{"id":314927,"date":"2026-04-13T12:00:59","date_gmt":"2026-04-13T11:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=314927"},"modified":"2026-04-11T20:14:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-11T19:14:39","slug":"which-way-to-us-national-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2026\/04\/which-way-to-us-national-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Which Way to US National Security?"},"content":{"rendered":"

10 Apr 2026 – <\/em>On April 1, Donald Trump startled the world by publicly declaring<\/a> that he was \u201cabsolutely\u201d considering withdrawing the United States from the 77-year-old NATO alliance.\u00a0 Trump\u2019s remarks came only hours after Pete Hegseth, his Defense Secretary, declined to reaffirm the U.S. government\u2019s commitment to NATO\u2019s collective defense.<\/p>\n

Actually, the Trump administration\u2019s recent trashing of NATO was less shocking than it appeared.\u00a0 During Trump\u2019s two terms in office, he derided the alliance from the start<\/a>, developed a warm relationship with its foremost adversary (Vladimir Putin), withdrew U.S. support from embattled Ukraine, called for U.S. annexation of Canada (a NATO member), threatened a military takeover of Greenland (a territory of Denmark, a NATO member), and failed to consult his NATO allies about launching a U.S. war on Iran.\u00a0 Indeed, the Trump administration\u2019s National Security Strategy<\/a> of December 2025 outlined a sharp shift in U.S. policy from collective action through NATO toward a heavy reliance on U.S. military power.<\/p>\n

In line with his \u201cAmerica First\u201d rhetoric, Trump has reverted to an old U.S. tradition\u2015 nationalism\u2015and all that entails in terms of militarism, war, and imperialism.<\/p>\n

Nationalism has long played an important role in an unruly and ungoverned world.\u00a0 Within nations, law prevailed to at least some extent, limiting crime and violence.\u00a0 But, when it came to international affairs, the situation more closely resembled every nation for itself. \u00a0In this context, many a nation adopted a go-it-alone strategy, employing military power and, on occasion, war as its rulers sought to maintain or secure whatever they viewed as in its national interest.<\/p>\n

Over time, however, national rulers realized that their nations\u2019 military strength could be enhanced by having allies\u2015at least if the members of the alliance could agree upon a satisfactory division of the spoils in the event of a victory over their foes.\u00a0 From the standpoint of national security and, at times, survival, alliances among nations seemed to have advantages over go-it-alone nationalism. \u00a0Alliances not only provided a remedy for the comparative weakness of small nations in a dangerous world, but added an element of collective decision-making in the realm of international affairs.\u00a0 Furthermore, by fostering cooperation among allied nations, alliances limited the danger of conflict or war among them.<\/p>\n

Even so, as people learned only too well, alliances were hardly foolproof.\u00a0 Most notably, they failed to prevent two disastrous world wars.<\/p>\n

Consequently, against the backdrop of massive slaughter in World War I, government officials began exploring a new approach to national security: international organization.\u00a0 In a largely lawless, anarchic world, argued U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, a League of Nations would provide the institutional framework for international cooperation and peace.\u00a0 Amid much fanfare, the League was established in 1920.<\/p>\n

The League, however, remained a weak organization, constrained in taking effective action for peace by the requirement of unanimous agreement among its member nations and, more fundamentally, by the unwillingness of \u201cthe great powers\u201d to depart from their traditional approaches to world affairs.\u00a0 Despite Wilson\u2019s prominent role in creating the League, the U.S. Senate rejected U.S. membership.\u00a0 Meanwhile, major nations continued to enhance their military might and to squabble over raw materials, territory, and colonies.\u00a0 As a result, within a generation, the world had plunged into the Second World War, the most destructive conflict in human history, culminating in the development and use of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Toward the end of World War II, the anti-fascist allies were sufficiently sobered by the calamitous nature of the war to make another try at international organization.\u00a0 The new international entity, the United Nations, had some advantages over its predecessor.\u00a0 These included participation by all the great powers, a Charter that clearly banned international aggression, a General Assembly of all member nations with decisions made by majority vote, and considerable respect by member nations and the public.<\/p>\n

And, subsequently, the United Nations did manage<\/a> to resolve numerous international conflicts, to facilitate the end of colonialism, to secure worldwide definitions of human rights, and to institute a broad array of programs that improved the health and living standards of billions of people around the globe.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, although an advance over its ill-fated predecessor, the United Nations has remained a loose confederation of countries without the authority and strength necessary to curb destructive behavior by the world\u2019s most powerful nations.\u00a0 All too often, action to maintain international peace and security has been subverted by the great power veto in the UN Security Council, as has been the case in recent years in connection with international military aggression by Russia, Israel, and the United States.\u00a0 Lacking an independent source of funding, the United Nations faces the prospect of reducing or terminating vital programs whenever major powers decide to punish it by cutting back contributions and required dues payments.<\/p>\n

Currently, Trump, Putin, Benjamin Netanyhahu, and their rightwing counterparts, outraged at attempts by international organizations to enforce international law, are working zealously to undermine the United Nations and other international bodies<\/a>\u2015for example, the International Criminal Court\u2015as part of their campaigns to silence their critics and restore their own national \u201cgreatness.\u201d<\/p>\n

To judge from the blood-stained history of a nationalist approach to global affairs, this reversion to a go-it-alone policy represents a recipe for disaster.\u00a0 Nor does an alliance approach offer a satisfactory improvement.<\/p>\n

But the record of international organization is more promising.\u00a0 Why not strengthen the United Nations by granting it new, expanded authority to enforce international law, human rights, and world peace?\u00a0 The United Nations could even be reshaped into a democratic federation of nations, which, among other things, would make participation in and compliance with internationally-approved treaties mandatory.\u00a0 In fact, an international campaign<\/a> is already underway to authorize a UN review conference to strengthen and transform the world organization.<\/p>\n

Rather than throw up our hands at the latest outbreak of horrific violence by marauding nationalist bullies, let\u2019s use the challenge afforded by the current international crisis to create a new and better world.<\/p>\n

_____________________________________________________-<\/p>\n

Lawrence S. Wittner (<\/em>https:\/\/www.lawrenceswittner.com\/<\/em><\/a> ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY\/Albany and the author of <\/em>Confronting the Bomb<\/em><\/a> (Stanford University Press).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rather than throw up our hands at the latest outbreak of horrific violence by marauding nationalist bullies, let\u2019s use the challenge afforded by the current international crisis to create a new and better world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":261745,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[867,3143,2642,1924,417,3281,542,3324,2159,880,249,70],"class_list":["post-314927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anglo-america","tag-anglo-america","tag-anti-hegemony","tag-anti-imperialism","tag-authoritarianism","tag-bullying","tag-evil-empire","tag-fascism","tag-north-america","tag-rogue-states","tag-state-terrorism","tag-trump","tag-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314927"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":314928,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314927\/revisions\/314928"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/261745"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}