The World Doesn’t Need a Permanent “Coalition of the Willing”
Nikolas Gvosdev wonders if a “League of Democracies” is in the future:
It will also be interesting to see whether the Obama administration will pick up on, albeit belatedly, an idea promoted by John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign—namely, the so-called League of Democracies. If the Russia-China bloc ensures a permanent veto of humanitarian intervention at the U.N., and growing splits among NATO and EU members raise the possibility that the West will not be able to speak with one voice, does it make sense to begin reaching out to individual NATO allies and designated non-NATO allies, as well as other security and trade partners around the world, to create a permanent group of states willing both to legitimate U.S. action and to make substantive contributions in support of future operations?
Gvosdev doesn’t see this happening anytime soon, but I’ll answer his question anyway. The reason that a permanent “coalition of the willing” isn’t desirable is the same reason why the original “coalition of the willing” met with so much ridicule and derision: it is a transparent attempt to provide legitimacy to actions that likely aren’t legitimate except in the eyes of the “coalition” members. If such a “coalition” is needed to make an end-run around existing international institutions, that is probably because the action in question is one that violates international law. If another major power did something like this along with a number of other states acting as accomplices, we would probably hear about how they represent a new and menacing “axis” that threatens the stability of the entire world, so it should come as no surprise that this is how the U.S. and its “willing” allies would be widely perceived if they formed a permanent “coalition of the willing.”
Organizing a “coalition of the willing” involves using a multilateral gimmick solely as a fig leaf to create the impression of broad international support for a particular policy when that support is otherwise notably lacking. Because the attempt is so transparent, and because everyone else recognizes the gimmick for what it is, the “coalition” approach doesn’t lend a policy any greater legitimacy, but opens up all of the members of the “coalition” to criticism for collaborating in a highly questionable and sometimes illegal project. While the name “coalition of the willing” is supposed to emphasize the free and voluntary nature of the enterprise, it usually just draws attention to all the reasons why so many other states remain unwilling and opposed. The name also invites mockery, since many of the members are dependents on the leading state and aren’t really in a position to refuse. If such a thing were created on a permanent basis, all of these problems would remain, and over time the U.S. would probably find itself at odds even with members of its permanent “coalition” as their electorates grow tired of participating in an organization whose main purpose by design is to rubber-stamp U.S. policies.
Comments