Government alliances and international relations from World War I to present

¶ … Governments make and break alliances, treaties, and agreements for financial and political gains, as well as for power and control, all in a constantly fluid manner. Such changes have been taking place as long as there have been countries, so the maneuverings should not be of any surprise; what this paper seeks to do is determine how those ongoing changes reflect the current environment as well as how the alliances will influence governments over the next several years, and decades.

Historical Context -- World War I (1914 -- 1919)

A recent historical report states that "with deliberate deceptions, lies and attempts on all sides to appear as the wronged, it is little wonder that, after a hundred years, there is still no consensus on why the July Crisis escalated into the First World War" (Mombauer, 2014, p. 23). World War I was known as the war to end all wars, but it started innocently enough with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and the murder of his wife Sophie on Sunday, June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, Bosnia by Bosnian nationalists. Mombauer posits that ever since that time fierce arguments about the chain of events leading up to that assassination have been debated by historians, politicians and journalists (Mombauer, 2014). Alliances of the various players in that historical context are quite interesting, especially when compared to World War II that took place less than twenty-five years later. World War I started with Germany supporting Austria-Hungary's efforts to hold Serbia accountable for the murder of the Archduke and his wife.

Mombauer states that the reason Germany may have been so supportive was due to the German's desire to test the Entente Powers (Russia, France and Great Britain) whose combined might encircled Germany and its ally (Mombauer, 2014). Germany, and to some extent, its allies (Austria-Hungary, Italy) worried that the Entente Powers were gaining too much power and wished to stem the tide. The Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary) in some manner welcomed the chance to weaken the alliance between the Entente Powers (France, Russia, Great Britian) even if only on the slightest of pretenses.

Roslyng-Jensen provides another reason for the war could be the preceding period of peace between many of the countries as they looked to facilitate imperial expansion around the globe (2012). According to Roslyng-Jensen this imperial expansion allowed governments to appease their own citizens who viewed a general European war over a colonial dispute as unacceptable, and that the expense of war outweighed the profitability of war. Additionally, the big players practicing imperial expansion regularly cooperated in "suppressing threats to European interests, as happened during the Boxer rebellion in China" (Roslyng-Jensen, p. 530). Many of the European alliances that were shaped before World War I were defensive in nature, and it was because of this defensive orientation that clear acts of aggression were restrained by the alliance system (Mulligan, 2011, p. 15). According to Mulligan (2011) states cooperated on issues of specific interest, and even on the eve of war spheres of influence in the declining Ottoman empire were agreed upon by Britain, Germany and France.

As with almost all alliances however, the big boys see what the other players are achieving through imperialism and cooperation and become worried that they are being left behind, or that after the other players have taken over the smaller countries they would then turn their eyes, military might, and other resources towards bigger prey. Bogdanor (2014) states that two rival nationalisms -- Slav nationalism seeking to unite all the southern Slavs, and German nationalism seeking to expand eastward -- created a tension that directly contributed to the initiation of World War I.

Once Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia, and Germany announced its full support for the action, other European countries quickly climbed on board, fearful to some extent, the fallout or possible consequences of not being aligned with other like-minded governments. France, Russia and Great Britain immediately sided with the Serbs and declared war. It truly could not be declared a World War until the other fledgling superpower (United States) joined the fray; that took place on Historical Context - World War II (1939 -- 1945)

Some of the alliances formed before and during World War I were still strong preceding and during World War II, but at least one significant change was made between the major powers; Germany, along with Italy were still a strong partnership, but now instead of Austria-Hungary as a third member, Japan was invited to join their alliance, and did so. The three countries formed an Axis. On the Allied side of the equation; the United States, Great Britain, Russia (and to a much smaller and weaker extent, France) remained together in order to halt the aggression displayed by the Axis.

Originally the Axis was challenged by France, Great Britain and the British commonwealth (Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia) but after Russia was attacked by Germany, and the United States was attacked by Japan, both of the two superpowers declared war and joined in with the other Allies to fight the Axis. China joined with them the same year to assist as well. The Allies not only won the war, but also became known as the United Nations.

Historical Context - Cold War (1948 -- 1989)

Many of the alliances formed before World War I were still in existence during the years preceding World War II, but some of the alliances made during those three decades changed significantly over the years known as the Cold War (1948 -- 1989). The big three countries (United States, Great Britain and Russia) found themselves down to two (United States and Great Britain) after Russia's leaders determined that communism would now be the form of government practiced there. Though Russia joined with the United States, Great Britain, France and China to form the new United Nations, they soon found themselves as the pariah (albeit a very strong and capable one) against most of the democratic countries around the world, but befriended by smaller (and equally communistic) countries. As the Cold War ran its course, a major World War was averted but it wasn't until the late 1980's that Russia's citizens finally demanded a free democracy.

WAAAR

The World Alliance Against Antibiotic Resistance (WAAAR) is one more example of a large number of countries banding together for a common purpose. According to Carlet (2014) the primary purpose, goal and objective of WAAAR is to raise awareness concerning the magnitude of the threat facing the global community concerning antibiotic resistance. The organization boast a membership of over "700 individuals from 55 countries" (Carlet, 2014, p. 644) representing a wide variety of advocacy groups concerned over the somewhat lacking urgency being demonstrated towards the declining effectiveness of antibiotic medicine to combat some of the world's most deadly diseases. The members have joined together in an effort to bring the issue to light amongst the modern medical and research communities.

Examples

The three examples discussed herein (WHO, WAAAR, UN) were all purposefully included in this paper to demonstrate the fact that global alliances and organizations can, and do, work. Since the UN was originally founded in 1945, the world has not had to experience a World War similar to both World War I or World War II. There have been plenty of wars and military actions between the numerous countries around the world during that time, but none that involved the large number of countries as either World War. Not in recent memory has almost the entire world been at war with one another. Organizations such as the UN that promote the common good can be successful, but it does take no small amount of commitment and effort by the member countries.

Future alliances and concerns

Commitment and effort will be needed in no small amounts within the next few years (and possibly even sooner than that). The entire world is faced with a number of possibilities that are very troubling and dangerous. Facism, communism and extremism are all on the march, and evil dictators and rulers who wish to rule their countries and fiefdoms with an iron hand are evident around the world. Capitalism and freedom are constantly under attack, though evidence shows that those human societies afforded the most freedom and liberty to prosper, are most likely to respond with a growing, vibrant, happy and content society. Of major concern, of course, are the last few years in the Middle East, where country sets upon country, faction against faction, and people against people. Religious fanatics are beheading and burning alive non-believers and some extreme forms of Islam are marching forth in their efforts to form a caliphate. Westerners are looked upon as evil by Middle Easterners, and modern society is disparaged by groups in third-world countries as to "Westernized." Many extremists shout the fact that their primary purpose is not to just form a caliphate in the Middle East where their extreme brand of Islamic worship can be practiced, but to bring the entire world to its collective knees, with total submission the only acceptable form of surrender.

The Big Five

Meanwhile, Russia, who has been experiencing its own democratic reformation, is being led by a leader who has openly declared a desire to return his country to the pedestal from which they have fallen to one of dominance and fear from previous decades.

He has asserted his position in no unforgettable terms, and has initiated a campaign to annex neighboring countries. Under the guise of humanitarian aid, President Putin has essentially invaded the Ukraine. Scrinic (2014) states that, "Moscow's 'humanitarian' vision appears to be a part of a wider attempt to impose the Eurasian project in its near abroad, alongside information war and outright military support for anti-government forces" (p. 77). Back home, Putin appeases his citizens with stories of regaining past glories and bringing back the days when Russia was a feared force in the world.

France has abrogated its ability to effectively combat the spreading terrorism through weakness and indecision, although at least its leaders recognize that they are in a war against the terrorists, unlike some of the United States leaders who cannot even determine who they are actually fighting. In early 2015, France suffered its worst terrorist attack ever when Islamic extremists attacked a newspaper office and the people who worked there. Additional attacks at a Jewish deli and on police officers took place shortly thereafter. The terrorist attack in France prompted an international outcry with some 40 prominent leaders from other democratic countries meeting in France less than a week after the attacks in a show of solidarity. President Francois Hollande was described as having to turn his attention from the domestic struggles of tax rates and spending cuts and replacing them with the dark and dangerous glamour of special operations and airstrikes (Bilefsky, Baumejan, 2015(Broughton, 2013)). Interesting enough, on the same day that Hollande was dealing with the Charlie Hebdo shootings a loud and vocal critic of Russian President Putin, Boris Nemtsov, was being gunned down in broad daylight on the streets of Moscow.

The President of United States missed out on the opportunity to show his support for the international gathering in Paris after the Hebdo shootings; he was watching a football game on television. President Obama's problems extend to bigger arenas than just football however, as Brinkley (2013) reported, "a panel of senior officials warned President Obama that intelligence agencies were paying too little attention to China, the Middle East, and other major national-security issues because of the preoccupation with counterterrorism operations" (p. 44). So, President Obama turned his attention to other matters and has paid the price since. Taking his eye off the terrorist problem did not make it go away, instead now terrorist groups have taken control of large sections of Syria and Iran in their attempt to establish a caliphate and bring their form of extremism to the rest of the world. Brinkley posits that the United States and most other Western nation's citizens and leaders focus their attention on much more mundane items such as the economy, gun control, taxes and illegal immigration. When the citizens and their leaders do lift their ideas to look outside their own country, according to Brinkley they worry about Iran, North Korea and/or China. It may be that the citizens are being misled.

Great Britain could be in worse shape than even the United States and France. No longer are they the country considered to be an economic or military superpower, and much of its previous influence around the world has waned. The country does participate in the fight against terrorism however, as recently as August, 2014 the country raised its terror alert status to 'severe', and the leaders there are not afraid to call extreme terrorism exactly what it is.

Finally, China, the last of the five permanent members of the UN seems to be doing what China does best; waiting in the shadows to make its move while continually building up its military might, although it is facing many problems with terrorism as well. In 2014, nine terrorists attacked a train March at a station in Kunming, Yunnan Province that left 33 people dead and another 133 individuals wounded (Kunming, 2015).

Terrorism -- The acts that bind.

Based on the evidence it seems likely that the most pressing international concern for four of the five big boys on the block is terrorism. If it is true that Islamic terrorism -- and by extension, all other forms of terrorism as well -- is the biggest threat to the vast majority of the world, then it probably makes sense to address that issue in the same manner that many of the other global problems are being addressed; as a cohesive and strong coalition or international organization that has the wherewithal, ability and desire to protect the citizens from the world in a comprehensive manner. In other words, with a global alliance of countries willing to fight against these terrorist for as long as it takes to defeat them. As recently as the summer of 2014, Time magazine ran a story on terrorism and the establishment of a caliphate. The authors of the story documented the fact that the national boundaries placed on Western maps "have little place in the radical vision of the restored caliphate" (Crowley, Mourtada, Calabresi, Newton-Small, Thompson, Vick, Baker, 2014, p. 30). The stated goal and objective of the Islamic terrorists is to bring about a global Islamic caliphate that will institute Sharia law and subjugate all 'infidels' or those people who do not submit to the terrorist's beliefs. In this particular case, countries that do not stand together will likely fall apart.

Crowley et al. (2014) also discussed the fact that many Western societies dismiss history as something that is measured in hourly news cycles, but that what is taking place in Iraq and the Middle East has been taking place over centuries, and that any fighting to be done will likely last a long, long time.

Strength in numbers

The question remains as to the resolve and desire of many of these countries to fight, struggle and die for their freedom, the right to choose their own religious beliefs and the right to live in a democratic and free society. Certainly, the United States, France and Great Britain all tout the fact that they are democratic nations, whose citizens are free to live their lives as they see fit. Additionally, after the fall communist Russia, democratic elections were held there and freely elected officials to control. However, with President Putin on the march and talking about returning to the 'good old days' are the Russian citizens willing to go to war over something that they may not be yet feeling the effects of? Additionally, China has been very reluctant in the past to support actions taken by other countries, in less of course, China would benefit from that support as well. Within the last decade China has been pushing its military might as fast as possible and is currently ranked third in the world in military might behind the United States and Russia. Whether the Chinese are willing to join forces with the United States, France and Great Britain would likely be decided by just what type of commitment would have to be undertaken as well as how they would benefit.

Great Britain and France are usually very supportive of the actions the United States takes, and in many cases are the first countries to respond when asked to join in. Great

Britain is an especially good friend to the U.S., their relationship often being described as a 'special' one. Gardiner (2011) describes the Anglo-American alliance as being at the very heart of British foreign policy and one that is central to the thinking of nearly all the U.S. postwar (World War II) administrations. Fighting the threat of extreme terrorism is one that is taken seriously be all three countries, but the question remains as to how willing the leaders of these countries are to put their citizens into another costly venture. In this case, they will probably be forced to join in at the risk of abdicating their role as global leaders.

Finally, there is the United States. The U.S. is the number one rated military might in the world and has often wielded that strength into achieving its own goals and objectives. The country definitely has the military prowess to almost entirely wipe out much of the Middle East and all the terrorists residing there, but the current leadership most likely does not have the fortitude to fight against terrorism exhibited by other leaders and countries.

Big Boy wannabes

Alliances are formed every day, and it will be interesting to see what countries align with each other during the next decade. This paper has already discussed the five big boys in the playground; that leaves just the not-so-big and the wannabe big players in the sandbox. The top ten military forces in the world include all the big boys as mentioned above but also include; India (4), South Korea (7), Germany (8), Japan (9) and Turkey (10). Military might, of course, is not the only ingredient necessary in being supportive of a global venture; the economic means and desire to be part of something much bigger than just one country must also be present.

Turkey is especially interesting during these times since it has one of the strongest militaries in the world and it borders both Iraq and Syria, both areas where the extremists are currently the strongest. If Turkey were to join forces with the United States and other countries it could supply not only military arsenals and personnel, but could allow in-country air bases to be used by its partners. With the defeat of the extremists, Turkey stands to benefit in a huge way both in prestige and power.

Other countries, especially in the Middle East are already joining the fray; Jordan recently released its Air Force to bomb those practicing terrorism across its borders, retaliation against the group that had recently burned alive one of Jordan's Air Force pilots. Greece also responded in kind because the same group had beheaded 21 of its citizens just for being Christian. Two other countries that have displayed the resolve necessary to join the battle are Australia and Canada. While neither are huge countries militarily, they do share some common values with many other democratic countries and Canada shares a common border with the United States, and is one of America's biggest trade partners.

Of course, Germany, Japan and South Korea could also join the alliance and it is difficult to see any of these three countries joining on the side of the terrorists.

Two ways to go

There are a number of influences that will determine the alliance map of the future, but only two will truly determine the fate many countries; 1) the terrorists will succeed in their goal of establishing a world-wide caliphate, or 2) the terrorists will be defeated and relegated to the back-stage of world history once again.

If the terrorists succeed in establishing a caliphate, then it is likely that the big boys will all suffer the same consequences, countries may all stay the same in name, but they would be run by Sharia law and many citizens around the world would actually be happy about those results; they have been brainwashed into believing that the Western way of living is evil and that Westerners should be destroyed.

If the terrorists are defeated, and when the entire world is allied against you that will likely be the result, then what the world will see is a stronger Russia still bent on annexing its neighbors, a weakened United States, a stronger China, while France and Great Britain maintain their European ties and tradition.

China will wield greater influence primarily because of its huge population and military might, Russia will show its no country to mess with, and the United States will continue to lead from behind, afraid of its own shadow, and still unwilling to put boots on the ground.

Conclusion

Much of this paper is based on the ongoing terroristic events currently taking place in the world. Fighting is likely to be the end result as many of these extremists who wish to establish their own Sharia-ruled caliphate have also stated their goal to change the world map to reflect one single entity, their version of heaven. These extremists tout the fact that their Prophet, their God has commanded them to do so. If they achieve their stated goal, then the world map will drastically change. If they don't then the map will stay the same for the most part and other forms of aggression will likely command the attention of the UN and all its member countries once again.