Gordon L. Weil
The nations that won the Second World War had a big idea.
Having joined together as allies to defeat Nazi Germany, they would try to create international organizations to keep the peace. New aggression would be blocked by these new institutions.
Even before World War II ended, the victors created the United Nations, an organization designed to put their high intentions into operation. While the wartime alliance between the Soviet Union on one side and the United States and Britain on the other had been strained, the Americans hoped that wartime momentum could propel the U.N. forward.
Almost from the outset, cooperation in the U.N. didn’t work. The Soviet Union seized domination of Eastern Europe and, using stolen nuclear technology, asserted itself as a superpower. It confronted the U.S. and threatened to continue its expansion westward.
China, another of the key victors of World War II, ended its close relationship with the U.S. when the Communists took control there. Almost immediately, it backed North Korea’s invasion of the southern part of the Korean peninsula. American forces, fighting under the U.N. banner, directly engaged Chinese troops.
The hoped-for ability of the major powers to police the world was dead. The U.N. would not ensure peace.
Responding to the Soviet gains, the U.S. and Europe created NATO, an organization designed to forestall further advances westward by the U.S.S.R. The Cold War emerged as alliances were formed similar to those that had existed during the two World Wars.
The Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact faced NATO, which drew the armed forces of its member countries into tight operating units, led by the U.S. It succeeded in discouraging further Soviet expansion.
One constructive idea for cooperation was to entwine the economies of France and Germany so that they could not independently gear up to again launch a European conflict that would turn into World War III. This idea led to the European Community, now known as the European Union. A unified Europe could be an effective ally to the U.S.
The economic advantages of the original EU members became so evident that other countries sought to join. But some were far more interested in the benefits that would flow to them than in creating a more unified political and economic entity. In practice, the EU became a two-tier organization.
At its core are the founders, a relative handful of countries. But states like Poland, Hungary and the U.K. proved reluctant to open themselves to common standards of conduct or open movement of their citizens. The split became obvious when Britain decided to quit the EU.
Still, the European idea has continued to have appeal. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, many countries it had controlled applied for EU membership. Russia, the survivor of the U.S.S.R., felt challenged.
As the EU grew, NATO became complacent, not believing that Russia would resort to military action. Even after Russia seized parts of Ukraine in 2014, NATO chose to appease its adversary, just as had Britain and France in a showdown with Hitler.
Then, under then President Trump, the U.S. began to back away from NATO. By 2022, Russia felt free to try to seize all of Ukraine. NATO, under American leadership, at last awoke.
The Asia-Pacific area countries, including the U.S., had not understood that China would follow the Russian example and seek to increase its regional power. As it became evident that it would try to dominate the region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was formed to confront it.
But the U.S. saw the TPP merely as a trade agreement, failing to understand it as an alliance to block China’s expansion. Under Trump, it backed out. Only when China’s moves in Hong Kong and the South China Sea became blatant did the U.S. take leadership of a Pacific effort against its moves.
Though the U.N. would not be a world organization to promote peace, regional alliances arose to face aggression by Russia and China. Still, the U.S. and Britain insisted that national sovereignty is more important than this effort and moved away from these alliances.
Some define sovereignty as retaining completely independent action and ceding no powers under an international arrangement. For example, it has become almost impossible to get the U.S. Senate to ratify any treaty, because a deal with another country may be seen as a loss of sovereignty.
But a nation can exercise its sovereign powers to increase its prosperity and security by deciding to join with like-minded partners. Given American power, such alliances can continue to increase U.S. influence, not limit it.
In the upcoming presidential elections, the U.S. will again be asked to decide if it wants to continue leading common international efforts against aggression or to isolate itself from them. Insisting on “America First” could result in America Alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment