Why America
Will Not Accede To The Grand Alliance
By
Victoria J. Sanchez
September 2007
Torisanchez@gmail.com
The United States
has long enjoyed its days at the top of the global order. Yet, these days of dominance
are rapidly coming to an end. The balance of power is changing. The US by itself is
no longer large enough to singularly contain the problems that threaten the
international system. The US
is not as powerful as it once was, and it can not continue to behave as it has
in the past. The Grand Alliance between the democracies of the world presents
an interesting solution to the problems of global governance and stability.
However, if the Grand Alliance is not realized, it will most likely be because
the United States
(whose participation is thoroughly imperative to the success of the Grand
Alliance) does not join. Even though the long-term effects of the Grand
Alliance would be highly advantageous for not only the United States, but also the rest of the world,
there are a number of fundamental reasons as to why America will not accede to the
Grand Alliance.
American participation in alliance structures has a fascinating history
and can help to shed light on the framework and traditions that shape American
political thought. The American doctrine of non-interventionism has deep roots
in American foreign policy and can be traced back to the very foundation of the
United States.
First Thomas Paine in Common Sense
and later George Washington in his famed farewell address both strongly called
for avoidance of alliances with other states. By the time of the American
Revolutionary War, the ideas of non-interventionism had taken such a strong
hold in the US that the
Continental Congress struggled arduously against forming an alliance with France and only
agreed to do so when it became apparent that doing otherwise would cause them
to lose the war. Later, President Thomas Jefferson would continue the tradition
of American non-interventionism by famously advocating for "peace,
commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
none." Perhaps yet another early proponent of non-interventionism was
President James Monroe with the Monroe Doctrine (articulating to Europe to stay
out of Latin America), which has been
interpreted as being a non-interventionist notion. For the remainder of the 19th
century, the US
kept a largely non-interventionist policy. It really was not until the United States
entered World War I that this policy was broken with. And even at that time it
was broken only for the few years that the US was involved in the war.
Immediately after the war was over, the US
returned straight away to its non-interventionism behavior, as manifested by
the congressional rejection of both the treaty of Versailles
and later the League of Nations.
Non-interventionist sentiment remained strong in the US until the attack on
Pearl Harbor during World War II, where it seems to have met the end of its
popular support (at least up through to the current administration).
Nevertheless, non-interventionist thought has permeated the political and
foreign policy culture of the United
States for so long that it can still be
considered a relevant factor in the minds of the elites when shaping the
opinions of American political thinking.
America’s
non-interventionist attitudes towards alignment has
also been shown in the US’s
less than enthusiastic participation in multilateral alliance systems. American
political culture is absorbed with the notion of an “American Supremacy?which
makes the US
superior to all other states. Because of this notion, American partnership with
other states is likely only to occur when the US can be at the forefront of the
alliance, where it can lead, direct, and dominate the pack. This is the star
model with the United States
at the core of the system. This system seems to be the alignment of choice for
the US,
if it agrees to align at all. Most recently, the US has outright revoked
multilateral alignment in favor of a stark unilateralist policy. The US
believes that it is still strong enough to singularly manage the conflicts that
come its way, even though the truth of the matter is that the US is simply not
strong enough alone. Still, this unilateralist notion will most likely continue
to shape American foreign policy into the future, and will prevent American
participation in the Grand Alliance as it need to be in order for the Alliance
to be successful. America
will not want any part of the Grand Alliance unless it can be in a leadership
role, elevated in status above all the other members. This can not happen if
the Grand Alliance is to function effectively.
If the US
were to join the Grand Alliance under the conditions necessary for realization
(with the US
on an equal level with other members, and not at the center dominating), it
would be a huge admission of downfall and defeat in American Hegemony. The United States?
view of its own power has been dominated by the relative American hegemonic
grip of global power since 1945. American foreign policy elites have been
intrigued and confident in US
hegemonic power for so long that they would not dream of giving it up any time
soon and would fight to preserve it at all costs. They still generally view America as a hegemon, largely uncontested by
most of the world (though this view is rapidly beginning to change with the
emergence of China and India, and the recent resurgence of Russia) and able to handle the threats facing
the US
at present time. To join the Grand Alliance would be a rejection of that view.
The US believes that it is still able to handle the conflicts of the
international system, and in joining the Grand Alliance it would be admitting
defeat and declaring that it is weak and its perception of its own power was
not great enough.
Lying at the root of all the reasons as to why the US will not
join the Grand Alliance is one overarching concept: sovereignty. The US has always
tried resolutely to safe guard its sovereign right and authority. This is why
the US
has not been able to make a stable alliance. Because it has not been able to
give up any of its sovereignty in alliance structures, the US has tried
continuously to put itself at the head of an alignment system, and not on an
even level with everyone else where it need to be in order for the Alliance to
become stable. Unfortunately, America
is not yet ready to give up any of its sovereignty. It still holds firm to its
belief of superiority, be it economic, militarily, or morally. The US does not
like being told what to do, especially not by someone it deems to be deficient
to itself and it will fight arduously before seeing any bit of its sovereignty
disappear. Because the Grand Alliance requires such complete and equal
participation from all members, the US would not join over the
sovereignty it would have to lose.
Without the United
States?participation, the Grand Alliance is
not feasible. The US
has many prejudices that would keep it from forming the Grand Alliance. The US itself needs
to overcome several significant barriers for the Grand Alliance to become a
reality. One, it must accept that the benefits to be accrued from the Grand
Alliance are for the greater good of everyone and that if this means giving up
some sovereignty, then that is all a part of the sacrifice. Two, it must accept
that the US has not had a true hegemony for some time and that joining the
Grand Alliance will not make it weaker but stronger through the collective
security attained in creating such an alliance. Three, it must over come the
American traditions of non-interference and American supremacy through
unilateralism in order to form a stable alliance. Four, it must take a sense of
urgency at the threats being faced and swiftly take action. The US must fulfil
all of these if it is to join the Grand Alliance. If the US decides not do these things, then there still
might be one more way for the Grand Alliance to form: if all of the other members states created the Grand Alliance without the US and gave the US
the options of “join or become isolated,?then the US would join. This way would not
be recommended though because in the event the US was pressured into joining
the Grand Alliance, rather than accepting it of its own accord (and in the
process of doing so, overcoming its biases), the US would continue to try and
make the Grand Alliance into its favorite alliance structure, with itself at
the center leading everyone else. With the success of the Grand Alliance
dependent on equality of members, this system would ultimately fail.
The Grand Alliance essentially represents a prisoner’s dilemma. If
everyone cooperates, then the best possible outcome for everyone is attained.
But if no one cooperates, then everyone is immensely worse off. In order for
the Grand Alliance to become a reality, the US must join and be fully
cooperative to the requirements needed for attainment. However, even though the
long-term effects for stability and security would be greater for everyone,
there are a number of key factors that hold the US back from making the Grand Alliance
a reality. Firstly, the US
has had a long tradition of non-interventionist policy that is still reflected
in American political thought today. Secondly, the US has largely rejected
multilateral affiliations in favor of a more unilateralist policy. Thirdly,
America’s view of its own hegemonic power has lead the US to believe that it
does not need anyone else and that by itself it can handle of the problems of
the world on its own. And finally, sovereignty is an underlying concept to all
the reasons of why the US
will not accede to the Grand Alliance. If the US can overcome these reasons and
understand that the Grand Alliance is not a bad notion and is instead for the
greater good of the world, only then can the Grand Alliance can become a
reality.