The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Upated 2nd Edition)

COALITION OF THE WILLING

37 COALITION OF THE WILLING A group of states that cooperate in an ad hoc or informal fashion, outside of more formal multilateral institutions and alliances.The term has been used r ecently to describe the gr oup of countries supporting the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, but its origins pr edate the George W. Bush administration. While the term usually refers to cooperation for military purposes, it has also been used in relation to other economic and human security issues in the AsiaPacific region. A key component of any coalition of the willing seems to be its essentially pragmatic, ad hoc nature. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “coalition” as “a union, combination or fusion”, noting that in politics the term often r efers to “an alliance for combined action of distinct parties, persons, or states, without permanent incorporation into one body”. Webster’s describes a “coalition” as a “combination, for temporary purposes, of persons, or parties, or states, having dif ferent interests”. The precise origins of the term “coalition of the willing” ar e unclear, but a contr oversial 1992 Pentagon planning document captured the essence of the concept, arguing that coalitions “hold considerable promise for promoting collective action”. It said the United States “should expect futur e coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confr onted, and in many cases carrying only general agr eement over the objectives to be accomplished”.1 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 37 38 Recent usage continues to str ess this flexible, impermanent character. Less than a month after the 9/1 1 attacks in 2001, U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said, there will not be a single coalition as ther e was in the Gulf War. The kinds of things we’re going to be engaged in will engage some countries on one aspect of it and still other countries on another aspect of it.And we will see revolving coalitions that will evolve and change over time depending on the activity and the cir cumstance of the country. The mission needs to define the coalition, and we ought not to think that a coalition should define the mission. 2 Coalitions of the willing have been likened to “ad hoc” or “a la carte multilateralism” (see the entries on each) temporary collective responses to a particular issue, with one state playing a leading role and “picking and choosing its allies and mechanisms as circumstances dictate”.3 One attraction of the approach is that it is simpler for the leading state to undertake action, rather than having to work through cumbersome consultation processes with allies or forge consensus in global institutions such as the United Nations. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay emphasize this point, drawing a distinction between the approach taken during the war in Kosovo, which required intense consultation and joint planning within NATO, with theAfghanistan war, where Pentagon planners did not have to subject any of their decisions to foreign approval. They conclude, “This is not to say that [the Bush administration has] ruled out working with others. Rather , [its] preferred form of multilateralism — to be indulged when unilateral action [is] impossible or unwise — [involves] building ad hoc coalitions of the willing.”4 Advocates for these ad hoc coalitions have contrasted them with what they per ceive to be dysfunctional global institutions. Richard Perle has written that the twentieth century gives plenty of evidence for the need for coalitions of the willing. “Far fr om disparaging them as a thr eat to a new world or der, we should recognize that they ar e, by default, the best hope for that or der, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the United Nations.”5 Robert Kagan agrees, stating that Bismarck said every alliance has a horse and a rider, and one should endeavor to be the rider . The same goes for COALITION OF THE WILLING 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 38 39 international coalitions. You’re either leading them or they’re leading you. Of course, we’r e all inter ested in what “the coalition” feels may be necessary. We’d like to have as many nations on our side as possible. But with many thousands of Americans dead, and who knows how many more at risk, Washington ought to be making...