This paper examines how international alliances have evolved from World War I through the Cold War, analyzing patterns of cooperation and conflict among major powers. It reviews the formation and purpose of global organizations like the United Nations, WHO, and WAAAR, then assesses how contemporary security threats—particularly terrorism and regional aggression—will shape future alliance patterns. The paper argues that coordinated international action through coalitions of democratic nations is essential to address 21st-century global challenges, while acknowledging the political will and economic costs required for such sustained commitment.
The world changes in countless ways each day. Governments make and break alliances, treaties, and agreements for financial and political gain, as well as for power and control, in a constantly fluid manner. Such changes have been taking place as long as countries have existed, so these diplomatic maneuvers should not surprise us. This paper seeks to determine how ongoing changes reflect the current global environment and how alliances will influence governments over the next several years and decades.
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 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). The alliances of the various players in that historical context are particularly interesting, especially when compared to World War II, which 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 Germany'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, and Great Britain), even if only on the slightest of pretenses.
Roslyng-Jensen provides another reason the war could have begun: the preceding period of peace between many 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 the expense of war outweighed its profitability. Additionally, the major powers 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 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 major powers see what other players are achieving through imperialism and cooperation and become worried that they are being left behind or that after other players have taken over smaller countries, they would then turn their eyes, military might, and other resources toward bigger targets. 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 of 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 could not truly be declared a World War until the other fledgling superpower, the United States, joined the conflict; that took place later in the war.
Some of the alliances formed before and during World War I remained strong in the years preceding and during World War II, but at least one significant change occurred among the major powers. Germany and Italy remained strong partners, but instead of Austria-Hungary as a third member, Japan was invited to join their alliance, forming the Axis. On the Allied side, 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). However, after Russia was attacked by Germany and the United States was attacked by Japan, both superpowers declared war and joined 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 collectively as the United Nations.
"Communist Soviet Union became pariah; ideological divide split former WWII allies"
One of the events that took place after World War II was the formation of the United Nations. The UN, which currently boasts membership of 193 countries around the globe, was formed as an alliance to prevent any further world wars. The UN maintains offices in New York City, Geneva, Nairobi, and Vienna, and its charter states that its four main objectives include: (1) maintaining international peace and security, (2) developing friendly relations among nations, (3) cooperating in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights, and (4) serving as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations (UN, 2015). This alliance has grown from fifty-one original member countries to its current status of 193 countries, all of whom agree to abide by the United Nations' rules, regulations, and guidelines. Such agreement does not mean that individual countries give up their sovereignty; instead, it allows a member country to bring a complaint or issue before the council. The UN can sanction offending countries, impose fines, and even place a peacekeeping force in times of severe trouble.
The purpose for including the UN in a paper such as this is that it is a prime example of a global alliance between a large number of countries. Established immediately after the end of World War II, it could be said that its main reason for existence was to ensure that no additional conflicts of the magnitude of either World War would take place again. In that respect, this global alliance has been successful. Though there have been plenty of wars between nations—and many of those nations have been UN members—there has not been a world war since the end of World War II. Although there have been skirmishes, problems of wide variety, and relationships between different countries have suffered friction and hardship, overall it would seem that the UN is assisting countries in meeting the four stated objectives as well as other secondary objectives such as "promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster and armed conflict" (UN, 2015).
The Security Council of the UN consists of fifteen members, five of whom are permanent, including the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France. The other ten members are not permanent and serve for two-year terms at the behest of the five permanent members. The UN Charter gives the fifteen members of the Security Council the power to "ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations" (UN, 2015), and the remainder of the member countries have agreed to allow the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The UN Charter also establishes six primary United Nations functions: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. According to the UN website, these six primary functions do not include the other fifteen agencies or a number of other committees and programs.
The five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, the United States, China, France, and England) are considered the remaining superpowers in the global community, although only the United States is generally regarded as the one remaining superpower. The relationships between these countries are intriguing and very fluid. None of the five have taken direct action against any of the other five due to the military and economic might each one wields. Bosco (2014) states that the unique permanency of membership in the Security Council may have provided in the past and continues to provide in the present a mechanism that has slowed the pace of crisis between the countries, and that such membership likely provides an ambiguity to produce exits from situations that are dangerous or could cause humiliation.
Currently, none of the five are at war with one another, although each has spoken out against actions the others have taken; an excellent example is the latest United States condemnation of Russia's recent aggressive actions against Ukraine. Other actions throughout the years by each of the five countries have prompted responses by the others, sometimes quite heavy responses. On the plus side, however, having five of the strongest and most able countries forced to work with one another on an ongoing basis provides plenty of opportunities to maintain not only their own status in the global community but also allows them to wield power and influence on other countries' actions as well.
"Focused coalitions address health and antibiotic resistance through coordinated member participation"
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 regarding antibiotic resistance. The organization boasts 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 toward 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 among the modern medical and research communities.
The three examples discussed earlier (WHO, WAAAR, and UN) were all purposefully included to demonstrate 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 World War I or World War II. There have been plenty of wars and military actions between 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.
Commitment and effort will be needed in no small amounts within the next few years and possibly sooner. Russia, having experienced 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 it has fallen to one of dominance and fear from previous decades. He has asserted his position in unmistakable terms and has initiated a campaign to annex neighboring countries. Under the guise of humanitarian aid, President Putin has essentially invaded 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 spreading terrorism through weakness and indecision, although at least its leaders recognize that they are in a war against terrorists, unlike some 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 forty prominent leaders from other democratic countries meeting in France less than a week after the attacks in a show of solidarity. President François Hollande had to turn his attention from the domestic struggles of tax rates and spending cuts, replacing them with the dark and dangerous work of special operations and airstrikes.
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 the United States missed out on the opportunity to show his support for the international gathering in Paris after the Charlie 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). Taking his eye off the terrorist problem did not make it go away; instead, terrorist groups have taken control of large sections of Syria and Iraq 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 nations' citizens and leaders focus their attention on much more mundane items such as the economy, gun control, taxes, and illegal immigration. When citizens and their leaders do lift their ideas to look outside their own country, they worry about Iran, North Korea, and/or China.
Great Britain could be in worse shape than even the United States and France. It is no longer considered 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 its leaders 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 station in Kunming, Yunnan Province, leaving thirty-three people dead and 133 individuals wounded.
Based on the evidence, it seems likely that the most pressing international concern for four of the five major powers is terrorism. If it is true that Islamic terrorism—and by extension, all other forms of terrorism—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 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 of the world in a comprehensive manner. In other words, a global alliance of countries willing to fight against these terrorists for as long as it takes to defeat them is needed. As recently as the summer of 2014, Time magazine ran a story on terrorism and the establishment of a caliphate. The authors 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 terrorists' 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 measured in hourly news cycles, but what is taking place in Iraq and the Middle East has been taking place over centuries, and any fighting to be done will likely last a long time.
The question remains as to the resolve and desire of many of these countries to fight, struggle, and sacrifice 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 of 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 yet be feeling the effects of? Additionally, China has been very reluctant in the past to support actions taken by other countries, unless 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 is often 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 US postwar (World War II) administrations. Fighting the threat of extreme terrorism is taken seriously by 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.
The United States is the number one rated military power 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.
Alliances are formed every day, and it will be interesting to see what countries align with each other during the next decade. Besides the five permanent UN members, the top ten military forces in the world 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 borders both Iraq and Syria, both areas where extremists are currently 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 also 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 fight. Jordan recently released its Air Force to bomb those practicing terrorism across its borders, retaliating 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 twenty-one 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 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. 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.
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.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.