Monday, June 09, 2008
A Strange Logic
When it comes to matters like the expansion of NATO, I fully agree that no country which is not a member of the organization should have a veto right over who is allowed to join.
What I don't understand is the logic that says that anyone who wants to join ought to, or that letting a country join the alliance is how one demonstrates that another country has no veto power.
Let's examine the logic of the statement, which I heard repeated yet again this past week in various meetings: any country that wants to join NATO ought to be able to do so. Now let's rephrase it as follows: Anyone who wants to come to the United States ought to be able to do so (unrestricted immigration). If you support the first, you should logically support the second. Right?
A country ought to join NATO or any other such organization if the existing members feel they gain some benefit. A country may want to join NATO, but that does not automatically mean that NATO ought to accept them. What do they bring to the table, what benefits, what liabilities? That's how decisions ought to be made. Right?
What I don't understand is the logic that says that anyone who wants to join ought to, or that letting a country join the alliance is how one demonstrates that another country has no veto power.
Let's examine the logic of the statement, which I heard repeated yet again this past week in various meetings: any country that wants to join NATO ought to be able to do so. Now let's rephrase it as follows: Anyone who wants to come to the United States ought to be able to do so (unrestricted immigration). If you support the first, you should logically support the second. Right?
A country ought to join NATO or any other such organization if the existing members feel they gain some benefit. A country may want to join NATO, but that does not automatically mean that NATO ought to accept them. What do they bring to the table, what benefits, what liabilities? That's how decisions ought to be made. Right?
