Allies and Adversaries, and Inconsistencies

Alliances are never forever, and peace has yet to be permanently established. That has been easy to forget since the Second World War ended. Journalist and political scientist Fareed Zakaria described recent history as a world of peace and prosperity for 75 years. Steven Pinker, in his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, told us in 800 pages that the modern era is the most peaceful in history. And an organization called Our World in Data has the numbers that show deaths in war have decreased by almost half since the 1940s.

Now, some of the post-WW2 alliances are reportedly fraying. World trade has a lot to do with that, and self-preservation should not be criticized when countries are protecting their positions on the world chess board. And yet, expectations formed by the relative peace of the post-war period make current realignments and “dis-alignments” feel jarring.

Conflict in the Middle East unleashed a series of conflicts among allies. When the US left the Iran nuclear deal it lost the support of its European allies. Subsequent US sanctions against Iran left the EU pursuing workarounds to keep Iran in negotiations. When Iran threatened shipping through the Persian Gulf, the UK broke from the EU to join a US-led maritime security operation. The UK remains committed to work with the EU on a nuclear deal with Iran.

Meanwhile the Washington Post reported that the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which supported the US hardline approach to Iran, was not favorable to a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf. The UAE “sent a coast guard delegation to Tehran to discuss maritime security, putting it at odds with Washington’s goal of isolating Iran.” The UAE also backs a warlord in Libya who is fighting against the US- and UN-backed government in Libya, and the UAE joined Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt in an economic embargo against Qatar, a US ally which supports Islamists in the Middle East even as it is home base for US air operation in the Persian Gulf.

The US questioning of its NATO commitment has had a chilling effect on European allies that have depended on the US for defense. As the UK struggles over whether to remain part of the European Union, the US has encouraged this further fracturing of European unity, assuring the UK that it would enjoy ample trade opportunities with the US. The US has also been less than supportive of EU efforts to promote democratic norms among EU members Poland and Hungary in Eastern Europe.

In an article on World Politics Review  columnist Frida Ghitis reports the feud between US allies South Korea and Japan threatens to boil over. “Traditionally, America’s global leadership responsibilities included acting as a relationship counselor, trying to help solve disputes between its friends, even if it was partly out of self-interest.”

That leadership extended through the postwar period, and under US administrations of both political parties – diffusing crises while promoting democratic principles, even though its own record was less than perfect. Mutual support was enshrined in NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on any member of NATO would be regarded as an attack on all its members. It is ironic that the one time Article 5 has been invoked was when NATO allies came to the aid of the US following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.