Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump's Board of Peace: America's Worst Coalition of the Willing -- Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-s-board-of-peace--america-s-worst-coalition-of-the-willingKristina Daugirdas, Katerina Linos
Both parties have tried coalitions of the willing. Trump's Board of Peace repeats the mistake - only worse, with autocrats and a fee.
President Trump's newly announced "Board of Peace," which Trump says "might" replace the United Nations, has attracted Middle Eastern monarchs and alarmed allies, with its expanded global remit and $1 billion price tag for permanent membership. But while much of Trump's proposal is unprecedented, many U.S. presidents have also attempted to bypass traditional multilateral institutions in favor of more exclusive arrangements. This alternative approach promises speed, efficiency, and freedom from the frustrations of working through established organizations, such as the UN.
But recent history suggests this strategy faces serious obstacles. Over the past two decades, efforts by the U.S. to build "coalitions of the willing"--that is, informal organizations of limited numbers of like-minded states--have repeatedly encountered hidden costs and unexpected limitations. With surprising frequency, these costs have motivated participants to boomerang back to the very multilateral frameworks that they had initially rejected.
The Siren Song of Coalitions of the Willing
The appeal of informal networks was undeniable in the early 2000s. Traditional international organizations seemed impossibly rigid and bureaucratic, and on top of that, the United States was regularly outvoted by developing countries whose interests diverged from U.S. priorities. Networks and informal coalitions of smaller groups of like-minded states promised a way around these obstacles.
The approach had bipartisan support. President George W. Bush formed a coalition of the willing to attack Iraq in 2003 and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to combat trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. The PSI's architect, John Bolton, praised the PSI as "an activity, not an organization" in contrast with the UN, which he derided as "an organization, not an activity." The Obama administration continued the trend, bringing on board Anne-Marie Slaughter, who had just published a book that extolled the advantages of governance through transnational networks over rigid and cumbersome formal organizations.
. . .
But recent history suggests this strategy faces serious obstacles. Over the past two decades, efforts by the U.S. to build "coalitions of the willing"--that is, informal organizations of limited numbers of like-minded states--have repeatedly encountered hidden costs and unexpected limitations. With surprising frequency, these costs have motivated participants to boomerang back to the very multilateral frameworks that they had initially rejected.
The Siren Song of Coalitions of the Willing
The appeal of informal networks was undeniable in the early 2000s. Traditional international organizations seemed impossibly rigid and bureaucratic, and on top of that, the United States was regularly outvoted by developing countries whose interests diverged from U.S. priorities. Networks and informal coalitions of smaller groups of like-minded states promised a way around these obstacles.
The approach had bipartisan support. President George W. Bush formed a coalition of the willing to attack Iraq in 2003 and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to combat trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. The PSI's architect, John Bolton, praised the PSI as "an activity, not an organization" in contrast with the UN, which he derided as "an organization, not an activity." The Obama administration continued the trend, bringing on board Anne-Marie Slaughter, who had just published a book that extolled the advantages of governance through transnational networks over rigid and cumbersome formal organizations.
. . .
