In response to James Fallows' latest attempt at futurology (he's so good at the present, but he tries so hard to be relevant and edgy that it's painful), as reported by Adam Kotsko, I said that"Most futurology that depends on conspiracies between nation-states are deeply flawed." [ed. Yes, there's a number agreement problem there. It was a comment.] Being a liberal (I can't find the quote, but I read once that a liberal is someone who gives you the best arguments against his own position, just to be fair) I immediately began questioning whether my axiom (which I would like named after me, correct or not, but with the grammar fixed) was historically justified. Can anyone add to this list (I'll add stuff as I think of it) of actual secret conspiracies between nation-states against the interests of another nation-state.

• The Concert of Europe, coming out of the Congress of Vienna
• The secret agreement for the USSR to join the Asian/Pacific theater six months after V-E day
• umm.... help me out here?
• The comments so far have focused mostly on the pre-WWI secret treaties, but I'm not sure if they count as conspiracies. Perhaps I have too narrow a definition of conspiracy.
• William Harshaw points to the Sykes-Picot agreement, and Ralph Luker to the Nazi-Soviet agreement to partition Poland: secret agreements to divide up as yet unconquered territory belonging to third parties certainly do seem to qualify. I admit that they're not quite what I had in mind, but I certainly can't exclude them from consideration.

Unless we can come up with a much more substantial list than this, I stand by my axiom: nation-states are too unlikely to conspire effectively for that to be a component of a viable, plausible future projection.

Asia and Africa: Simon World is trying to get some expert opinions on whether Asian development has any viable lessons for African development particularly in the area of foreign aid. Since most of Japan's great modern economic achievements have, at this point, been chalked up to a combination of luck (including social preconditions and international context) and great leadership, there's not much I can offer. But others are welcome to join in.

Jonathan Dresner - 6/7/2005

Right. I think I was thinking of the lag between the agreement and the declaration, but you're quite right.

Michael Meo - 6/7/2005

I think you should add the Frist, Second, and Third Partitions as well.

It is reasonable to charge that the Kingdom of Savoy and the Second Empire of France engaged in a secret conspiracy against the national interests of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1861, by allowing (despite their avowed protestations) the launching of the Garabaldini 1000 against Sicily. Our ex-post-facto explanation is that Italy was one country rather than a group of sovreign states.

In the War for Dutch Independence the English Queen sent covert assistance to a group of rebels against the legitimate king of the Low Countries, Phillip II of Spain; perhaps you are unwilling to reach so far back in diplomatic history, where notions of sovreign states may not apply [for example, if we include Renaissance Italy, we'd have a host of conspiratorial examples].

Alan Allport - 6/7/2005

Was there anything particularly secret about this? Rather the opposite I would have thought.

Alan Allport - 6/7/2005

The secret agreement for the USSR to join the Asian/Pacific theater six months after V-E day

Three months actually (which Stalin scrupulously obeyed; V-E Day, May 8; Soviet DoW on Japan, August 8).

Jonathan Dresner - 6/7/2005

Via the Daily Howler, I found the quotation I was thinking of: "A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel." -- Robert Frost

Jonathan Dresner - 6/7/2005

You're right. I just looked it up and updated the list.

Ralph E. Luker - 6/7/2005

It was secret insofar as it applied to Poland. That there was a non-aggression pact was public information. That they had agreed to invade and divide Poland between them was secret.

Jonathan Dresner - 6/7/2005

I'll think about these examples (I have to look up some of them like Sykes-Picot) but the majority of the 19c secret treaties were not active conspiracies: they were agreements to ally interests (which became public pretty quickly) and to publicly intervene when necessary.

I might include the Nazi-Soviet treatment of Poland, but it wasn't very secret, was it? The "Divide the Spoils" sort of agreements.... hmm. I was thinking of a somewhat narrower definition of conspiracy, but I might have to include them.

Andre Mayer - 6/7/2005

World War I was understood to have blown up because of webs of treaties, some overt and some secret, linking the nations on each side -- and Italy, which had a publkic treaty with Germany and Austria, also had a secret on with France. The treaties supposedly escalated local conflict into general war; in addition, some were seen to provide motivation for war in terms of prior agreement on "dividing the spoils." (The Bolsheviks, upon taking power, released the terms of the secret treaties signed under the Czars.)

William Harshaw - 6/7/2005

Ralph beat me to it--wasn't one of the Fourteen Points something about open covenants openly arrived at? And was it the Sykes-Picot agreement that screwed the Arabs?

Depending on the broadness of the definition of conspiracy, almost any of the covert aid that the opposing sides in the Cold War provided to client states might be included.

Ralph E. Luker - 6/7/2005

What about the Nazi-Soviet Pact and Poland's interests? Wouldn't any of the treaties and alliances among European states prior to World War I count?