Coalition of the Cajoled

Another great and enlightening post by David Holliday. Just click over and read it.

Comments

[miguel]

You know, the accusation of a coalition of the "briged & coerced" is nothing more than an accusation. All states operate under self-interest, and so they usually only band together when they can gain something. To expect states to act for altruistic motives only is naive. States that joined the coalition in Iraq had motives to do so; states that didn't join had self-interested motives to do so as well.

Was there debate w/in El Salvador as to whether to support the action or not? Of course. Just like everywhere else. The fact that people in El Salvador question the motives (an assertion, not a fact) doesn't prove anything. And why can't states act for a multitude of reasons? E.g. to strengthen their alliance, to strengthen their ties to another country, to gain international military experience (something third world countries love, the reason they take joining UN actions as badge of honor), etc.

But to suspect that countries like El Salavador acted out of self-interest is the highest naivete about international politics. Of course they acted from self-interesest! That's how all states act in international politics.

[Randy Paul]

I think that when you send your citizens to risk their lives in a war, it should be for a more compelling reason than to "identify ourselves with the friend and ally."

Costa Rica was included in the coalition and it has no army nor did it offer material support. It reeks of desperation, not naïvete.

[miguel]

Well, I can understand where you're coming from. But the question of whether a country is cajoled or not is, I think, a very subjective question. Which is fine; but to assume that such a statement is a statement of fact is dangerous.

For example. During the Second World War, several Latin American countries (including Brazil) contributed troops to the allied effort. These were probably (in the big picture sense) not needed, and the contributions were small. But they were sent w/ the idea of "identifying" w/ the allied cause more than anything else. Some countries also joined the allied, but sent no material support, but they wanted to go on record as part of the allied effort.

Similarly, little Luxembourg, grateful for allied efforts to liberate it during that war, made a point of sending a small contingent to Korea simply to "identify" w/ the cause of their allies.

Yes, sending your citizens off to die for simbolic gestures may seem foolish. But I suspect that often has more to do w/ whether the symbolic gesture in question is worth it to you -- again, a subjective decision. How many went to Spain in the 1930s simply identify w/ the republic's cause?

[Randy Paul]

Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, Brazil was the only South American county that fought on the side of the allies during WWII.

If you have any information otherwise, please let me know. I know that Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay did not. I don't believe Venezuela did and I'm not sure about Bolivia, Ecuador or Peru.