THERE SHOULD BE A TRANS-PACIFIC SECURITY AND DEFENSE ORGANIZATION, PATTERNED ON NATO, BUT MODIFIED FOR THE REGION!

During World War II, the Axis Powers—Japan and Nazi Germany—rolled-over their neighbors in Asia and Europe, respectively.  At first, America did not join the War, due to its Isolationist Policies.  Afterward, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed—including Europe and North America—with a stated goal to: “…safeguard the freedom and security of the member nations, through political and military means.”

China and Russia—the two current powers in their respective regions—have each stepped-up their aggressive behavior against their neighbors.  The Asia-Pacific Region does not have an equivalent security treaty, similar to NATO.  At the same time, with the splintering of the European Union, and the uncertainty over what a Trump Presidency might bring, the Atlantic Alliance needs to be re-invigorated, as it is showing signs of diminishing strength.

Neither of the two Socialist Leaders—Xi Jinping, of China, or Vladimir Putin, of Russia—are particularly friendly toward one another.  But given their common political philosophy, each seems to believer in the old military strategy:  Divide and Conquer!  That’s why both nations are either befriending or intimidating their neighbors, one-by-one, as each pursues it particular agenda.

Let’s look at NATO first.  Once the United Kingdom signaled its intention to leave the European Union last June, heads began to turn, questioning which nation(s) would be next?  And although the E. U. is primarily a trade union, its potentially diminishing membership might cause some–including Russia–to question Europe’s cohesiveness.

The Southeast Asian Treaty Organization was formed in the mid-1950s; however, it lacked wide regional participation, and it accomplished very little. And so, SEATO was disbanded in 1976.  There still needs to be some form of security organization, however, in the Pacific Region.  And similar to NATO, Canada and the U. S. should be included.

It’s still too early to consider how a Donald Trump Administration might change the U. S. participation in the various international organizations—UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc.  Hopefully, America will continue to participate, and to contribute according to our level of ability.  Since the Republican Party seems to favor International Trade, such as the TPP: hopefully, they will convince Donald Trump to remain in NATO, and to help establish a counterpart organization in the Pacific.



NOTE:  The linked article, from “Foreign Policy”, by James Stavridis, is provided because it makes a good case for our continued support for NATO.  Admiral Stavridis is the Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and had served as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander.  The article is linked as follows: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/News-and-Media/2016/11/10/Dean-Stavridis-Foreign-Policy-Audit-NATO.

Advertisements

, , , , , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: