When the United Kingdom, France and the United States took on Germany and Japan during World War II, 49 countries joined the alliance against the Axis powers. At that time there were about half the number of countries that exist today, so forty-nine countries made up almost half the world. It was clear that the will of the world majority was to side with the Allies and against the forces of Nazism, fascism and Japanese imperialism.
It was in the aftermath of World War II that the United States became not only a superpower, but also a country that many people around the world admired for their ideas, inspiration, and leadership. America rode a tremendous wave of global goodwill that led to economic alliances and support for the United States during the Cold War, which led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
The United States believed, at the time, that alliances were important, that the goodwill of the world mattered, and that support for the American cause must be carefully cultivated and maintained. This could be done first and foremost by establishing principled positions and then by rallying allies to the cause through constructive engagement that is truly useful to the nations of the world. As is the case in much of history, perfection is never achieved in politics. Nor was America free from errors in policy and execution. For example, our involvement in Vietnam proved to taint American foreign policy. But overall, by the end of the Cold War, America had managed to retain the goodwill of much of the world.
When the United States organized a coalition to defend Saudi Arabia and regain Kuwait’s freedom after Saddam’s invasion in 1990, 42 countries rallied and participated in the Gulf War on the side of the United States.
A decade later, after the September 11 attacks, the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan. He organized a military alliance known as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). 42 countries joined this coalition, and many other states supported ISAF without officially being part of the alliance.
The 2002 invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was later proven to be false. The initial invasion involved four countries. But the United States ultimately managed to muster support from 36 other countries. Even if in most cases the support was not military.
However, during the first two decades of the 21st century, the United States’ ability to forge meaningful alliances declined. Partly because of its response to 9/11 and its conduct of the war on terror, partly because of the rise of China, and perhaps partly because of the growing isolationist tendencies of its domestic politics . An analysis of how this happened is a subject worthy of a book. But for now, let’s take a quantitative look at the support America has been able to muster to address major security questions.
With the end of the War on Terror, the United States turned its attention to the Pacific, singling out Russia and China as its primary antagonists in the era of “great power competition.” How did the United States manage to gather alliances and support against these near-peers?
Getty
First, on the economic level, in 2018, 128 countries out of nearly 190 had chosen China as their main trading partner. Two-thirds of the world trades more with China than with the United States. In fact, 90 of these countries traded more than twice as much with China as with the United States. These figures only tilt even more in favor of China. The causes, in short, are China’s increased competitiveness, the United States’ propensity to ban and sanction, and the growing sense among middle powers of wanting independence in their trade policies, as well as technology transfer. and autarky.
But beyond the seemingly innocuous choice of trading partners, consider an issue at the intersection of national security and trade: the ban on Huawei technologies. The United States considers Chinese technology company Huawei a national security threat because it alleges Huawei uses backdoors and other mechanisms to exfiltrate data to China. As a result, the United States imposed sanctions on Huawei and then began to build a coalition to globalize these sanctions. So far, after several years of efforts, only six countries have imposed bans and another seven have imposed restrictions.
How effective were these borders? Considering Huawei’s net profits, which nearly doubled from 64.6 billion yuan in 2020 to a record 113.7 billion yuan ($17.22 billion) in 2021, it has to be said that the success was… limited.
But let’s return to the alliance against Huawei and the Chinese technology industry in general. Which six countries partner with the United States to ban Huawei? United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Keep these names in mind, as these are the countries that support the United States on most national security issues. Aside from the United States, the combined population of all these countries represents less than 3% of the world’s population. Due to the growth rate of other regions of the world, this percentage will continue to decline. The question American policymakers must therefore ask themselves is: Are our alliances growing or shrinking? And is the relevance of our allies increasing or decreasing?
Consider another China-related security issue; the Taiwan question. To date, only 13 countries recognize Taiwan as an independent state. To think that this figure will increase in the future is to ignore the general feeling that prevails globally.
Let us now look at the two main military alliances set up to counter China in the South China Sea and the Pacific in general. These two alliances are AUKUS and QUAD. Collectively, they involve five countries; in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and India. And among these, it is completely unclear whether India will participate in a military confrontation with China in the Pacific over an issue such as Taiwan.
Let’s move on to another close competitor, Russia. The Russian invasion of Ukraine should have been an easy cause on which to build a global alliance. Yet the global will to oppose Russia in favor of the United States and Europe is almost non-existent. Certainly, countries have sold weapons to both parties, but to measure real support for the US-EU coalition against Russia, let’s consider more meaningful measures. For example, only 36 countries have banned Russian overflights. This includes the entire EU, so it’s basically the US, Canada and the EU that make up almost the entire list. All of Asia, all of Africa, all of South America…the fastest growing regions of the world continue to do business with, and in many cases support, Russia.
Finally, consider the most recent global security issue on which the United States has taken a stand and is also seeking to build an alliance; the war in Gaza. First, let’s consider the worldview of Palestine. Today, 139 of the 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly recognize Palestine as a state. This is notably not the case for the United States and the United Kingdom. In this, they oppose the position of 72% of the countries of the world.
Only ten countries opposed a recent vote by the United Nations General Assembly demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The United States was one of these ten countries, in opposition to the 153 countries which voted for the ceasefire. Without commenting on the merits of the case or its ethics, we simply note that the United States was unable to muster the support of more than nine other countries in accordance with its position. If we consider the list of countries, their populations and their importance on the world stage, the failure is even more glaring.
Finally, let’s look at the most recent security incident that could even lead to a larger regional war; the 2024 US attack on Ansarullah (Houthi) facilities in Yemen. The United States found itself carrying out these strikes with another partner, the United Kingdom. Previous attempts to build a coalition against the Houthis have been unsuccessful. While several countries have provided naval assets to a U.S.-organized task force in the region, almost none have agreed to expand their participation in the U.S. military intervention.
In complex areas such as national security, diplomacy, and warfare, there is always more than meets the eye. It is not advisable to generalize to a large extent about a given incident. But at the same time, it is foolhardy to refuse to learn from an abundance of data and the reinforcement of a clear trend. What is the trend? That the United States is losing its ability to build important alliances. That it is increasingly going it alone (almost) alone and that it too often finds itself in the opposite direction of the direction in which much of the world is heading. In fact, the older generations in power in the United States are heading in a direction that even their his own grandchildren object. This will inevitably change as one generation gives way to another. But this inevitable transition could have been handled more skillfully. And in a way that would have preserved more goodwill toward the United States.
There is still time to revitalize American foreign policy and alliances. If the United States made a concerted attempt at multilateralism, actively engaging with and respecting international institutions and treaties, it could still restore some global confidence. We cannot be seen as a country threatening to cut funding or withdraw from organizations whose charter is the global good. We should be the ones promoting it.
We must recognize that to be seen as a leader, we must respect the wishes of the majority of people and nations on this planet. We need to take a more collaborative stance on global security issues, but also on more benign issues such as climate change and international trade. We cannot ignore the concerns and aspirations of emerging powers.
It is high time that we develop a constructive policy of economic diplomacy, in which trade and investment are used as tools to foster positive relations, rather than as sanctions and as economic weapons. Without this, there is no way to balance the growing economic influence of competitors.
Finally, we must reduce our propensity to use strong military force. We are seen as a nation constantly at war. A smaller, more strategic use of military power, prioritizing diplomatic solutions and international cooperation, is essential if we are to restore confidence in the United States as a global leader.
We still have time. But do we have wisdom?