Some level of international cooperation and adjudication will always be required to ensure shipping lanes remain clear; air traffic corridors are safely administered; the mail gets from point A to point B; and sensible rules are in place for currency exchange, banking, standardized weights and measures, and so on.  Because these things do not impede any one country’s sovereignty, but benefit all, international agreements concerning them are not just useful but necessary.  Suprasovereign domains – the oceans, airspace, and deep space – all demand multilateral attention, as does the free flow of communications, transportation, and commerce through, across, over, and under these domains.  Virtually everything else, however, belongs to states.

Economic trade does not require a codified security agreement, and under the Sovereignty Solution, security and trade would stay detangled.  Thus, all of the impossible questions about what constitutes a vital or national interest would atrophy.  Better yet, an assessment like the following would no longer apply: “Throughout the Cold War, Americans broke each other’s bones and reputations over what constituted mortal threats to our vital interests; whether to fight or, if not, how otherwise to deal with such threats; when to fight and die over less than vital interests, when to help others fight and die instead; what not to fight for; and what means other than military force to employ to foil serious threats.  Well into the first decade of the twenty-first century, Americans are still embroiled in the same arguments.”  What the Sovereignty Solution does is cut through these Gordian knots.

Worth reiterating is that, given the world in which we live, there is no other set of people as likely to actively defend our country as we would.  But – if we can get other countries to self-police, no other defense should be necessary.

Subheadings

What’s in an Alliance

A Twenty-First-Century Ally

What’s Wrong with Multilateralism

Civic Action (aka Nation Building) Redefined