Current U.S. leadership emphasizes the need for collective action to face today’s transnational security matters. At the CNAS National Security Conference on June 11, 2014, National Security Advisor Susan Rice gave a keynote address that focused on just that: global alliances and mobilizing coalitions. Rice asserted that when the United States encourages collective action, “we deliver outcomes that are more legitimate, more sustainable, and less costly.”
Harkening back to President Obama’s West Point speech, Rice described the importance and efficacy of mobilizing coalitions through example. The United Nations, NATO, the U.S.’s Asian alliances, and the Bretton Woods system were all built on American values. So when “Russia trampled long-established principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law with its illegal annexation of Crimea,” the United States was able to rally the international community to reprimand Russia for its misbehavior. As such, the UN General Assembly, the G7 Summit, and NATO all took action—primarily through vote—to condemn the illegal seizure of Crimea. While Rice called this collaboration a success, these measures have yet to curb Russia’s conduct or reverse the illegal annexation of territory. In fact, while the international community moved to implement sanctions on Moscow’s leadership, Russia and the Crimea worked to complete the annexation though legislation.
Still worse, five UN member states—Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Syria, and Russia—recognized the 2014 Crimea Referendum. Now, all diplomatic efforts are aimed at defusing the threat of violence in Ukraine rather than the reversal of the Crimean annexation. In cases like this, the international community has proven to be indecisive and reactionary. This gives Putin numerous options, allowing him to bring together anti-western nations and majorities, to violate international law, and to threaten civil war.
Moving further East, Rice explained that the U.S.’ longstanding alliances in Asia have bolstered regional stability. By reinforcing an “operationally resilient defense posture,” the region opposes North Korea’s provocations with a “tailored deterrence strategy and counter provocation plan with South Korea.”
Although Rice argues that partnerships like this one will preserve U.S. national interests in the region, a recent report by the Inspector-General of the U.S. Department of State says otherwise: "Over the past three years, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs has made strengthening and shaping Asia's regional institutions a top priority, but the bureau is inadequately staffed and not well structured to achieve this objective effectively." Insufficiently allocated financial and human resources threaten the effectiveness of U.S. capacity in a region where American military support may be the only thing impeding violence over territorial disputes and Chinese regional dominance.
In the case of the Middle East, Rice explained that the U.S.’s commitment to the region is evident by the 35,000 American service members stationed in the Gulf. Bringing together NATO allies and partners in the International Security Assistance Force for more coalition troops, the Obama Administration hopes to “responsibly end our war in Afghanistan” by “surging resources and helping Afghan forces take charge of their nation’s security.” Resources for challenges such as Syria, however, have been gathered by “partners through non-traditional channels to provide critical humanitarian assistance” to challenge Russian and Iranian support for the regime. Rice contended that working with our allies to pool resources in the region allows the United States to defend its core interests and protect human rights.
But the contradictory Middle East policies laid out by the Obama Administration have only contributed to the chaos. Beginning with Libya, it was American values and exceptionalism—not American interests—that would shape doctrine. Then in Syria, a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons dictated American involvement. Two years later in his West Point Keynote, Obama reverted back to prioritizing the protection of U.S. interests, leaving value judgments to the international community. Picking an approach and then shyly backing away shortly after have become a regular occurrence under the Obama Administration, leaving allies and enemies wondering what to expect next.
The eradication of al-Qaeda, a non-nuclear Iran, and a less dominant Chinese force in Asia are all in the U.S. national interest, but perhaps more importantly, they further U.S. world leadership. It is clear that all U.S. global alliances serve to maintain its leading role on the world stage. However, it seems the only way to sustain the U.S.’s long-held position is through imploring its allies to help maintain this edge. History shows that the United States is one of the world’s fiercest partners, but dramatic inconsistencies in recent American policies have made allies and friends question the American character. Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, argues that European nations recognize the need for U.S. leadership, but with events such as the NSA scandal and the Syrian “red line” debacle, the trust between allies has been broken. The damage extends to the U.S. security umbrella, as allies and partners become increasingly wary of U.S. willingness to act on their behalf.
To rebuild this trust and maintain an American leading role, Rice is adamant that the United States will expect “every ally to pull its full weight through increased investment in defense and upgrading our Alliance for the future,” an issue that the U.S. will bring up at the NATO summit in Wales this September. This move to strengthen the alliance is one that could be successful with allies willing to maintain the status quo. However, the changing times should have American leadership asking about the allies who are not as willing to play by American rules.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has grown tired and wary of U.S. negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear program. “We are not going to sit idly by and receive a threat there and not think seriously how we can best defend our country and our region,” said Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.K. A nuclear Iran is an unacceptable scenario for the Saudis and an unfavorable outcome from negotiations will drive them to Pakistan for nuclear capabilities. The United States wants better relations with Iran and the Saudis fear this will lead to geopolitical agreements between the two nations that could threaten the Saudi Kingdom. By failing to keep its word on a non-nuclear Iran, the United States risks upsetting its allies and creating dangerous tension between friends.
While effective collaboration could serve the national interest and keep the U.S. on top, there are contradictions in the mantra espoused by U.S. leadership that warrant attention. “We’ve earned our unparalleled position in the world through decades of responsible leadership. We affirm our exceptionalism by working tirelessly to strengthen the international system we helped build,” said Rice. But instead of reinforcing the paradigm of U.S. primacy by dictating a clear direction and rallying its partners, the United States is now considering how it might look at itself as an equal rather than a nation in charge. American leadership explained that “our coalitions may be more fluid than in the past, but the basics haven’t changed.” But today, it seems, the U.S. is leveraging partnerships to pawn-off the burden of leadership.
U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Michael J. Carden, Public Domain.
a global affairs media network
The United States of Contradictions
August 15, 2014
Current U.S. leadership emphasizes the need for collective action to face today’s transnational security matters. At the CNAS National Security Conference on June 11, 2014, National Security Advisor Susan Rice gave a keynote address that focused on just that: global alliances and mobilizing coalitions. Rice asserted that when the United States encourages collective action, “we deliver outcomes that are more legitimate, more sustainable, and less costly.”
Harkening back to President Obama’s West Point speech, Rice described the importance and efficacy of mobilizing coalitions through example. The United Nations, NATO, the U.S.’s Asian alliances, and the Bretton Woods system were all built on American values. So when “Russia trampled long-established principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law with its illegal annexation of Crimea,” the United States was able to rally the international community to reprimand Russia for its misbehavior. As such, the UN General Assembly, the G7 Summit, and NATO all took action—primarily through vote—to condemn the illegal seizure of Crimea. While Rice called this collaboration a success, these measures have yet to curb Russia’s conduct or reverse the illegal annexation of territory. In fact, while the international community moved to implement sanctions on Moscow’s leadership, Russia and the Crimea worked to complete the annexation though legislation.
Still worse, five UN member states—Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Syria, and Russia—recognized the 2014 Crimea Referendum. Now, all diplomatic efforts are aimed at defusing the threat of violence in Ukraine rather than the reversal of the Crimean annexation. In cases like this, the international community has proven to be indecisive and reactionary. This gives Putin numerous options, allowing him to bring together anti-western nations and majorities, to violate international law, and to threaten civil war.
Moving further East, Rice explained that the U.S.’ longstanding alliances in Asia have bolstered regional stability. By reinforcing an “operationally resilient defense posture,” the region opposes North Korea’s provocations with a “tailored deterrence strategy and counter provocation plan with South Korea.”
Although Rice argues that partnerships like this one will preserve U.S. national interests in the region, a recent report by the Inspector-General of the U.S. Department of State says otherwise: "Over the past three years, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs has made strengthening and shaping Asia's regional institutions a top priority, but the bureau is inadequately staffed and not well structured to achieve this objective effectively." Insufficiently allocated financial and human resources threaten the effectiveness of U.S. capacity in a region where American military support may be the only thing impeding violence over territorial disputes and Chinese regional dominance.
In the case of the Middle East, Rice explained that the U.S.’s commitment to the region is evident by the 35,000 American service members stationed in the Gulf. Bringing together NATO allies and partners in the International Security Assistance Force for more coalition troops, the Obama Administration hopes to “responsibly end our war in Afghanistan” by “surging resources and helping Afghan forces take charge of their nation’s security.” Resources for challenges such as Syria, however, have been gathered by “partners through non-traditional channels to provide critical humanitarian assistance” to challenge Russian and Iranian support for the regime. Rice contended that working with our allies to pool resources in the region allows the United States to defend its core interests and protect human rights.
But the contradictory Middle East policies laid out by the Obama Administration have only contributed to the chaos. Beginning with Libya, it was American values and exceptionalism—not American interests—that would shape doctrine. Then in Syria, a red line regarding the use of chemical weapons dictated American involvement. Two years later in his West Point Keynote, Obama reverted back to prioritizing the protection of U.S. interests, leaving value judgments to the international community. Picking an approach and then shyly backing away shortly after have become a regular occurrence under the Obama Administration, leaving allies and enemies wondering what to expect next.
The eradication of al-Qaeda, a non-nuclear Iran, and a less dominant Chinese force in Asia are all in the U.S. national interest, but perhaps more importantly, they further U.S. world leadership. It is clear that all U.S. global alliances serve to maintain its leading role on the world stage. However, it seems the only way to sustain the U.S.’s long-held position is through imploring its allies to help maintain this edge. History shows that the United States is one of the world’s fiercest partners, but dramatic inconsistencies in recent American policies have made allies and friends question the American character. Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, argues that European nations recognize the need for U.S. leadership, but with events such as the NSA scandal and the Syrian “red line” debacle, the trust between allies has been broken. The damage extends to the U.S. security umbrella, as allies and partners become increasingly wary of U.S. willingness to act on their behalf.
To rebuild this trust and maintain an American leading role, Rice is adamant that the United States will expect “every ally to pull its full weight through increased investment in defense and upgrading our Alliance for the future,” an issue that the U.S. will bring up at the NATO summit in Wales this September. This move to strengthen the alliance is one that could be successful with allies willing to maintain the status quo. However, the changing times should have American leadership asking about the allies who are not as willing to play by American rules.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has grown tired and wary of U.S. negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear program. “We are not going to sit idly by and receive a threat there and not think seriously how we can best defend our country and our region,” said Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.K. A nuclear Iran is an unacceptable scenario for the Saudis and an unfavorable outcome from negotiations will drive them to Pakistan for nuclear capabilities. The United States wants better relations with Iran and the Saudis fear this will lead to geopolitical agreements between the two nations that could threaten the Saudi Kingdom. By failing to keep its word on a non-nuclear Iran, the United States risks upsetting its allies and creating dangerous tension between friends.
While effective collaboration could serve the national interest and keep the U.S. on top, there are contradictions in the mantra espoused by U.S. leadership that warrant attention. “We’ve earned our unparalleled position in the world through decades of responsible leadership. We affirm our exceptionalism by working tirelessly to strengthen the international system we helped build,” said Rice. But instead of reinforcing the paradigm of U.S. primacy by dictating a clear direction and rallying its partners, the United States is now considering how it might look at itself as an equal rather than a nation in charge. American leadership explained that “our coalitions may be more fluid than in the past, but the basics haven’t changed.” But today, it seems, the U.S. is leveraging partnerships to pawn-off the burden of leadership.
U.S. Army photo by Master Sgt. Michael J. Carden, Public Domain.
