Trump, alliances and the legacy of 9/11
One of U.S. President Donald Trump’s most pernicious inclinations is the denigration of U.S. allies, often claiming they are worthless to the U.S. This bad habit is only underscored by how often it contrasts with his admiration of dictators: Xi Jinping is “smart,” Trump “respects” Vladimir Putin, Trump and Kim Jong-un “have a great relationship.” Trump’s insults toward allies are also gratuitous. We experienced this with the recent decision to weaken U.S.-Korea Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises. Not content to do so at the last minute via social media — showing disrespect to Korea — Trump accompanied the announcement with verbal swipes at South Korea in general (for supposedly taking advantage of the U.S. financially) and President Lee Jae Myung in particular (allegedly for not assisting in the failing, foolish Iran war). Trump presumably was aiming for the military exercise curtailment to facilitate outreach to Kim, a potentially defensible course, if followed by serious diplomacy. But there was no reason for Trump to throw shade at Korea and Lee in the process.
Putting aside these rhetorical excesses, Trump is simply wrong that U.S. allies have not adequately supported the U.S. This is true whether one refers to the multilateral alliance NATO or bilateral alliances in the Indo-Pacific. This is worth remembering as we approach the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Indeed, the 9/11 response was the only instance in which NATO invoked its Article 5 collective defense clause. Deeds followed words, as NATO allies contributed troops to the coalition military response in Afghanistan. Denmark’s 44 soldiers killed in action represented the highest per capita casualty rate among coalition forces. And 9/11 provoked a long-term Global War on Terror (GWOT) to which all U.S. allies — including those in the Indo-Pacific — contributed. Even South Korea participated, sending military forces to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether this allied participation with the U.S. in the GWOT was a good idea, or even an effective approach to combating terrorism, is a separate question. The fact is that U.S. allies answered the bell.
Allies have been even more critical for the larger project of post-World War II U.S. hegemony. Allies in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific have provided the U.S. with routine, broad, forward-located military access to their sovereign territory. In essence, the U.S. has received one of the main benefits of empire without the cost of directly maintaining an empire. Unsurprisingly, this has coincided with the U.S. becoming the most prosperous, powerful state in history. By dint of its alliances, the U.S. also has had a group of ready-made customers for military equipment, forming a virtuous circle in which allies provide additional market size for the U.S. military-industrial complex, which in turn has been able to develop world-class technology knowing that scale would reduce high unit costs. Naturally, the U.S. has kept the best matériel for itself. In addition to the above, U.S allies have also provided diplomatic support — notably at multilateral fora, such as the U.N. — to maintain the international order in which both allies and the U.S. have been the major winners.
Of course, all of this has also implicated responsibilities for the U.S. In particular, Washington committed to providing (a) military support for allies in case of attack, and (b) global and regional public goods (global public health support, open trade lanes, stable monetary system, etc.). Despite Trump and MAGA bloviating about allies “taking advantage of America,” such obligations are normal for a hegemon. The discipline of international relations even has a well-established concept to denote this arrangement: hegemonic stability theory.
If the Trump administration wants to unravel 80 years of Pax Americana, it is free to argue (and act on the belief) that this system no longer works for the U.S. due to China’s rise, or changes to U.S. domestic political will, or because Washington no longer sufficiently values the contributions allies make. What the Trump administration cannot legitimately argue is that U.S. allies “have taken advantage of the U.S.” The U.S. has benefited disproportionately from a self-constructed system that has granted it incredible power and privilege that would have been impossible without allies.
Almost exactly 25 years ago, during my first semester of graduate school in upstate New York, I was brushing my teeth before class when reports of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center were broadcast. Not having a TV, I listened initially on the radio before going to a friend’s house, arriving in time to watch the towers collapse. A period of anxiety followed 9/11, as did a justified war in Afghanistan and an unjustified quagmire in Iraq. Through it all, U.S. allies pulled their weight, often instinctively — that is what allies do.
From George W. Bush to Joe Biden, the U.S. has sometimes been ungrateful for this allied support, but it has held. Now, Trump 2.0 is blowing through the limits of disrespect that allies will tolerate. Twenty-five years after 9/11, I wonder: if it happened again, would the allies answer the bell?
Mason Richey is a professor of international politics at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies and president of the Korea International Studies Association.