannot gain any reparations simply because Britain did not allow them to exist, for example, all the countries the UK could have created in India rather than leaving it as one territory.

One could divide almost all of Britain's imperial wealth and splendour and all things that were derived from ill-gotten gains, and give it to every nation wronged by Britain, and every country could be accused similarly and ordered to compensate this or that country, and we would tie ourselves in knots. It is easier to have a fresh start on the basis that what is done is done, and cannot be undone.

A newly formed nation makes a clean break with the past, entering the world as a new player with a world to win, like so many others. The United States, for example, received no compensation from the British whatsoever, and yet we ended up being indebted to them for the abundance of help the United States gave us. If the United States is the master of slave Britain today, should not Jamaica approach them rather than us?

Someone being a political refugee from abroad gives them excellent qualifications to be welcomed into a new society, and equally good qualifications to have no influence over foreign policy.

A community of Cuban exiles who reside in the United States are essentially anti-communist hard line politicians who are not averse to demanding Americans be sent to war against a regime they dislike, as a result of their own family grievances. Many of those people fleeing Ukraine for Europe are likely to demand an aggressive line or even an open conflict with Russia by European countries.

If political or war refugees are allowed to hold political office, they will use it to make war speeches and basically pursue a vendetta at the expense of their adoptive country, and even their children are likely to also grow up to attempt the same.

Conflict of interest

One could argue that Cuban exiles and their descendants in the US, like Commonwealth residents present in the UK, are from territory formerly administered by the host country, and therefore we have some responsibility to listen to and act on their grievances. This argument, however, does not hold when those who were adopted are clearly putting their family interests over the interests of the adoptive country.

If someone is still loyal to the imperial power and re-joined its rule, e.g. if a Commonwealth resident is loyal to British rule, they should accept that the British know best and keep their heads down until we ask their opinion as part of an initiative launched by us, rather than claiming to know better and trying to pursue some form of authority over the British.

Let us consider another response. One could argue that indeed asylum seekers have taken their new nationality, and that it is therefore unfair of the country adopting them to point to them as different or less deserving of authority. However, the adoptees are the ones labelling themselves as different. If someone begins using their identity as a Cuban or a Jamaican to make their arguments regarding those lands, we can take it that they are giving up their new identity as American or British. They are forsaking our interests in favour of their own. They are therefore expressing conflicting loyalties, and if they have fewer rights as a result, they should have only themselves to blame.

Lobbying for revenge

It is important for a country to not be held hostage by another country or group from another country. It should be fine if the values and culture of the country change because of migration, and that some foreign sympathies arise because of it, but known individuals trying to manipulate our policy to support foreign interests should be distrusted. For this reason, foreign lobbies are inherently problematic because they call into question whether we are really allied to the other country or our representatives are merely being pressured by a hostile actor into supporting that other country.

Those who flee because they have no other homeland, and to whom we have historic or cultural obligations, should be welcome. If we have reason to think someone came to our country to advocate or lobby for a war or change to our policy regarding another country, though, then some thought should should be given to deporting them, and certainly they should not be given any kind of authority.

For those who want a moral liberal solution, rather than banning from office or deportation, a better course may simply be to examine these individuals who may advocate a foreign conflict. We should examine their loyalties with greater suspicion than we might examine others, in order to rule out a conflict of interest that causes them to secretly manipulate our country to achieve revenge against another country.

The recent mistaken launch of a missile from India into Pakistan could have had disastrous consequences, and so could a misunderstanding over Ukraine.

The longer the fighting goes on in Ukraine, the more likely it is that an incident will cause a direct exchange of fire between Russia and NATO. Ukraine and NATO's triumphalism, with additional calls mounting in the West for some sort of regime change in Moscow itself, is the reason there can be no reconciliation at the moment and the main reason people are dying.

NATO should offer something to de-escalate

NATO's perception that only the Ukrainians are in trouble, and that it can just support them as a kind of proxy, is false. NATO is too close to wage a proxy war there, and faces too much risk to itself. The longer this goes on, the more likely it is that NATO will be dragged in against its own judgment.

The demands of the Russians have not changed (they just want neutral territories on their borders, not NATO-aligned countries bristling with nuclear missiles), so the choice to use force is no more than the extension of their attempts to come to an understanding with what they see as a deaf and inflexible partner. If diplomacy begins to yield results that are more promising for Russia's security than Ukraine's ongoing loss of military capability and territory, the Russians are likely to eagerly suspend combat operations. This puts the burden squarely on the side of NATO to avoid escalation and just make enough concessions that would allow the conflict to freeze along a new contact line, but they seem to be incapable of this, blinded by a belief that Russia can be thoroughly defeated in Ukraine.

Rather than de-escalation, we see increasing calls for NATO involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. With a drone wandering over the border into the NATO zone from Ukraine, and the possibility of projectiles eventually landing inside NATO territory, like the mistaken launch from India into Pakistan, there is a serious risk of escalation.

An escalation would be more inconvenient to NATO than Russia, which is why their top leadership has been quite sure of the need to stay out. Politicians without any responsibility for the NATO response are making unwise and bullish suggestions about some moral duty to attack Russian troops, likely just to improve their standing with belligerent and jingoistic voters. Anyone whose words carry weight, and could actually result in NATO aircraft taking off to attack Russia, is quiet.

The war should be frozen

NATO enjoys significantly more security than Russia, with substantial buffer states in Eastern Europe that can, I am sorry to say, be sacrificed to protect the core NATO countries like France and Germany without turning the conflict nuclear. Russia, by comparison, has its back to the wall. If events reach a point at which nuclear weapons are exploding in Ukraine, this will present an existential threat to Russia that can only be matched by it launching nuclear strikes as far as Germany to push the threat away. The use of any NATO weaponry to target Russian territory will prompt Russian attacks on the US homeland and cause global nuclear war.

Despite attempts to portray Russia as the side that has engaged in reckless expansion, Russia's back is to the wall. NATO was safe throughout the entire Cold War, when the Russians were in the middle of Germany, and that was considered to be a nicely balanced situation. It seems that now, we are so expectant of total domination and so convinced of the idea that we "won" the Cold War, that we can't allow the Russians any kind of buffer and we have to have NATO troops parading in Moscow.

Unlike between India and Pakistan, there are real heated statements and even deranged and murderous calls appearing right now in relation to the standoff between NATO and Russia. A misread missile launch at this time could lead to nuclear bombardment, recreating the grotesque atomic horror of Hiroshima on a vastly larger scale.

The two sides should pursue every effort to freeze the conflict immediately, no matter how dissatisfying this may be to them, and go no further.

Belize is a thrall of the United Kingdom and the United States, which comes at a price to the interests of the local people. We will see local interests disregarded and the government avoiding strong action to protect them.

The anti-colonial People's United Party (PUP) ruling Belize is acquiescent, presiding over a country caught in the slavery of dependencia, being only a source of cheap exports to colonial masters and a paradise to foreign exploiters.

Eco-imperialism

There has long been sufficient cause to suspect that patronising, moralising Western-led approaches to ecology and the environment would produce new tensions along the familiar lines of class and nation. There is no doubt that such a trend was already in motion. Too many an environmentalist simply assumes that the indigenous people are inherently on their side, and that the only conflict is with the proponents of some polluting industry. This simplistic view is false.

Eco-imperialists may be as much, nay perhaps more, of a long-term hindrance to the independence and dignity of colonised people than polluting industrialists.

We see this tension illustrated in the protest over the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's quickly cancelled visit to the village of Indian Creek, addressed in the last post. That originated in the royal-backed global conservation organisation Flora and Fauna International barring villagers from subsisting on their own land.

Globalist-localist tension

Despite the environmentalist slogan to "think globally, act locally", there is an inherent conflict between these two. The international elite primarily think globally, and they purposefully obfuscate or dismiss the interests of the locals in almost every case. The local is always subordinate to the global, for them, and even the formulation of the above slogan reveals this - the global comes before the local.

It is perhaps a sense of the above problem that accounts for why the pejorative "globalist" has come into increased use by those who reject what they see as an international elite. Most of us will not think global and act local but think local and act either local or global, depending on what we can do. Whether or not noble ends can be achieved in a globalist sense should depend entirely on the consent of the local people, not on the fiat of preachy and condescending globetrotting elites.

The silencing of the local

There is a pejorative for those who put their local interests first, too: "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard). This term is typical of modern liberal expression, with its willingness to assault, denigrate, and try to eliminate the people and their sensibilities rather than seeking to represent or placate them.

Arrogant liberalism in its present form is directly contributing to an emerging eco-imperialism, by creating a sense of moral certitude and impunity that gives rise to the inconsiderate actions of organisations like the prestigious FFI. For all the talk of decolonisation in the US and the UK, the victims of colonial injustice, such as those villagers in Indian Creek, are still marginalised and it is almost impossible for us to hear their voices. A prejudiced Western-centric megaphone is now the sum of the international media, and it cares nothing for reality, only for perception.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were forced to change their plan to visit Belize, in response to a protest at the village of Indian Creek.

While those in the UK may prefer to read the story as a refutation of the monarchy, it wasn't. Villagers were more upset by the lack of coordination of the visit with their community than the idea of royals being present. What the people of the village seem to have a problem with is actually the ongoing inconsiderate and imperialistic approach taken to their land in the name of conservation - an issue the international media and liberal greenwash ministers everywhere would prefer to sidestep.

A fine example of eco-imperialism

According to a local report, the prestigious Flora and Fauna International (FFI, of which the Duke of Cambridge is a patron), "barred the villagers from using the land surrounding Indian Creek for their subsistence".

Based on the same report, Oscar Requena, Area Representative for Toledo West, seems to have responded with a pragmatic call for the villagers and the international conservation organisation to "come together", and acknowledged villagers are "in need of additional land to be able to expand and I believe the only way to work it out is that the company or the private owners that own those lands have to take those things into account."

Weak or no government intervention

Consider the difference in power between a large international organisation, of which the Duke of Cambridge is a patron (he apparently intended to pass their village on that very visit, yet kept villagers in the dark about it, hence the protest), and the villagers, whose exact views or demands have not even been published clearly anywhere. Requena undoubtedly means well, but leaving villagers to fight it out with a large international organisation and its British patrons, perhaps in a court, is unfair and can only end unfavourably for the villagers.

What is most suitable in comparable situations is the intervention of a strong and independent national government, but is that what Belize has?

The central part of the UK's identity, the constitutional monarchy, may be more beleaguered and unpopular than ever, and now it is willing to cede ground.

In an earlier post, I expressed doubt about whether removing the monarchy is likely or possible, and concluded that the population would not support this. However, they probably would not do much to stop or reverse such a change if it simply happened, either.

The point about our country being a reactionary power is more a comment on the status quo-supporting mindset of people in the UK than a good basis to judge how the future will go. Eventually, things do change. If things have changed by stealth, regardless of what wishes people expressed, Brits tend to support whatever new status quo we are up to.

Bad signs for the Crown

There are signs that the monarchy really is on a slow path into history's dustbin.

The British people would not vote to get rid of the monarchy. However, they may well do nothing about it diminishing and disappearing out of public view. For most people, there would be apathy about this.

The worst wound to the monarchy is the Prince Andrew sexual abuse scandal. Now that that this has ended in an out of court settlement, paid possibly by the Queen using taxpayer money, many see Andrew as certainly guilty. He will not regain his titles.

Rather than plough through popular objections, reassert the Crown with new images of splendour, and spend ever more lavishly on themselves, the monarchy is beginning to yield to common complaints. We see this in the promise of a "scaled back" coronation of Charles and Camilla. This concession, made for cost, is likely unprecedented, considering that each coronation in the past would have been made with increasing fanfare. It is astonishing that Charles does not see the the danger.

Has the monarchy chosen to fade away?

With monarchs, it is all or nothing, at least in the public eye. A frugal monarch who removed the diamonds from the Crown, out of humble submission to the crowd, is nothing much to respect, and the image of that monarch will be greatly diminished in many minds.

One can compare this to the way the Roman Catholic Church has slowly adjusted its doctrine with time, taking no firm stand, to accommodate modern sensibilities. Perhaps the Papacy too will begin to shed its wealth, overwhelmed at last by changing perceptions toward the privileged. In their case, too, there would come a point at which placation became capitulation and the core identity of the Roman Catholic Church was lost.

For these ancient institutions, reform eventually becomes the exit strategy from their own existence. Ironically, budging for the demands of critics and spending less lavishly actually makes it more likely that there will be calls for such institutions to be eliminated completely, as they will start to look shabbier.

Those who would have held on to these institutions for merely the image of splendour would likely be the last to leave. Were the monarchy to find itself in a position where it inhabited dull offices rather than palaces, it would not take long for these offices to be closed as well. In other words, the monarchy may gradually fade so that it is not in the hearts of the next generation or two, such that it just gets abolished and quietly buried without anyone noticing it was ever there to begin with.

Consequences less severe from slow change

The removal of the Crown should be steady rather than abrupt. Sudden abolition could have a destabilising effect in parts of the Commonwealth, creating a number of new republics that may not not know how to forge ahead. It may mean the end of the Commonwealth entirely. The effects will not be contained in the UK.

We also have the movements for independence in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Were the monarchy to diminish or disappear, these movements would grow increasingly strong and the country could dissolve into republics and federations, while Ireland may unite. In such an event, whatever the UK turns into should maintain the Westminster system of government, as the former colonies did, and maintain the palaces in their splendour as the Russians did.

As with the exit from the European Union, could Britain exit other major international organisations, in particular NATO?

Exiting NATO is considered unacceptable within British politics, and even the ex-leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn seems to have been pressured to abandon that stance before he had any chance at becoming Prime Minister, which ultimately failed anyway. Most Brits support the Alliance.

The exit process

Discussion about a country leaving NATO has mostly focused on Turkey lately, due to its policy clashes with multiple member states including Greece, France and even the US. It is noted that while the organisation has everything in place for letting countries in, there is no process for expulsion.

The process for exiting NATO voluntarily by a member state seems simple enough. It requires diplomatic correspondence with the United States, followed by a one year transition period. If the UK wanted to leave, it is an easy process.

It should be noted that the organisation's founding document (Article XIII) treats the Alliance as temporary, suggesting a 20-year duration, placing no importance in maintaining it. The Alliance, however, is now maintained by a fandom of unilateralists who see it as a marvellous superhero organisation battling against evil, evidently disappointed with the United Nations, the constraints of international law, or any grasp of reality.

The Leave Movement

The virtues of NATO for security were cited by Leave campaigners during the campaign for Brexit, as a reason the EU wasn't needed for keeping the country safe. Considering this, they aren't likely to take on the cause of exiting NATO now that they are done with the EU. In fact, Leave campaigners claimed they were helping NATO by undermining the EU, seen as a rival institution in European defence.

The Eurosceptic movement was originally not taken very seriously by opponents in the UK, but support grew, and it drew very prominent politicians who were able to attract even more interest in it. Those who want to exit NATO are not taken seriously now, but someone similar to Nigel Farage might hypothetically be able to pull it off. We know of Farage's alignment with Donald Trump, who is a sceptic of NATO, but Farage himself is a certainly a NATO fan.

However, the question remains: why exit NATO? There were numerous complaints about the EU negatively affecting people in Britain, that could be spun into a narrative of the country being subverted and undermined by a foreign yoke. This helped to stimulate Brexit. However, there is no such tale be told about NATO. We maintain a nuclear arsenal as a country and are a major military player and ally of the US. Simply exiting NATO would not affect those stances or make us less of a target for a hypothetical aggressor, and in fact may make us more vulnerable, because NATO membership could be helping to deter some forms of attack.

No point

The main thing to consider about another Brexit, this time from NATO, is that there is no point. There are significant perks of membership, no consequences or expulsion process for failing to meet one's commitments, and less spending on defence is necessary when compared to being an independent military power.

A country should remain within NATO even if it regards the alliance with scorn and has no intentions of coming to anyone's aid. Everything is on offer that could encourage you to stay, even if you don't want to.

The core of NATO

In the case of Britain, no political conversation needs to be had about NATO. The very nucleus of NATO is the coalition, or Special Relationship, of our country with America. That's really how NATO started.

One could withdraw from NATO as a snub to Atlanticists and pro-American warmongers within British politics, but why? They would not be going anywhere. Their lifelong cradling and nursing of Americans and love of their culture would not be forgotten by these idolaters, if they simply walk out of the NATO door. If anything, we would see even more aggressive stances taken in support of American foreign policy, and without a formal framework to create some restraint, by those who worship the Americans.

The only way to break it

The British-American alliance exists independently of NATO and is reinforced by extensive cooperation between both countries' armed forces. In addition, the cultural and linguistic connection is essential to the Special Relationship. The foreign policy thought and practice of the two countries are entirely intertwined and inseparable, with British diplomats and jurists more devoted to justifying American actions than their own.

To break these things would be a multigenerational process, but it could be inevitable. An increasing and potentially politically decisive Muslim minority in Britain is likely to favour disengagement from aggressive American foreign policy, considering the catastrophe it brought their fellow Muslims.

Absent the long way described above, there are only two ways the British-American coalition could be eliminated quickly: (1) a major historic dispute or incident making the British realise the Americans are traitorous, offensive and unworthy as allies and resulting in numerous condemnations being uttered by British politicians, and (2) the final depreciation and end of the British Armed Forces (possibly aided by Scottish independence or further breakup of the UK) at which point the Americans themselves no longer call on us to aid them or find us to be worthy allies.

How to be an anti-NATO Brit

NATO is inessential and possibly results in a confused course, steering British military power away from the country's national interests and into unnecessary conflicts started by Americans. It diminishes Britain's interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth of Nations, where we have actual moral debts, cultural ties, and civilisational commitments. There are valid reasons to abandon the Atlanticist obsession.

As valid as the above criticism of NATO may be, it is never a good idea to just swim against the tide of popular opinion, no matter how dull or foolish such opinion may seem. One must instead only give lacklustre support to NATO, and show a lack of enthusiasm towards it.

The best role one can take as an opponent of what NATO represents in the UK, whether simply trying to convince people or seeking political office, would be to mention NATO as a good and stable thing when talking of foreign policy. Mentioning continued NATO commitments is an effective way of throwing a bone to the Atlanticists without actually doing anything.

Membership of NATO can be cited when trying to cut defence spending, as well, since we can point to collective defence and the many buffer states between us and any adversary. One might consider asking the Americans to reform NATO. We could request to reduce the 2% of GDP required to go to defence, asking instead to spend 1% due our lack of proximity to an adversary, and see how the US deals with that. Or we could just reduce spending anyway, since the organisation has no expulsion process or sanctions mechanism to punish the UK with. The UK has no adjacent adversary and is surrounded by allies or neutral parties, making internal policing far more important than force projection abroad.

Barbados has ditched the Queen as head of state based on a parliamentary vote, but this change likely does not reflect the wishes of the population.

According to a report, the reason Barbados did not hold a referendum on the issue of head of state is because the population would have rejected the change. The parliament sidestepped asking the population, knowing the population would vote against them.

There was good reason to think the people of Barbados would not accept removing the Queen as head of state. When the question was posed to Australia, Tuvalu and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, these countries all voted by a majority to retain their current system.

Sometimes, specific parts of a territory even want to stay under the colonial vestiges and it is right to let them stay as long as the populations still wish. This is the case with British Overseas Territories and French overseas departments such as Mayotte, which dissented from the Comoros when it gained independence and remained French.

Barbados as an unnecessary republic

If you compare Barbados with the way countries became healthy republics, there is a difference. Republics became republics as a founding act in their country's history and it defined their national identity, often alongside adopting a state religion. Such was the case with Pakistan, for example, where being a republic was a necessary part of the constitution. The prime historical example of France became a republic as it transitioned into a nation-state rather than a fief.

Barbados was already a democracy and an independent nation with an established and stable identity in 1966. The head of state was just a vestige, only important when it comes to the perception of authority, perhaps compelling the politicians to act as servants to the nation and not masters. There seemed to be a reason for it.

What happened only seems superficially good at this moment, through a simplistic anti-colonial lens. Without that rosy factor, or had this change been anything else of a similar significance, such as adopting a state religion or a new monarch, it would have elicited outrage.

Power votes for power

Those who organised the vote, the representatives in parliament, want to be perceived to have more authority and to be masters of the nation and its identity. Their vote was about themselves, not the population. One hundred percent of them voted for themselves to have more authority, which should surprise no-one.

It was only natural that the normal population would not get any say in the matter. Most of the time, ordinary citizens don't sympathise with power-hungry politicians and tend to block their aspirations.

If anything, sidestepping a referendum on an issue concerning identity and the definition of the authority in their land is a cause for Barbadians to be a bit worried rather than happy. What other kind of power will these politicians vote for themselves to have, in future? We can only hope that they are well-intentioned and do not vote for unlimited terms in office and bans on criticism of their majestic authority.

If you put the question to politicians about whether they would like more power and authority, they are prone to say yes. Instead, a referendum should have been held in Barbados.

Perceptions of World War Two still guide many a thought about how to wage war. Many see the Allies as a supreme example to follow to achieve victory, apparently forgetting that the Allies spent the start of the Second World War being picked off and defeated one at a time.

The newest big military alliance that seems to be under construction is the one against Iran in the Persian Gulf, with Israel cooperating more openly with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in the area. It is unlikely that such cooperation would offset the kind of damage Iran is able to do against any specific target in that area such as a ship, naval base or oil facility if it actually goes on the offensive. So, what's the point?

Forming an alliance is the first thing to do if you are scared of taking a lot of damage from an adversary, and would prefer the damage to be more spread out across your broad coalition. If casualties are spread out between different member states of NATO in Afghanistan, for example, each country can brag that it lost very few soldiers while defeating many Taliban. But how does it look when your massive 30-nation alliance gets defeated by a small guerrilla organisation in one country?

Lack of commitment or willingness to fight alone

Another example of an alliance proving absolutely ineffective is the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. The coalition of Arab armies is not only failing to crush a rebellion in the country but running away, surrendering ground to low-tech rebels.

The problem is that alliances are usually formed to cover up weakness in the first place, and that weakness still exists in them. Alliances often lack commitment, and indeed they are formed in the first place by members who lacked the commitment to fight alone and sought an easier path.

Your military alliance helps the enemy target you

For example, when World War Two began, Germany achieved a massive winning streak against the Allies by simply targeting them one at a time. Allies form their alliance because they feel stronger at the thought of standing shoulder to shoulder with others against an adversary, like some propaganda poster emblazoned with slogans of strength in unity, but practical reality often doesn't work out that way. Often, it works out more like a hit list for the opponent, who now knows who to bump off when he sees them alone in some dark alley.

When the Germans formed their own mighty alliance to attack the Soviet Union, the USSR played the same game the Germans had played, targeting the weaker members of the Axis alliance on the frontline as a means of flanking the Germans. Were it not for the Germans' desire for a mighty coalition, and their false sense of security in that coalition, Soviet victory at Stalingrad may have been unattainable. The Soviets needed no allies to turn the tide in that battle, but the Germans failed because of their allies.

A domino effect

It is worthy of mention that NATO's Asian counterpart, SEATO, dissolved almost immediately after America lost the Vietnam War, proving that all it takes to destroy such a military alliance is to destroy one party protected by the alliance. Since an alliance often involves weak members and thoughtlessly adds members to its ranks, including pitiful ones, defeating an alliance member becomes so easy that the alliance's existence is more of a boon to the opponent than a threat. This is why NATO would not add the feeble Afghan regime or any other especially weak government to its alliance, since it might tie the fate of the alliance to that one regime, as was the case with South Vietnam.

In a military coalition, one member is always more vulnerable than another, and another is more vulnerable following the fall of that first one. As such, alliances often fall like dominoes. Unless their individual members are mighty and committed enough to go it alone and take all the casualties for a significant amount of time (like the British Commonwealth, followed by the Soviet Union, in World War Two) a military alliance means little against a strong peer opponent.

In their worst form, alliances are just propaganda, a false parade of flags to lift the spirits of a fool, good for enticing you to go to war in the first place but not for helping you win.

Pages