How does the US benefit by having a mutual defense pact with the Phillippines? The answer, of course, is that there's more to it than just mutual defense. There's trade, cultural and political influence, and other such non-military matters.
That's what I meant, however my concern still is, that some countries wouldn't be attractive enough to team up with. Maybe I'm just being paranoid here, but I'm still not convinced.
Don't get me wrong here. I think that UNSEC is seriously flawed (well, pretty much useless in its current form), but I'm afraid, that a scenario like the one you describe will leave some of the weaker nations for "vicious" nations/alliances to prey on. But of course, that wouldn't be any different from the situation now, oh well...
I'm too tired to think now; got to get some sleep. Besides... the ideal solution to the problem probably only exists in my dreams anyway;-)
There are two questions implicit in there. The first is, "Why is the UN unsuitable for solving regional disputes?" The second is, "Would a superpower be any more suitable?"
Actually I didn't mean to imply the first, but thanks for the thorough answer anyway.
Each of those superpowers, which is relatively free and relatively democratic [...] extends a sphere of influence through mutual defense pacts and so on.
How would a superpower benefit from having a mutual defence pact with a small country? Take my country, Denmark, as an example: we have no significant military power so our part in such a mutual pact would have to be something else than military might, no? (sure, Denmark is one of the few countries that actively participate in the war in Iraq, but our contribution must seem like a joke to the coalition: one submarine and a corvette that probably wouldn't qualify as tender to the smallest US vessel).
Even so, Denmark is fairly rich and we'd probably be able to make some kind of defence pact and lean back, but what about a poor country or a politically delicate matter, such as Taiwan?
Rogue State X contemplates sending its tanks across the border to invade Nation Y, which enjoys a mutual defense pact with one or more of the community of superpowers. Do you think Rogue State X would be that eager to commit an act of aggression?
What I'm afraid of is, that Rogue State X would instead direct their aggression towards Nation Z which can't afford to be part of a defence pact.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I meant, however my concern still is, that some countries wouldn't be attractive enough to team up with. Maybe I'm just being paranoid here, but I'm still not convinced.
Don't get me wrong here. I think that UNSEC is seriously flawed (well, pretty much useless in its current form), but I'm afraid, that a scenario like the one you describe will leave some of the weaker nations for "vicious" nations/alliances to prey on. But of course, that wouldn't be any different from the situation now, oh well...
I'm too tired to think now; got to get some sleep. Besides... the ideal solution to the problem probably only exists in my dreams anyway ;-)
How would a superpower benefit from having a mutual defence pact with a small country? Take my country, Denmark, as an example: we have no significant military power so our part in such a mutual pact would have to be something else than military might, no? (sure, Denmark is one of the few countries that actively participate in the war in Iraq, but our contribution must seem like a joke to the coalition: one submarine and a corvette that probably wouldn't qualify as tender to the smallest US vessel).
Even so, Denmark is fairly rich and we'd probably be able to make some kind of defence pact and lean back, but what about a poor country or a politically delicate matter, such as Taiwan?
What I'm afraid of is, that Rogue State X would instead direct their aggression towards Nation Z which can't afford to be part of a defence pact.