Thank you for this example. I think it seems more likely that small countries will be willing to cede some trappings of independence to a union of something like equals in a "better together" than to a giant in a "better knelt on my knee than knocked on my backside" relationship. Maybe the united countries can then take steps together wi…
Thank you for this example. I think it seems more likely that small countries will be willing to cede some trappings of independence to a union of something like equals in a "better together" than to a giant in a "better knelt on my knee than knocked on my backside" relationship. Maybe the united countries can then take steps together with a bit more dignity and technocratic remove. "Dollarization is not reckless! Everyone's doing it!" and "we are not doing it at the behest of the sometimes-malign giant, we are taking a considered step in unison with our Caribbean brothers and sisters". Are there existing political parties vocally in favor of these steps in some countries? Do you think some unification steps are easier and more likely to build momentum than others? Is that why you chose the embassy example?
I'd agree it's probably easier to convince individuals, and thus their nations toward the concept of an alliance of peers than one with a large dominant force (i.e. the US). The counter to that though is the concept that's anchored by that large dominant force is probably more durable, so long as it's initially established via consent of the individual nations, rather than through some sort of aggressive aspect.
The reason is that in an alliance of peers it's difficult to deal with violations of the contract, and everyone knows it, so the propensity to violate the contract is a lot higher. A dominant force can serve as enforce of that contract, avoiding the need to for small peers to individually negotiate their contributions toward enforcement. There still needs to be some democratic processes about approving action, but there's significant difference between approving that the contract has been violated and taking enforcement action.
The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has proven to be durable on the integration lines it was premised on. I'd argue for a careful expansion of this multilateral group to encompass more features of foreign policy and fiscal management (capital market regulation, taxation policy, aviation, etc.) There are already basic version of these activities done at the CARICOM level. So in the Caribbean the tendency towards multilateralism is already there but it needs more depth.
Thank you for this example. I think it seems more likely that small countries will be willing to cede some trappings of independence to a union of something like equals in a "better together" than to a giant in a "better knelt on my knee than knocked on my backside" relationship. Maybe the united countries can then take steps together with a bit more dignity and technocratic remove. "Dollarization is not reckless! Everyone's doing it!" and "we are not doing it at the behest of the sometimes-malign giant, we are taking a considered step in unison with our Caribbean brothers and sisters". Are there existing political parties vocally in favor of these steps in some countries? Do you think some unification steps are easier and more likely to build momentum than others? Is that why you chose the embassy example?
I'd agree it's probably easier to convince individuals, and thus their nations toward the concept of an alliance of peers than one with a large dominant force (i.e. the US). The counter to that though is the concept that's anchored by that large dominant force is probably more durable, so long as it's initially established via consent of the individual nations, rather than through some sort of aggressive aspect.
The reason is that in an alliance of peers it's difficult to deal with violations of the contract, and everyone knows it, so the propensity to violate the contract is a lot higher. A dominant force can serve as enforce of that contract, avoiding the need to for small peers to individually negotiate their contributions toward enforcement. There still needs to be some democratic processes about approving action, but there's significant difference between approving that the contract has been violated and taking enforcement action.
The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) has proven to be durable on the integration lines it was premised on. I'd argue for a careful expansion of this multilateral group to encompass more features of foreign policy and fiscal management (capital market regulation, taxation policy, aviation, etc.) There are already basic version of these activities done at the CARICOM level. So in the Caribbean the tendency towards multilateralism is already there but it needs more depth.