On a Coalition of Denial

News this morning of a planned naval exercise between the Venezuelans and the Russians (hat tip to Mudge) to take place later this year. We're probably going to have to get used to the machinations of this "Coalition of Denial" as time goes by.

What do I mean by this? Well, the basic thrust is this (flows from a lot of the work we did on the maritime strategy and a the work of a number of international relations theorists): the global economy and the global system works largely to the benefit of the nations who participate in it. The degree to which ones economy is integrated in that system is a sign of that nation's support for and investment in that economy.

There are plenty of nations out there who look at this global system as a cafeteria if you will, one in which they walk down the line of markets and fully participate in some, partially participate in others, and choose not to participate in still others. We are not one of these nations, nor is Europe, much of South and Central America, much of Asia and increasingly, China. The prosperous (and increasingly free) portions of the earth generally tend to be more fully vested in the global system.

There are nations out there who for whatever reason, haven't gotten fully in the game. In some cases, it is because they are simply economic basket cases, and they cannot muster the table stakes to meaningfully participate in the game. In others, domestic politics drive a sense of aloofness from (or more malignantly, superiority to) the system. As we sought to lay out a series of alternative futures into which our emerging Maritime Strategy would fit, we looked very closely at just such a dynamic, one in which a "coalition of denial" emerges. More specifically, nations without as much investment in a cooperative and interdependent global system would tend to form alliances and relationships designed largely to exercise power in spite of the larger system. Take to an extreme, these countries would cooperate in order to subvert the system.

Who are the likely participants in this growing club? Well, Russia and Venezuela for instance. And Iran. And Cuba (though I honestly think Fidel's death WILL bring them closer to the global system). And a host of Central and South American nations who have turned to elected socialism in reaction to globalization. And some nations in Africa who are resource rich but liberty poor.

What does this mean for the US? It means a continued important and dominant role of leadership in the globalized economy and the global political order. I know, I know, I sound a little like a "citizen of the world" type. That's not what I'm saying. We are a sovereign nation with our own interests. Our interests are however, very closely aligned with others for whom the global economy brings prosperity and freedom. Our relationship with these other nations is in our national interest--as is our continued leadership within that system.