Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
On a separate thread I said the following:
"If our ally is being attacked then it is not only our duty but a requirement to help them. If that help is in the form of military defense and is what is needed, then that is what happens."
It was suggested that this is quite an offensive position. However, to me, it seems like normal diplomacy and how countries relate to each other.
Is this a mistaken notion?
|
My thoughts: An alliance is merely like a memorandum of understanding - basically saying they are "friends". There may be a notional duty (in honour or even under international law - but even then it's only a "contractual" duty in nature) to assist, but there can never be requirement or strict obligation to do so.
The reasoning to me is simple. Each nation possesses its own sovereignty, and must answer to its own political body (in most cases of the western world nowadays - its people). Whether assistance is ultimately rendered, must always be subject to the will of the political body - in which the sovereign powers are vested.
If there were any sort of strict compulsion to assist an ally under attack - a nation entering in to a treaty would effectively be surrendering elements of its sovereign powers to its ally - its ally could effectively declare war for the nation by antagonising whoever they want.
Just to illustrate the point, say your ally suddenly decided to endorse slavery and human trade for whatever reason - something that your own nation finds abhorrent. A neutral nation (which decides to be a defender of human rights) implements offensive measures against your ally (possibly military action or more likely economic embargos - which can be just as effective or even more devastating in some circumstances etc). Surely your own nation, answering to the ideals and wills of your own people, cannot be bound to assist in something that your nation's populace finds reprehensible?