ARCHIBALD CARY COOLIDGE, Editor of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Professor of History in Harvard University
IN the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Genesis, we learn that the prophet Abraham aided four "kings" to defeat five others and was rewarded by a blessing from one of his associates. This early instance of alliances has been followed by many more. As the world has grown smaller, thanks to improved means of communication, and as the interests of every country have tended to become far flung, regions remote from one another and of the most various character have been brought into close relations in war and peace. Under modern economic conditions the advantages of vast political and commercial aggregations are becoming ever greater, and this has only been emphasized by the increase in the number of small states owing to the World War, for it is but too plain that, however independent, they can not be completely self reliant. Everywhere today we find a tendency towards large groups which would fain be self supporting.
Associations between nations, like those between private citizens, may be based on principles of widely different kinds. A man may belong with equal loyalty to all sorts of organizations corresponding to his diverse interests. He can be at the same time an enthusiastic member of the Sons of the Revolution, of the Knights of Pythias, the Republican party, the Association of Amherst Graduates, the New York Bar, the Methodist church, the local golf and dramatic clubs, etc., etc., etc. Such activities may interfere with one another and constitute too heavy a drain on his resources but there is no incompatibility between them. Whole peoples have not the same range of choice but they may be drawn together by sympathies due to religion and culture, to similarity of political institutions, to ties of blood, real or fancied, and the use of the same or similar languages. Or they may be mutually attracted by the fact that they are neighbors and as such have identical interests, or that they can supplement each other economically to the profit of both, or that they have the same enemies. Their motives, like those of individuals, are mixed and sometimes contradictory and they are equally fickle in their affections...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
AT the time the Anglo-Egyptian arrangement was made about the Sudan, Lord Salisbury, according to Lord Cromer, "joyfully agreed to the creation of a hybrid state of a nature eminently calculated to shock the susceptibilities of international jurists."
Stephen D. Krasner takes a hard look at the old idea that states are unfettered actors. Sovereignty has never been absolute, but it is still a useful lens for viewing the world.
THIRTY years have passed since "the great debate" over the League of Nations after one world war, and less than four since we hailed the United Nations as promising at least some compensation for the sacrifices of a second. Yet today we find ourselves facing again the question that seemed settled -- whether the interests of the United States are as wide as the world or can be narrowed to particular areas?

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.