Daniel Drezner: “A humane, stable world order is unlikely to establish itself if only North American, European and a few other governments are willing to build it. And that is the case right now.”
Daniel Drezner: “A humane, stable world order is unlikely to establish itself if only North American, European and a few other governments are willing to build it. And that is the case right now.”
Does this mean that only NATO can build global stability? Unfortunately, the individual members of this international organisation have different perceptions of how to get there. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, one contributor claims that Canada has effectively disarmed. This is a bit exaggerated of course, but the figures are at http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf.
The average defence expenditure by NATO members in 2004, as a percentage of GDP, is about 1.8%. Below this is Belgium (1.2%), Canada (1.2%), Denmark (1.5%), Estonia (1.6%), Germany (1.4%), Hungary (1.5%), Iceland (0%), Latvia (1.3%), Lithuania (1.4%), Luxembourg (0.8%), Netherlands (1.7%), Portugal (1.7%), Slovenia (1.6%), and Spain (1.3%)
My sense of Drezner’s post is that he precisely doesn’t believe that only Nato can build global stability. It will require engagement from all corners of the world, including in the Darfur case Egypt and in the Zimbabwe one South Africa. His point is that, for whatever reason, these and many other countries turn a blind eye to most human rights problems.
Interestingly, Canada is a leader in looking for ways to build global stability.
Canada’s vision has echoes in the United Nations. Canada responded to the UN Secretary-General’s desperate call in 2000 to the international community for a consensus on when to intervene militarily. The result was a well researched report, The Responsibility to Protect, that may be a basis for moving forward.
But progress has been disappointing. The chief foreign policy adviser to a former PM of Canada gives reasons why Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia, the US, and Arabs all oppose the report.
As a result different national visions are causing big variations in defence spending – especially notable among NATO members. And then there is the emphasis that each member puts upon heavy equipment and manpower.