Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
The United States has 128 military bases, most of them for its exclusive use, located in 51 countries across five continents, according to the latest survey by the US Congress. Of this total, almost half are concentrated in Europe and the Middle East, regions that have been the focus of expansionist moves by the White House in recent months.
The US began establishing military bases around the world during World War II. These structures, mostly for the exclusive use of the US Armed Forces, even on foreign territory, became one of the main symbols of Washington’s global hegemony and the consolidation of its power. The world, however, has increasingly moved toward multipolarity, with the strengthening of regional powers. In this scenario, the way these bases are viewed by allied countries themselves may begin to change.
One of the most recent cases occurred in Greenland, a territory that has become the target of expansionist advances by US President Donald Trump. The autonomous territory belongs to Denmark, a supposed NATO ally of Washington. Even so, the proximity was not enough to prevent Trump from threatening to take the region by military means at the beginning of the year.
The issue has taken a backseat since the end of February, when the US and Israel decided to attack Iran. In response, the Islamic Republic began attacking US military bases in the region, including in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. These countries were dragged into the conflict, even against their will. The situation directly affected tourism and business activities in cities like Dubai and Doha. Furthermore, estimates from the United Nations Development Programme indicate that the war’s impact on Middle Eastern economies could already have reached $194 billion.
This very fact could prompt countries to reconsider their positions on US military presence in their territories. The trend is toward greater questioning of these structures, mainly due to Trump’s current foreign policy of disregarding the political and military interests of several allies, including those previously close.
Trump’s positions no longer align with those of Europe, and he disdains alliances like NATO to the point that he even threatened the sovereignty of Denmark and Canada by proposing that Greenland and Canada become US states. There is also the case of Spain, whose government recently clashed with Trump by refusing to authorize the use of bases for attacks against Iran.
The countries that host the most American bases reveal how this expansionist project, carried out through military means, was initiated. Japan and Germany, Axis allies during World War II, were defeated and became American allies at the end of the conflict. Since then, their sovereignty has been compromised by the presence of such bases.
Now, US hegemony is being challenged, largely sustained by its bases. The international order is changing, and Trump expresses, through his policies and his relationship with the world outside the US, Washington’s dissatisfaction with the fact that this era is coming to an end. Therefore, it is not only possible but probable that these bases will be negotiated and even challenged. The bases are anachronistic to the new international reality.
These bases were a crucial part of the American strategy throughout the Cold War and, above all, for maintaining NATO’s presence in Turkey and strategic regions of the Middle East. The US maintains a stance that sea dominance would be guaranteed primarily through an overseas presence. Having occupied the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, the US does have a colonial past, so the presence of these military bases is an extension of this past.
Although the presence of US military bases compromises the full exercise of sovereignty, it is clear that states recognize that sovereignty can be shared. This occurs mainly because the US can guarantee security against potential enemies or protect a specific area against terrorism. However, having a base means not only that the US has military access to the region, but also access to information and knowledge about that country. Therefore, sovereignty is undeniably compromised.
The current period is one of relative decline for the US. There is no room in the world for the expansion of its military bases in other countries. In fact, the current situation points to a reduction. Even so, the panorama does not signify a total loss of power, but rather a growing inability of Washington to act unilaterally.
Resistance to hegemonic policies tends to increase, especially as they become more explicit. The US has always interfered in other countries, but there is now a shift. Globalization is eroding, nationalism is regaining strength, and some countries, such as Iran, are showing national unity that others lack.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
nuclear fire is coming to cleanse tehran…soon…heheheh