Global Dynamics of National Security: Alliances and Resources - Alliances

The United States faces a unique set of threats from different parts of the globe and continues to make alliances to suit its tactical and strategic national security goals. Such alliances are usually formal agreements that two or more parties enter into in order to defend their collective security goals. Some of the key allies for the United States in the new world order include the European nations (primarily the United Kingdom), Israel, and certain Persian Gulf states in the Middle East.

Since World War II (1939–45), the United States has signed a number of treaties assuring protection to states that needed military assistance, often to fight the communist threat. However, Congress has always been hesitant about committing U.S. resources for long periods of time. Besides formal alliances that have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, the president can also enter into executive agreements that commit U.S. resources internationally but do not have to be ratified by the Senate, which gives the president greater flexibility in foreign affairs. Such agreements are usually initiated at the executive level of government, and terms are negotiated by a representative. The secretary of state authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement. The Senate needs to be notified by the executive branch within sixty days of signing an executive agreement, and to be implemented it requires a simple majority vote of the House and Senate.

Many agreements require implementing bills to be passed by both chambers before they can take force. Congress can express its opposition to any particular executive agreement by withholding the necessary implementing legislation. The president's authority to negotiate executive agreements flows from two sources: the power granted to him or her in the Constitution as chief executive, and/or specific powers delegated by earlier acts of Congress. Instances of presidential initiatives involve the 1991 Persian Gulf War coalition, support for anti-Vietnam forces in Kampuchea, and aiding the mujahideen against Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

U.S. policy makers often have to deal with states that are not necessarily considered close allies in any ideological sense. This would include authoritarian regimes and dictatorships that are not democratic and that may even (intentionally or unintentionally) support anti-U.S. entities. However, support from countries such as these (for example, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) might be useful for America in terms of strategic regional goals or commercial interests (for example, oil). The United States also supported various substate groups opposing their respective governments in Central America and the Caribbean (such as El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, and Haiti) and Africa during the 1980s. Mixed public reaction to actions such as these clearly demonstrates that national security is pursued through a variety of channels and that security agendas are not necessarily always clear-cut.

The United States pursues its national security agenda through international organizations, as well as state-level ties with allies and other countries. It must be kept in mind that any alliance entered into by a state or states requires certain commitments on behalf of all parties involved. These obligations can potentially constrain America's ability to shift policies and make some decisions. Thus, it is important for the United States to consider the flexibility of any commitment it makes, as the national security environment is constantly changing. Also, most security commitments are designed to be honored by each succeeding U.S. administration, unless major changes in the security environment have occurred.