Thursday, November 5, 2015

Friends Matter

Sergio A. Lopez
Professor Muck
PSC 222
5 November 2015
Friends Matter
            The modern international community relies on the continued respect for and forging of alliances. Having other nations as allies gives an individual country more influence, as it creates the perception of strength. Not only does a nation look stronger to the rest of the world, but domestically people feel more comfortable, more protected. Times of peace are dependent on the cooperation between alliances, and the continued relationships within those alliances. The United States is not unique in this matter, as its success also relies on the support of the international community. The foreign policy of every nation, including one as powerful as the United States, is a reflection of the goals of the individual state, but also includes—or at least considers—the agenda of allied countries.
            Forming alliances is hardly just a matter of public perception, however; it has become a game of strategy. It would not make much sense for two countries with a large variance in ideology to become allies, as there would be conceivably far too many risks for conflict. In the case between the United States and Israel, for example, there are far more differences between the nations than there are similarities. Justification for this strategic alliance came with the formation of a democratic government in the state of Israel, a relatively rare form of governance in the region. The relationship, however, has proven to be disproportionately favorable to Israel and possibly even detrimental to the credibility of the United States. American foreign policy in the Middle East has largely focused on the defense of Israel, which has previously meant challenging the strength of its neighboring countries. It has become, then, increasingly awkward for the United States to publicly support Israel, as it seems there is nothing profitable on their end of the partnership. Even still, the United States continues to support Israel and continues to remain part of this alliance because of strategy. As previously stated, public perception is important for the success of any nation, and is something that a democratic nation must take into consideration when drafting any sort of policy, foreign or domestic. Specific to the case between the United States and Israel, it is important to know that there are millions of people in the United States who feel very strongly about a sustaining a positive relationship with Israel (mainly for religious reasons). In short, the numerous amount of supporters in favor of keeping an alliance with Israel has led to the formation of one of the most influential interest groups in the United States, known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Powerful groups such as AIPAC force the United States to adjust its political agenda, both domestic and foreign. The reason for this is because legislators ultimately seek reelection, and having powerful super packs fund an opposing campaign threatens a representatives chances of winning reelection.
            Perhaps the largest global measure taken to promote cooperation between sovereign nations is the formation of the United Nations, which currently holds 193 member states[1].  The formation of this entity has reasonably been able to keep peace between member states, however it also limits maneuverability of the individual states. Member states do not usually proceed with significant foreign policy agendas without first presenting their case to the United Nations and seeking approval. Although there is no formal punishment for acting against the council of the United Nations, it does serve as a deterrent and often leaves the acting state open for scrutiny of other nations, dealing a blow to its credibility. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is also a powerful alliance in the international community. Although NATO maintains a significantly smaller amount of member states, it is similar to the United Nations in that it is meant to maintain peace between member states. Unlike the United Nations, however, NATO does maintain its own military, to which member states contribute. In the event that diplomatic resolutions fail, the organization forces contributing member states to actively engage in combat (with the amount of ground troops the country provides to the organization). The United States is a member of both organizations. When constructing an effective foreign policy agenda, the United States must keep in mind the constraints of the alliances it has become a part of. Matters that become urgent to either the UN or NATO must also become urgent for the United States, and conflicts that endanger the security of member states must also become a concern for the United States. In many ways, the formation of global alliances limits the power and maneuverability of individual states, which would ideally serve as a deterrent for states to engage in conflict, be it diplomatic or military.


Works Cited

Member States. (2011). Retrieved from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml#text





[1] (Member States, 2011)

No comments:

Post a Comment