Military Alliances Led by USA

Written By Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

https://www.rozen-bakher.com/alliances/usa-military

Latest Update: 15 April 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

CV

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

Amid Trump’s Trade War and its other demands, it is unclear if NATO will remain the same. Besides, it is unclear if the Bilateral Defence Treaty between USA and Canada is still relevant due to wish of Trump to make Canada as a Colony of USA.

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

From Scientific Literature - Research Papers and Research Books

From Documentaries and Inside TV News

Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

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

https://www.rozen-bakher.com/
Previous

NDB - New Development Bank led by BRICS
Next

CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States