[p2p-research] Alternative peer alliance form (was Re: Road to Polario: The Coming Russian-American Alliance)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Michel Bauwens wrote:
 > by Lawrence Taub
 >
 > Russia, the US, Canada, and Scandinavia – All Under One Roof, the North Pole
 >
 > The year is 2020 and the unthinkable has happened -- the US and Russia,
 > together with Canada, several USSR successor states, and the Nordic
 > countries, have announced the formation of Polario, a political and economic
 > union along the lines of the European Union.  Economic, security, and mutual
 > confrontation issues, as well as the rise of Europa and Confucio (the East
 > Asian Union), have finally forced the hands of the two ex-superpowers.  An
 > economic-political union together with the other countries around the North
 > Pole has seemed the only way to solve their problems “permanently“.

When I was in a high school social studies class, the causes of World War I 
were explained:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
"""
World War I (abbreviated as WW-I, WWI, or WW1), also known as the First 
World War, the Great War, and the War to End All Wars, was a global military 
conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers,[1] assembled in 
two opposing alliances: the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance.[2] Over 
70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in 
history.[3] The main combatants descended into a state of total war, pumping 
their entire scientific and industrial capabilities into the war effort. 
Over 15 million people were killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts 
in history. The immediate or proximate cause of war was the assassination on 
28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the 
Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist. 
Austria-Hungary's resulting demands against the Kingdom of Serbia activated 
a sequence of alliances. Within weeks the major European powers were at war; 
their global empires meant that the conflict soon spread worldwide.
"""

That "activation of a sequence" of alliances was the key bit, where all the 
alliances were of the form, "if you attack anyone in the alliance, everyone 
in the alliance will attack you back". So, two tiny countries have a tiny 
border dispute or tiny trade dispute, and soon the whole world then is 
fighting each other. From a global systems perspective, this is a very 
stupid way to organize military alliances. That form of alliance is designed 
to *amplify* conflict with positive feedback, not damp down conflict with 
negative feedback.

Now, I thought about that, and I am still proud to say I came up with this 
idea then as an alternative sitting in social studies class (and no doubt 
someone else has had it, but I have not seen it yet, but I have not thought 
about it in years or looked for a parallel).

Here is the key idea: a peer-to-peer security alliance should be of a 
different form than a mutual defense pact against outsiders. It should be 
more like a mutual attack pact against insiders, where if anyone in the 
alliance attacks another peer in the alliance (or violates an agreed on 
boundary in some way), then the *entire* rest of the alliance agrees takes 
action against the peer violating the boundary or doing the aggressive 
thing. This alliance says nothing about what the alliance will do if 
threatened from outside. It is purely a set of rules about normative peer 
behavior inside the alliance.

So, imagine we start this peer-to-peer alliance of countries with the 
Netherlands and Singapore, at opposite ends of the world (although both 
concerned about trade). In order to form it, both need to agree to some 
basic code of international conduct, as well as formalize their borders with 
respect to each other, and resolve any current trade disputes. Then, say, 
Estonia decides to join. It to must agree with the previous border claims of 
the Netherlands and Singapore with respect to itself (and other economic 
regulations as well as rules for amending the alliance charter, and so on). 
Alternatively, in the process of joining, Estonia needs to get the 
Netherlands and Singapore to alter aspects of the alliance including borders 
in a way that all the countries in the alliance can agree on (so, agreement 
is 100% consensus within the alliance on the changes or the new country can 
not join).
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Now, you may ask, what is the point of the Netherlands, Singapore, and 
Estonia agreeing to not attack each other (like they would even dream of 
that) and to adhere to some generally recognized international laws they are 
likely already following? What would be the point in the Netherlands and 
Singapore agreeing that Estonia could step in to stop a very unlikely 
military conflict between the two, Estonia likely having few troops and few 
ships and little chance of accomplishing anything by itself beyond some 
talk? The value begins to grow as more countries join. So, with more and 
more countries, there would be increasing value in the agreement to allow 
the other countries in a growing alliance to step in and stop conflicts 
which any country initiates against other peer countries in the alliance. As 
times goes by, Venezuela might join, and then Canada, and then joining this 
alliance might be the sensible thing to do because it will be a new 
organization setting standards and promoting good things across the peer 
network. Eventually, a country will want to join who has a border dispute or 
economic dispute with another country already in the alliance (say, if 
Russia wants to join and Japan has already joined, and they dispute 
ownership of some islands). In order to join this alliance, the countries 
involved will need to work out their dispute. There may eventually be an 
enormous incentive to join this organization, so, say the value of joining 
may be bigger than the value of some few islands that are disputed, and 
there would be a big incentive to bring in even more countries to assure 
global mutual security by those in the alliance, so, there is a big 
incentive by all peers to resolve these conflicts before they lead to war, 
even if significant concessions needed to be made. Eventually, there might 
be a situation where there are a few big holdouts, like the USA, if it can't 
agree with everyone else's border claims or figure out a way to resolve it. 
But there might be enormous internal political pressure on those last 
holdouts to joint to support world peace. It would at least be pretty 
obvious at that point what countries were not willing to get along with 
their peers.

Eventually, this alliance might replace the United Nations. Alternatively, 
this alliance forming process might actually be done through the United 
Nations as a series of new treaties with new governing structures. Note, 
this is *not* the same as world government. This is a set of rules for how 
peers should behave towards each other. And it is also, ideally, a framework 
for solving conflicts before they reach the point of economic war or 
physical war (given economic war and physical war are often interrelated 
with one causing the other).

Note the big difference of this form of alliance than the conventional form, 
including this new "Polario" idea. There is no reason for a set of two big 
blocks which might end up attacking each other. There is the potential for 
this one alliance to spread globally and define the norms under which peers 
(countries) interact with each other under the terms of the alliance. I'm 
not sure what would happen if two such alliances started to form, but 
ideally, they would negotiate at least a common denominator for borders and 
trade rules and then merge. But even if two alliances could not agree, they 
would still not pose any threat to each other, because there is nothing in 
the alliance about how to interact with those outside the alliance. So, two 
alliances could even overlap. There could even be different alliances for 
diferent things (borders versus trade regulations, for example). I'm not 
sure, as I think about it, what all the implications would be of lots of 
overlapping peer-to-peer alliances of this form?

Would this work politically? It entails countries essentially agreeing to be 
attacked militarily or economically by peers if they violate certain norms 
they previously agreed to, or at least, peers agreeing to be attackers or 
enforcers, to step in and stop disputes and enforce boundaries. It is a sort 
of global anti-bullying pact among peers.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

So, would this be seen by nations considering joining as essentially giving 
up some of their sovereignty? Well, I don't know. But it is an alternative 
way to look at the notions of peer alliances. And it is a way to build a 
stronger community that has consensus about some international norms for 
peer behavior at a national level as well as some teeth to the enforcement 
of those norms as a community.

No doubt someone would want to simulate this before trying it to see if it 
has any obvious failure modes unique to it, like in Model United Nations 
exercises.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_United_Nations

I'm not even sure there would have to be a violent military aspect to the 
agreement. It might be good enough for peers to just say that if a peer 
transgresses a certain norm or boundary, they would slow or stop their trade 
with that peer (or reduce their internet bandwidth to that country), 
essentially as a form of "shunning" (which is non-violent, but still 
disruptive).
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
There would then need to be some way to compensate individual businesses for 
economic losses. And the bigger alliance agreement would then perhaps take 
precedence over contracts between individual businesses across borders.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the best enforcement strategy for agreed on peer 
norms would be in such an alliance. No doubt people would explore that.

Related section of a 1951 sci-fi story:
   "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell
http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/and_then_there_were_none.html
"""
    Matt came up with a cloth over one arm. ‘I’m serving no Antigands.’
    ‘You served me last time,’ Harrison reminded.
    ‘That may be. I didn’t know you were off that ship. But I know now.’ He 
flicked the cloth across one corner of the table, brushing away imaginary 
crumbs. ‘No Antigands served by me.’
    ‘Is there any other place where we might get a meal?’
    ‘Not unless somebody will let you plant an ob on them. They won’t do 
that if they know who you are but there’s a chance they might make the same 
mistake as I did.’ Another flick across the corner.
    ‘I don’t make them twice.’
    ‘You’re making one right now.’ announced Gleed, his voice hard and edgy. 
He nudged Harrison. ‘Watch this.’ His hand came out of a side pocket holding 
a tiny gun. Pointing it at Matt’s middle, he said, ‘Ordinarily I could get 
into trouble for this, if those on the ship were in the mood to make 
trouble. But they aren’t. They’re more than tired of you two-legged mules.’ 
He motioned with the weapon.
    ‘So start walking and fetch us two full plates.’
    ‘I won’t,’ said Matt, firming his lips and ignoring the gun. Gleed 
thumbed the safety-catch which moved with an audible click. ‘It’s touchy 
now. It’d go off at a sneeze. Get moving.’
    ‘I won’t,’ said Matt.
    With unconcealed disgust, Gleed shoved the weapon back into his pocket. 
‘I was only kidding you. It isn’t loaded.’
    ‘Wouldn’t have made the slightest difference if it had been,’ Matt 
assured. ‘I serve no Antigands and that is that.’
    ‘What if I’d lost control of myself and blown several large holes in you?’
    ‘How could I have served you then?’ asked Matt. ‘A dead person is of no 
use to anyone. It’s time You Antigands learned a little logic.’ With which 
parting shot he meandered off.
    ‘He’s got something there,’ offered Harrison, patently depressed. ‘What 
can you do with a corpse? Nothing whatever. A body is in nobody’s power.’
    ‘Oh, I don’t know. A couple of stiffs lying around might sharpen the 
others. They’d become really eager.’
    ‘You’re thinking of them in Terran terms,’ Harrison said. ‘It’s a 
mistake. They are not Terrans no matter where they came from originally. 
They are Gands.’
    ‘Well, just what are Gands supposed to be?’
    ‘I don’t know. It’s a safe bet they’re some kind of fanatics. Terra 
exported one-track-minders by the millions around the time of the Great 
Explosion. Look at that crazy crowd on Hygeia, for instance.’ ...
"""

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/