The United States of America has long been the pre-eminent global superpower and perhaps the most powerful nation to ever exist. America’s ideals and institutions have been enforced worldwide due to its pre-eminence. Is this a good thing? The US’s powers in the UN and NATO are clear-cut examples of the influence the US has, and it is unclear whether this is beneficial or not.
First, we must explore why this came to be. A superpower is a hugely powerful and globally influential nation, which is typically used to refer to the US and the former Soviet Union. The opposing ideologies and interests led to both nations seeking to expand their spheres of influence in the years following World War 2, such as the Soviet Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, or the US interventions in Korea and Vietnam. While watching the rising power of the USSR which, in addition to Stalin’s authoritarian and cruel rule, the US developed the “Red Scare” phenomenon, where the population actively feared the spread of left-wing ideas. Furthermore, the post-war establishment of the Eastern Bloc, communist ideology and the potential for a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, through the Fulda Gap or otherwise, fuelled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as American officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms build-up and an interventionist approach to international relations, actively preventing the spread of Communism with the Truman Doctrine. Given long enough, these tensions boiled over into the Cold War. This ended in the defeat of the USSR, leaving the US as arguably the sole remaining superpower in the world.
Today, the US has unparalleled power. The country owns about 750 military bases spread across over 80 nations. It has the largest economy and military in the world, with over 3.5% of their annual GDP spent on the military alone. Due to the power of the US, the country can protect nations who ally themselves with them. This gives them heavy influence in international organizations such as NATO and the UN, whose headquarters are conveniently placed in New York. In fact, the wealth of the US means that they can undermine the democratic principles of the United Nations. The United States is the largest provider of financial contributions to the United Nations, providing 27.89% of the UN assessed peacekeeping budget of $6.38 billion for fiscal year 2020, with China and Japan contributing 15.2 percent and 8.5 percent of the budget, respectively. Additionally, the US’s seat on the UN security council, along with its funding, gives the US a large amount of control over when and how the peacekeeping forces are used. Other nations in the council do hold veto power, but that combined with the negative prospects of making the US an enemy ensures that the US typically gets its way. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which determined that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination, was strongly opposed by US officials yet passed. However, in 1991 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 46/86, which revoked Resolution 3379. In this case, the US withdrew from UNESCO and withheld its payments into the organisation to “convince” the UN to repeal UN Resolution 3379. Unsurprisingly, when the Resolution was repealed in 1991 the US continued to pay its arrears once more. Also, its veto power in the security council has led to situations like the US government dissenting against Security Council resolutions 12 times out of 17 total instances when a permanent member vetoed since 1989. Of these 12, only two related to issues other than the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in which the US favours Israel, as the US does not recognize Palestine as a state.
It seems that the US is further harming the democratic nature of the UN when the US uses its influence in the UN to damage its enemies. In 2003, the Bush administration spearheaded a coalition attack and occupied Iraq with the casus belli that the country was supposedly developing nuclear weapons. Despite multiple investigations launched by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iraq Survey Group failing to find any evidence proving these allegations, the US was allowed to depose the leadership of another country. They also occupied the nation for 8 years, undermining its sovereignty. During this occupation, approximately 4,000 U.S. troops and many more Iraqi soldiers and civilians lost their lives. However, Saddam Hussain did commit many human rights abuses and so potentially deserved to be deposed. Yet his authority had been previously consolidated through US intervention, especially during the Iran-Iraq war, in which the country received several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, military intelligence, and special operations training. There were also human rights abuses and war crimes during this period, with examples being the Abu Ghraib torture and the Mahmudiyah rape and killings. Whether it is eradicating enemies or bullying nations into aligning with the US in UN Resolutions, the US clearly has a huge ability to use its influence and control over the UN for its own benefit. This is arguably an incredibly dangerous level of power.
Although, the role of the US in NATO is in some ways more positive. As the US holds such great military capability, it can deter conflict and maintain peace. The US facilitated the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. NATO's main goal was to deter the USSR, gathering western allies in solidarity during the era of the Cold War. With the main mechanism of this being Article 5 where an attack on one is an attack on all. Therefore, it suddenly became much less attractive to attack a NATO member than it would have been if they were alone. Lest they draw the rage of the world’s most capable military in combination with the other powerful militaries of NATO, such as the UK and France. Furthermore, closely allied countries not in the organisation, such as Australia or even Japan, can be brought to bear as well. This was first and most recently triggered by the 9/11 attack on the US meaning that NATO soldiers stood side by side with US soldiers in Afghanistan, and over 1000 have died as a result. This triggering of Article 5 now acts as a precedent for the type of response an enemy could expect. Article 5 and US military power have worked quite successfully in repelling attacks on member states, especially the Baltic States. These border Russia, and the latter has occupied them in the past. So, Putin may have been inclined to attack those nations if they were not in NATO, as he did to Ukraine. The security of NATO is only increasing as well as the Nordic nations of Sweden and Finland, previously known for taking a more “armed neutrality” stance on global affairs, are tendering their admissions into NATO. This is geopolitically advantageous too as, if they are admitted, NATO members would fully surround the Baltic Sea. As a result, they can aid naval and aerial superiority in the region and totally control the area around the Russian Oblast of Kaliningrad. Thus, the US into NATO ensures global security and helps keep peace worldwide, especially in Europe in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
In conclusion, the US’s incontestable power and influence worldwide has led to a lot of influence in the affairs of key international organisations such as the UN and NATO. While the US does use its power in controversial ways, the US plays a key role in keeping global peace and security. So, while American global influence seems excessive, it is not necessarily a negative and in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Russia, might be more necessary than ever.
Comments