.

During World War II and the years that followed, the United States developed alliances that would be critical to fighting communism and maintaining stability. Across the globe, nations aligned with Washington to ward off communist expansionism. During the Cold War, the United States and its allies would often put their own national interests aside to focus on the larger threat of the Soviet Union and its allies. The shared threat of communism was the glue that held alliances together in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, these alliances remain intact, but in recent years differences have emerged between the United States and many allies. Policy issues that remained dormant when there was the threat of the Soviet Bloc have emerged, and neither the United States nor its allies are as willing to subvert their national interests. This phenomena has occurred because without a larger, overarching threat that is clear to all nations, each state is assessing their security environment differently and reacting with their interest in mind. This is not to say that the United States will experience a divorce from key allies; rather that the relationships that the world has grown accustomed to over the past 50 years will have to evolve in the coming years to accommodate the changing geopolitical atmosphere.

One of the clearest examples in the post-Cold War evolution of U.S. relationships with allies is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance to defend western Europe against communist aggression. In reality NATO’s security was guaranteed by the United States, who was the only nation that could match the Soviet Union’s military. The alliance prevented Soviet expansion and maintained stability for decades in a continent that had been devastated by two world wars in a generation. Despite the tensions in NATO, whether it was France’s withdrawal from the integrated military structure, rearming West Germany, or Greco-Turkish relations, the alliance remained intact. After the shared Soviet threat eliminated, cracks have emerged in the alliance over troop deployments in Afghanistan and addressing the conflict in Kosovo. The gulf between the United States and NATO is most vividly underscored by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ June 2011 comments warning that NATO risked becoming irrelevant unless the European members increase military spending and assumed a greater role in the alliance. U.S. frustration with carrying the burden of NATO stems from the fact that the shared threat of communism no longer exists and NATO members are struggling to define their roles and the organization’s mission.

The United States also faces challenges in the Middle East. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was based on close relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and pre-revolutionary Iran. These countries were all concerned about the Soviet Union and its proxies in the region. The first shock to this system was when the Shah fell and was replaced by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since then, the United States has relied on the twin pillars of bolstering Israel and the Gulf monarchies to maintain regional stability. These relationships have seen signs of strain in recent years. Despite the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, the United States and Israel have seen tensions between leaders over the direction of peace talks and settlements. Neither issue has disrupted the close ties between the two allies, but they do reflect differences in national interests and threat perceptions. The same dynamic is present in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The U.S. public is weary after a decade of war in the Middle East and is more open to negotiations, whereas Israelis view a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that threatens their very survival.

The relationships the Sunni Arab states is more complicated. The Gulf States, led by Saudi Arabia, are not happy with several recent U.S. policy decisions. King Abdullah was incensed when the United States withdrew its support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, which paved the way for their arch nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood, to seize power. In Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actively funded and armed the Syrian opposition. The United States has been reluctant to act since it views the conflict as a peripheral event, much to the dismay of Saudi Arabia. To the Saudis it is part of the life and death struggle with Shiite Iran for influence and part of their attempts to block the spread of the ‘Shiite Crescent’ across the region. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia is very concerned by the U.S. support for the recent nuclear deal with Iran. A nuclear Iran is anathema to the Saudis and closer ties between the United States and their regional rival are a matter of grave concern. The Saudis value loyalty and trust and feel that the United States is providing neither. The disputes are not a matter of the United States seeking to upset the Saudis; rather it reflects the difference in national interests. What the Saudis view as mortal threats are not viewed in the same vein by the United States after a decade of war.

While the difference in threat perception has disrupted relations in Europe and in the Middle East, a shared threat perception in Asia has reinvigorated U.S. ties with old and new friends. The rise of China and its increasingly assertive and aggressive behavior in territorial disputes have brought the U.S. closer ties with old allies such as Japan and the Philippines and closer relationships with former rivals Vietnam and India. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the Philippines ejected the United States from military bases in the country, but in response to the threat posed by China, the U.S. military is being invited back for exercises, given base access, and port calls. Vietnam and India have watched China’s military power increase warily and both nations have been pursuing closer ties with Washington. Both face domestic opposition to closer ties; however, the shared threat is bringing them closer to the United States.

The United States has maintained a relatively stable set of allies and alliances over the past half century that have outlived the threat that brought them together. These relationships have benefitted the United States and the allied nations through closer bilateral relationships, enhanced security, and stability. While changes in relationships appear shocking, they are natural as threat perceptions evolve. The key for the United States will be to manage expectations with allies and ensure their security concerns are addressed in places where U.S. interests don’t align with longtime friends. While interests may differ, American allies still seek an active American role in their region. The NATO campaign to oust Gaddafi in Libya showed that NATO cannot sustain military operations without American forces. The Gulf States still want an active American role in the Middle East. While the relationships evolve, no other power can provide the security guarantees like the United States, which will help long term alliances endure these temporary shocks.

Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.

Photo by The Prime Minister's Office (cc).

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.

a global affairs media network

www.diplomaticourier.com

Whither Alliances?

February 14, 2014

During World War II and the years that followed, the United States developed alliances that would be critical to fighting communism and maintaining stability. Across the globe, nations aligned with Washington to ward off communist expansionism. During the Cold War, the United States and its allies would often put their own national interests aside to focus on the larger threat of the Soviet Union and its allies. The shared threat of communism was the glue that held alliances together in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, these alliances remain intact, but in recent years differences have emerged between the United States and many allies. Policy issues that remained dormant when there was the threat of the Soviet Bloc have emerged, and neither the United States nor its allies are as willing to subvert their national interests. This phenomena has occurred because without a larger, overarching threat that is clear to all nations, each state is assessing their security environment differently and reacting with their interest in mind. This is not to say that the United States will experience a divorce from key allies; rather that the relationships that the world has grown accustomed to over the past 50 years will have to evolve in the coming years to accommodate the changing geopolitical atmosphere.

One of the clearest examples in the post-Cold War evolution of U.S. relationships with allies is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance to defend western Europe against communist aggression. In reality NATO’s security was guaranteed by the United States, who was the only nation that could match the Soviet Union’s military. The alliance prevented Soviet expansion and maintained stability for decades in a continent that had been devastated by two world wars in a generation. Despite the tensions in NATO, whether it was France’s withdrawal from the integrated military structure, rearming West Germany, or Greco-Turkish relations, the alliance remained intact. After the shared Soviet threat eliminated, cracks have emerged in the alliance over troop deployments in Afghanistan and addressing the conflict in Kosovo. The gulf between the United States and NATO is most vividly underscored by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ June 2011 comments warning that NATO risked becoming irrelevant unless the European members increase military spending and assumed a greater role in the alliance. U.S. frustration with carrying the burden of NATO stems from the fact that the shared threat of communism no longer exists and NATO members are struggling to define their roles and the organization’s mission.

The United States also faces challenges in the Middle East. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was based on close relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and pre-revolutionary Iran. These countries were all concerned about the Soviet Union and its proxies in the region. The first shock to this system was when the Shah fell and was replaced by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since then, the United States has relied on the twin pillars of bolstering Israel and the Gulf monarchies to maintain regional stability. These relationships have seen signs of strain in recent years. Despite the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, the United States and Israel have seen tensions between leaders over the direction of peace talks and settlements. Neither issue has disrupted the close ties between the two allies, but they do reflect differences in national interests and threat perceptions. The same dynamic is present in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The U.S. public is weary after a decade of war in the Middle East and is more open to negotiations, whereas Israelis view a nuclear Iran as an existential threat that threatens their very survival.

The relationships the Sunni Arab states is more complicated. The Gulf States, led by Saudi Arabia, are not happy with several recent U.S. policy decisions. King Abdullah was incensed when the United States withdrew its support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, which paved the way for their arch nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood, to seize power. In Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actively funded and armed the Syrian opposition. The United States has been reluctant to act since it views the conflict as a peripheral event, much to the dismay of Saudi Arabia. To the Saudis it is part of the life and death struggle with Shiite Iran for influence and part of their attempts to block the spread of the ‘Shiite Crescent’ across the region. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia is very concerned by the U.S. support for the recent nuclear deal with Iran. A nuclear Iran is anathema to the Saudis and closer ties between the United States and their regional rival are a matter of grave concern. The Saudis value loyalty and trust and feel that the United States is providing neither. The disputes are not a matter of the United States seeking to upset the Saudis; rather it reflects the difference in national interests. What the Saudis view as mortal threats are not viewed in the same vein by the United States after a decade of war.

While the difference in threat perception has disrupted relations in Europe and in the Middle East, a shared threat perception in Asia has reinvigorated U.S. ties with old and new friends. The rise of China and its increasingly assertive and aggressive behavior in territorial disputes have brought the U.S. closer ties with old allies such as Japan and the Philippines and closer relationships with former rivals Vietnam and India. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the Philippines ejected the United States from military bases in the country, but in response to the threat posed by China, the U.S. military is being invited back for exercises, given base access, and port calls. Vietnam and India have watched China’s military power increase warily and both nations have been pursuing closer ties with Washington. Both face domestic opposition to closer ties; however, the shared threat is bringing them closer to the United States.

The United States has maintained a relatively stable set of allies and alliances over the past half century that have outlived the threat that brought them together. These relationships have benefitted the United States and the allied nations through closer bilateral relationships, enhanced security, and stability. While changes in relationships appear shocking, they are natural as threat perceptions evolve. The key for the United States will be to manage expectations with allies and ensure their security concerns are addressed in places where U.S. interests don’t align with longtime friends. While interests may differ, American allies still seek an active American role in their region. The NATO campaign to oust Gaddafi in Libya showed that NATO cannot sustain military operations without American forces. The Gulf States still want an active American role in the Middle East. While the relationships evolve, no other power can provide the security guarantees like the United States, which will help long term alliances endure these temporary shocks.

Vineet Daga is an independent foreign policy writer. He has a BA and MA in international affairs from The George Washington University.

Photo by The Prime Minister's Office (cc).

The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.