RSS

February 9, 2012

Vince A.M. Klösters, Radboud University Nijmegen, Silver Contributor (29)

Traditionalist views of sovereignty are key impediments to effective coordination, pooling, and sharing of resources.

I believe that we should not fear losing sovereignty when delegating our decision-making process to the European or NATO level. For me personally, it simply means choosing between the ultimate power of decision on a limited military apparatus or a shared responsibility of decision-making on an integrated command structure. While the latter is by no means realistic in the current political climate, it is clear that Europe as a whole needs to literally 'get its act together'. Otherwise it will not have an 'act' at all. I fear that this is the way we are going.

What do traditional definitions of sovereignty mean when you have no traditional means to defend it? I would rather bet on a more inclusive, European definition of sovereignty. Traditional sovereignty is a mere illusion in the current transatlantic context. A paralysed defence apparatus is desirable to none, but we are currently stuck in this terrible paradoxical stalemate. Unfortunately, populist sentiment agitates against a European- or NATO-wide consciousness. Praise be the politicians who have the sagacity to turn this around..

February 10, 2012

Joshua Clapp, Atlantic Community, Platinum Contributor (158)

Vince,

Traditional views on sovereignty are indeed impediments to coordination. Initiatives such as ‘Smart Defense’ or others must overcome those exact views. And as such the problem comes in implementation. We talk a great game, but as you said, the act is not there.

I think your point about traditional definition of sovereignty and no traditional means to defend it to be an important one. Many national militaries simply do not have the requisite capabilities anymore to be effective on their own.

But I am curious, what you mean exactly when you say that ‘traditional sovereignty is a mere illusion in the current transatlantic context’? I think the ‘traditional view’ of sovereignty is itself distorted in imagining that the state once enjoyed some ‘Golden Age’ of sovereignty that today’s globalization has taken away.

February 19, 2012

Andresa

In my ooniipn Mr. Pham is quite correct in pointing out the risks that ASEAN faces by not evolving a more robust and formalized joint security mechanism. Further, while I believe that many officials in the ASEAN diplomatic and defense community recognize this important shortcoming, they have appeared unable or unwilling to push the issue in open forums. For their part, the local political leadership in many, if not most, ASEAN nations have been less than enthusiastic in pursuing security cooperation beyond periodic joint training exercises. A possible underlying cause of this lack of progress is the lack of strong domestic political systems in many ASEAN states and the resulting inability to by political leaders to be seen as surrendering (if only symbolically) any control over the state?s defense. If we look at the case of Thailand?s border dispute with Cambodia over the last several years (and most particularly the last several weeks), we can see that the conflict is driven (at least in part) by Thai domestic politics. For this reason the government has been unwilling to involve third parties in conflict resolution efforts and has continually referenced its responsibility to protect national sovereignty and security. Powerful nationalist elements in the local power structure support this position and are strongly opposed to negotiations on the issue. These same elements would also tend to oppose a viable multilateral approach to regional security. When national governments are unable and/or unwilling to stand up to nationalist forces within their societies for fear of losing power ? the establishment of a viable joint security mechanism is not likely to make significant progress.