In 5th century BCE, the Persian Empire, led by King Xerxes I, threatened the Greek city-states. Athens and Sparta, despite their rivalry, united against this common enemy echoing the sentiment, “We stand together, or we fall alone.” Spartan King Leonidas I and Athenian statesman Themistocles led the resistance, marking the start of the Greco-Persian Wars. Their strategic alliance, born out of necessity, saw Leonidas and his 300 Spartans hold off the Persians at Thermopylae, while Themistocles secured a naval victory at Salamis. This unity, a testament to collective resolve, ensured the flame of freedom wasn’t extinguished.
This theme of unity born out of necessity is a recurring one in history. The Byzantine Empire allied with the Mongols against the Turkic conquest in 1243, France and the Ottomans united against the Habsburgs in 1536, and the Grand Alliance of Britain, Russia, and America formed to counter the Axis powers in 1941. These alliances underscore the pivotal role of unity in the face of a powerful common foe.
Fast-forward to today. The United States, the world’s hegemon, navigates a complex global stage. Its “united we stand” pledges span continents. We’ll explore some key defense alliances and their credibility:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
NATO, formed post World War II, unites 30 nations primarily for defense against communist threats during the Cold War. Today, it maintains peace and security beyond the North Atlantic. Its cornerstone, Article 5, asserts an attack on one is an attack on all. Post 9/11, NATO expanded its scope to counter-terrorism and out-of-area operations like in Afghanistan. It also adapted to new challenges like cyber threats, declaring cyberspace a domain of operations. NATO’s role evolved in response to Russia’s actions, like Crimea’s annexation in 2014, and the rise of China as a global power, navigating responses to its growing influence and military capabilities.
NATO’s credibility is underscored by its successful adaptation to evolving global threats and its commitment to collective defense. Its enduring relevance is evidenced by its expansion and the strategic responses to contemporary challenges such as cyber threats, terrorism, and the rise of new global powers.
Japan Security Treaty
The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty was signed in 1951 and revised in 1960, during the height of the Cold War. The treaty was primarily aimed at preventing the resurgence of militarism in Japan and providing a strategic bulwark against the spread of communism in Asia. The U.S. pledged to defend Japan in the event of an armed attack, and in return, Japan provided bases and facilities that the U.S. could use to maintain a forward presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the post-Cold War era, the U.S.-Japan alliance has adapted to address a range of new security challenges. These include the rise of China as a global power, the threat of North Korean nuclear proliferation, and non-traditional security threats such as cyber attacks and climate change. The U.S. and Japan have worked together to strengthen their collective defense capabilities and promote a rules-based international order.
South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty
On October 1, 1953, the Mutual Defense Treaty was signed between the United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). This treaty was inked just two months after the Korean Armistice Agreement, which effectively ended the active combat in the Korean War. The Mutual Defense Treaty committed both nations to provide mutual assistance in the event of an external armed attack. Furthermore, it permitted the United States to station military forces in South Korea, albeit in consultation with the South Korean government.
Over the years, the U.S.-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty has undergone several modifications to address emerging challenges.
One such significant amendment is the Special Measures Agreement. This agreement, which pertains to Article V of the Mutual Defense Treaty, outlines the principles for sharing the expenditures related to the maintenance of the United States Armed Forces in Korea. Another major modification is the plan to transfer wartime operational control (OPCON) to a binational command. This command would be led by a South Korean general, with a U.S. deputy. This change is a recognition of South Korea’s enhanced military capabilities and its aspiration for greater autonomy.
In the midst of ongoing tensions on the Korean peninsula, this treaty serves as a sentinel, preserving peace in a volatile region.
Philippines Defense Pact
The Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), signed on August 30, 1951, in Washington, D.C., is a testament to the historical ties between the U.S. and the Philippines, which became a U.S. territory following the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War. The Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1935 set the Philippines on the path to independence, achieved on July 4, 1946, despite delays due to World War II and Japanese occupation.
Even after gaining independence, the Philippines maintained a robust American military presence, hosting several U.S. military bases. The MDT obligated both nations to support each other in case of an attack. In 2014, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) expanded this security relationship, although it faced legal and political challenges in the Philippines.
In February 2023, the U.S. and the Philippines revived their EDCA, granting the U.S. access to nine Philippine military bases, strategically located near Taiwan and the South China Sea.
On May 3, 2023, a landmark event took place. U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Philippine Secretary of the Department of National Defense Carlito Galvez established the Bilateral Defense Guidelines. These guidelines aimed to modernize alliance cooperation and reaffirmed that an armed attack in the Pacific, including anywhere in the South China Sea, on either of their public vessels, aircraft, or armed forces – which includes their Coast Guards – would invoke mutual defense commitments under Articles IV and V of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines MDT.
The guidelines serve a dual purpose. They aim to strengthen the combined deterrence of the United States and the Philippines in an evolving security environment and reaffirm the enduring relevance of the U.S.-Philippines MDT in addressing both current and emerging threats. Furthermore, they guide priority areas of defense cooperation to address both conventional and non-conventional security challenges of shared concern.
In the context of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, the Philippines has become a critical stronghold for U.S. interests due to its strategic location near mainland China and Taiwan. Should China engage in aggressive actions, the U.S. would be compelled to intervene, as inaction could significantly undermine its credibility. As President Joe Biden often emphasizes, the U.S.-Philippines Defense Pact is Iron-Clad. The stakes, akin to those in Ukraine, are too high to adopt an isolationist foreign policy stance.
Israel Security Ties
The U.S. and Israel have a unique bond, established when Israel declared independence in 1948 and the U.S. was the first to recognize it. U.S.-Israel security ties began in the 1960s, with the U.S. fostering relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. In 1987, Israel became a major non-NATO ally of the U.S., enabling it to purchase advanced U.S. weapons. The U.S. has provided Israel with over $130 billion in bilateral assistance and convenes regularly via the Joint Political-Military Group (JPMG) for security cooperation. Today, Israel is the leading recipient of U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, receiving $3.3 billion annually. The U.S. equips Israel with advanced military equipment, including the F-35 Lightning. The U.S.’s support following the October 7 Hamas attack underscores its commitment to Israel’s security.
The U.S.-Australia Security Treaty
The ANZUS Treaty, signed on September 1, 1951, was a trilateral agreement between the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand to ensure Pacific region’s peace. It evolved into separate agreements between the U.S. and Australia, and New Zealand and Australia after a 1986 dispute over nuclear-ship visits.
The treaty, extending beyond the Pacific, is the foundation of the U.S.-Australia security relationship. They collaborate bilaterally and through regional forums like the Quad and ASEAN to enhance Indo-Pacific region’s stability and prosperity.
On September 15, 2021, a new trilateral security partnership, AUKUS, was announced. It involves the U.S. and the U.K. assisting Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines and cooperating on advanced cyber mechanisms, AI, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation, and information sharing.
Australia’s strategic response to the evolving security environment is to acquire a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability. ASC Pty Ltd and BAE Systems were selected to build Australia’s SSN-AUKUS submarines, with ASC also chosen as the sustainment partner. The AUKUS partners are aligning exports and trade regulations to deepen defense trade.
The Rio Treaty: Collective Security in the Americas
The Rio Treaty, signed in 1947, is a key instrument of collective security in the Americas, asserting that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This treaty, a response to post-World War II geopolitical shifts, established a collective security system and a multipurpose multilateral organization by 1948.
The treaty, along with the Organization of American States (OAS), emerged as significant security and political institutions in the Western Hemisphere, designed to ensure U.S. influence in the region. However, the treaty’s influence has fluctuated over time, notably in 1982 when the U.S. supported the U.K. in the Falklands War against Argentina, undermining the treaty’s credibility.
Despite periods of inactivity, the Rio Treaty remains a powerful symbol of hemispheric defense, as evidenced by its invocation during the 2019 Venezuelan crisis.
End Note
While alliances have played a crucial role in maintaining global security and stability, it’s essential to acknowledge their inherent shortcomings and the challenges they face in the evolving geopolitical landscape. While alliances like NATO, the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, and the U.S.-Philippines Defense Pact have demonstrated their resilience and adaptability, they are not without their limitations.
One notable challenge is the risk of over-reliance on alliances, which may lead to complacency or a false sense of security. Additionally, diverging interests among alliance members, shifting geopolitical dynamics, and emerging threats such as cyber warfare and non-state actors pose significant challenges to the effectiveness of traditional defense alliances.
Looking ahead, the United States must navigate a complex and rapidly changing global environment while ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of its alliances. This requires a nuanced approach that balances the need for collective security with the recognition of each nation’s unique interests and capabilities.
