defence treaties

Then, we must consider the question of regional defence groupings, such as Seato and the new defence treaty recently proposed.

The first major difficulty with such groupings is that they are designed to force member countries into an automatic rather than a rational response to international crises. By joining them, we surrender a good deal of our freedom to deal with situations as they arise, and impose upon ourselves the moral sanctions implied in the phrase "welshing on our allies".

Linked with this loss of flexibility in areas where the treaty proves effective, is the danger that political miscalculation, blundering, or deliberate provocation by one member may drag others into an otherwise unjustifiable conflict.

The second disadvantage of such groups is that their relevance to the type of crises typical of modern Asia is minimal. "Collective defence" as a concept implies a threat from without directed against the members, i.e. embodies a world view of an external expansionist enemy bent on the destruction of members. In the face of nationalist/socialist uprisings within member states, other governments asked to intervene must either falsify the facts of the case to justify action under the treaty (as New Zealand has sought to do with Vietnam) or act outside the treaty.

If, then, collective defence is irrelevant to present political realities and detrimental to rational policymaking, why do we persist in thinking in terms of membership?