Military Alliances Led by USA
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/alliances/usa-military
Latest Update: 17 February 2024
Monitoring Alliances by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Monitoring Military, Political, Economic and Trade Alliances that Have an Impact on Global Order and Geopolitics
Monitoring Alliances by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/monitoring-alliances
Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
A Researcher in International Relations with a Focus on Security, Political and Economic Risks for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade
Publications— Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/publications/
Unpublished New Research Papers of Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/research-papers
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: Comments on Contemporary Risks.
Risks Timeline by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/timeline-risks
Monitoring Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher to Analyse in-Depth Security & Political Risks and Economic & Strategic Risks
Monitoring Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/monitoring-risks-1
Monitoring Alliances by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: Monitoring Military, Political, Economic and Trade Alliances that Have an Impact on Global Order and Geopolitics
Monitoring Alliances by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/monitoring-alliances
Global Survival Rank by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: Yearly Rank to Compare the Global Political Power among Countries, Alliances and Coalitions to Survive Long Wars at the Military Level, Economic Level, and Political Level Global Survival Rank by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/global-survival-rank-zrb
Global Risks by Dr. Rozen-Bakher: Stimulating Thinking ‘Out of the Box’ on Ongoing Global Problems that Have no Clear Solutions
Global Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/global-risks
Blog on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher to Identify Risks versus Opportunities at the Country Level
Blog on FDI and International Trade by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, by Date: https://www.rozen-bakher.com/blog-all
Twitter-X Lists of Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher to Identify Security & Political Risks and Economic & Strategic Risks
Twitter-X Lists: Dr. Rozen-Bakher’s Twitter Lists https://www.rozen-bakher.com/twitter-lists-gr
For the Differences Between Military Defence Treaty versus Military Support Treaty versus Military Cooperation, Please see Section B2. in 2024 Global Survival Rank by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/global-survival-rank-zrb/2024
USA's Military Defence Treaties
The USA has a long list of old ‘Mutual Defence Treaties' with other countries, but most of them refer to 'Military Support Treaty' rather than to 'Military Defence Treaty', still, many of these ‘Military Support Treaties’ have become de-facto Inactive ones. More specifically, most of the Mutual Defence Treaties of the USA lack any commitment to defend in the case of an attack in the style of NATO, but only to give Support in the case of attack, while there are Mutual Defence Treaties of the USA that include Consultation in the case of an attack yet without Hard-Definition of Commitment as exist in NATO or in the USA-Japan Military Defence Treaty. Therefore, the focus here is only on the USA's ‘Military Defence Treaties’, rather than on ‘Military Support Treaties’, yet with the distinction between Active ones and Not Active ones, still, it excludes Bilateral Military Defence Treaties that are covered under Multilateral Military Defence Treaties, such as the old Bilateral Military Defence Treaties between the USA and Canada, which has become less relevant under NATO because both USA and Canada are members of NATO.
Active Military Defence Treaties
NATO. NATO is a military alliance that was established after WWII led by the USA and it includes mainly countries from Europe under the concept that the USA should protect Europe amid the traumatic past of WWII, still, NATO includes Germany, while not Russia which is considered the main enemy of NATO. NATO has an ‘Open Door Policy’ that decreases the power of NATO because, in the last two decades, too many weaker members joined NATO, while powerful ones stayed outside, so it has weakened NATO instead of empowering the alliance. Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are considered Dialogue Partner of NATO, so they may also join NATO under the ‘Open Door Policy’. In spite of the Russia-Ukraine War due to Ukraine's wish to join NATO, Ukraine has a big obstacle to joining NATO, because unlikely that all NATO countries will ratify the joining of Ukraine to NATO, still, NATO is involved indirectly in the war between Russia and Ukraine by providing military aid and military assistant, regardless of the civilian aid and civilian assistant.
USA–Japan Military Defence Treaty. This treaty was signed in 1960 as ‘One Direction’ of a Military Defence Treaty namely, the USA has the commitment to defend Japan in the case of attack, while Japan in return allows the USA troops to be stationed on Japanese soil. However, Japan has no commitment to protect the USA in the case of an attack against the soil of USA. Besides, the USA should consult the Japanese government in the case of a significant change in the size of the USA Force in Japan. The Defence of Japan by the USA includes also a ‘Nuclear Umbrella’ that covers all Japanese islands.
Not Active Military Defence Treaties
Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Pact). The Military Defence Treaty, Rio Pact, was signed in 1947 and currently covers the USA and 17 countries from the Latin-America, but the treaty over the years has become de-facto as a Not Active Treaty namely, there are no Yearly Summits, No Joint-Drills, the Alliance has No Active Headquarter, and importantly, over the years, many members have distanced themselves from the treaty, so if for example will erupt a war between the USA and Russia, then unlikely that Brazil and Venezuela will be involved in a war against Russia to protect the USA, despite that Brazil and Venezuela are formally members of the Rio Pact.
ANZUS alliance. The original alliance was signed in 1951 between the USA, Australia and New Zealand, but does Not Fully Exist today, because New Zealand withdrew from the Treaty, while the USA and Australia made changes in the original treaty. Thereby, the current treaty may be considered as a ‘Military Defence Treaty’ under ‘Soft Definition’, yet it does not include “an automatic obligation on either of the parties to go to war” (Source https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/anzus-and-the-fabric-of-peace-in-the-pacific/). However, if we look at how the Australians see the ANZUS, then it looks like a Military Support Treaty, over a ‘Military Defence Treaty’: “The original agreement between the three nations (USA, Australia and New Zealand) no longer fully exists in practice, but the basic sentiment of the ANZUS alliance is still responsible for a number of current security-related activities between Australia and the United States, including: the annual Australia–US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN), intelligence and technology sharing, military exchange programs, and international military training exercises.” (Source: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/anzus-treaty). Nevertheless, “Australia would have the right to determine whether an ‘armed attack’ had occurred, within the meaning of Articles IV and V, as well as what action to take to ‘meet the common danger’, under Article IV” (Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/anzus-and-the-fabric-of-peace-in-the-pacific/). See also Revitalising Australia’s out-of-date US alliance.
Military Defence Treaties under Unclear Definition of Mutual Defence in the case of an Attack
USA–Philippines Military Defence Treaty. Many refer the Military Alliance between USA and Philippines as a Military Defence Treaty that includes mutual commitment to defence in the case of an attack. However, analyzing the treaty (see below) reveal unclear mutual commitment to defence each other in the case of an attack, because the treaty mentioned too many pre-conditions that should be activated before any act of mutual defence, so it is even difficult to refer the treaty under soft-definition of Military Defence Treaty, still, anyway, the treaty focusing only on the pacific region, so Philippines has no any commitment to defence USA in the case of an attack on USA soil, but only in the case of an attack on USA territories in the pacific.
Mutual Defence Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines; August 30, 1951
ARTICLE I. The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. ARTICLE II. In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. ARTICLE III. The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack in the Pacific. ARTICLE IV. Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. ARTICLE V. For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific. ARTICLE VI. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. ARTICLE VII. This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Manila. ARTICLE VIII. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.
From 2024 Global Survival Rank by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
2024 Global Survival Rank by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/global-survival-rank-zrb/2024
Section E22. Bilateral Military Defence Treaties: China’s Treaties and USA Treaties https://www.rozen-bakher.com/gsr/2024/e/22
E22.2 USA’s Bilateral Military Defence Treaties
E22.2.1 USA–Japan Military Defence Treaty (One-Direction)
From Newspapers
US, Japan reaffirm plans to strengthen military alliance as global conflicts flare up
Honduras threatens to close US military bases over Trump’s anti-immigration agenda
USAF Will Withdraw A-10s from Final Overseas Base in Korea in 2025
Japan, U.S. defence chiefs agree to reinforce alliance; protection of Senkaku Islands reaffirmed
Opinion – Toward a Japan-South Korea Alliance Less Reliant on the US
Philippines, United States sign military intelligence-sharing deal
US says European security no longer its primary focus – the shift has been years in the making
Donald Trump vows to cut billions of dollars from US defence spending
Saudi Arabia abandons pursuit of US defence treaty over Israel stalemate
US defence chief signals major shift in Ukraine support in first NATO meet
The US defence industrial base can no longer reliably supply Europe
US Senate confirms controversial nominee Pete Hegseth as new Defence Secretary
Tensions and Alliances: The Philippines' Strategic Defense in a Turbulent South China Sea
The Role Of Hickham Air Force Base In The US Pacific Strategy
The defense industry is vital to Washington's economy. We should focus on growing it | Opinion
US Navy Carrier Group Sends Destroyers to Russia's Arctic Doorstep
India's historic shift in attitude about a US base at Diego Garcia
As U.S. Sends Troops to the Middle East, What Is America's Bootprint in the Region
US provided $17.9B in military aid to Israel since October 2023: Report
The U.S. Military Keeps Moving F-16 and F-22 Fighters Closer to Iran
U.S., Japan poised to agree on shift in Marine unit on Okinawa
What the upgraded US-Japan alliance means for Indo-Pacific security
Does Ishiba's 'Asian NATO' Spell Trouble for the Japan-US Alliance?
Joint naval drills prepares Philippines, 5 nations for 'evolving maritime security challenges'
Trump says Taiwan should pay for defense, sending TSMC stock down
Japan may ‘cause troubles’ after Philippines defence pact: maritime expert
Blinken, Austin detail new U.S. security commitments for Philippines
US announces $500 million in military financing for Philippines
US, Japan, South Korea sign pact amid ‘deteriorating’ regional security
U.S., Japan and South Korea ink deal to 'institutionalize' security ties
US to revamp military forces in Japan in ‘historic’ move as regional tensions mount
Japan, U.S., South Korea start military drills to counter North
Japan and the US fast-track hypersonic defence tech amid tensions
US admiral: PH can invoke MDT if sea attacks kill soldier, sailor
Experts: Philippines, US should revisit treaty to include China’s ‘gray-zone’ tactics
Philippine-US defense treaty doesn't trigger immediate military action — analyst
Biden says U.S. support for Philippines mutual defense treaty is 'ironclad'
The US is sending more troops to the Middle East. Where in the world are US military deployed?
Russian troops enter base housing US military in Niger, US official says
Iraqi Militias Launch Drone Strikes on US Base in Eastern Syria
US reaches agreement with Niger to withdraw military forces by September 15
Iraq, US agree to start talks on phased withdrawal of US-led military coalition
From Scientific Literature - Research Papers and Research Books
Forever Bound? Japan's Road to Self-defence and the US Alliance Boswinkel, L. (2024). Forever Bound? Japan’s Road to Self-defence and the US Alliance. Survival, 66(3), 105-128.
From “footprint” to relationships: Impacts of US military base on Okinawa Oshiro, A. (2024). From “footprint” to relationships: Impacts of US military base on Okinawa. Sociology Compass, 18(1), e13099.
Japan, US Strengthen Alliance, Expand Defense Cooperation Kuramitsu, S. (2024). Japan, US Strengthen Alliance, Expand Defense Cooperation. Arms Control Today, 54(4), 27-28.
Confronting China: US defense policy in an era of great power competition Anderson, J. H., & Green, D. R. (Eds.). (2024). Confronting China: US defense policy in an era of great power competition. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Exploring the factors behind the persistence of the Philippine-US alliance: a focus on the changing gist of the 1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT) De Castro, R. C. (2022). Exploring the factors behind the persistence of the Philippine-US alliance: a focus on the changing gist of the 1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defence Treaty (MDT). Australian Journal of International Affairs, 76(6), 694-711.
The Ending of the Korean War and Syngman Rhee's Search for a US—ROK Mutual Defence Treaty, April–August 1953 Hong, Y. P., & Hong, Y. P. (2000). The Ending of the Korean War and Syngman Rhee’s Search for a US—ROK Mutual Defence Treaty, April–August 1953. State Security and Regime Security: President Syngman Rhee and the Insecurity Dilemma in South Korea 1953–60, 40-58.
Treaty or Travesty?: Legal Issues Surrounding the US-Philippines Military Base Agreement of 1947–1992 Ma, L. E. A. (2001). Treaty or Travesty?: Legal Issues Surrounding the US-Philippines Military Base Agreement of 1947–1992. Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 10(1-2), 93-121.
New Bases Treaty and Conversion Plans for a New Form of US Military Presence Magallona, M. M. (1990). New Bases Treaty and Conversion Plans for a New Form of US Military Presence. World Bull., 6, 75.
Will US military bases on our soil prevent an ALP government signing, ratifying and complying with the United Nations Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons? Ramsden, B. (2019). Will US military bases on our soil prevent an ALP government signing, ratifying and complying with the United Nations Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons?. Australian Socialist, 25(1), 13-14.
US military commitments: Multilateralism and treaties Martin, L. L. (2007). US military commitments: Multilateralism and treaties. In Multilateralism and Security Institutions in an Era of Globalization (pp. 74-91). Routledge.