The Impact of the United States’ Military Bases on International Politics

Introduction

The great powers create foreign military bases in pursuit of the strategy of providing regional and international order and security, increasing the sphere of influence, protecting the interests, deterring the threats, controlling the rivals, facilitating the possible intervention in other countries and providing the necessary infrastructure for war. However, in today’s world using military power to seize and occupy countries is useless and undesirable.

The great powers create military bases in certain parts of the world with the aim of changing the balance of power to their benefit, gaining strategic stability and expanding the sphere of influence. The long-term presence of a country in the host country may cause political, social, and environmental problems as follows:

Political Instability:

Weakening of regional security and vulnerability to foreign attacks;

Loss of effective sovereignty over part of the territory in the host country;

Testing new weapons, including chemicals and nuclear weapons.

Historically, the first written sources related to military bases can be found in the writings of Thucydides, which narrated the Peloponnesian War of the fifth century BC. He wrote about how the Athenian empire established the Delian League, a military alliance that built Athens’ navy and, therefore, its power and importance throughout territorial issues.

Furthermore, both Persians and Romans prized bases that controlled land access routes to strategic locations since this was crucial for their imperial power and their conquered territories.

It was during Darius’ Persian Empire that the imperial route spread – 2,500 kilometres long of roads, containing stone warehouses with food and lodging every 29 kilometres.

In the 15th century, expansionist powers, with the expansion of the naval empire, succeeded in establishing posts, trade, warehouses, and foreign bases to consolidate power and influence in order to preserve their vital interests. At that time, the importance of trade along with military issues was a matter of life and death to defend the land of the new reeds. Also, during the military colonial era, the great powers secured international trade with the strengthening of foreign military bases. The British Empire’s military base in the Pacific, especially in India, can be seen as a visionary base (strategically located on the Asian continent for trade and meeting military needs). The United States also developed industry and increased production during the nineteenth century. It sought to expand international trade and gain access to the vast market.

Foreign military bases in the imperial era sought effective measures to maintain control of the territory of an empire. World War II at the end of the imperial era. The world’s superpowers used foreign military bases to create strategic stability and expand their sphere of influence.

After World War II, the United States expanded its military bases in Europe and Northeast Asia to counter the Soviet Union. The Cold War era is marked by a dispute between the two blocs, the use of military bases, alliances and the strengthening of the balance of power in a bipolar system.

In the 21st century, the orientation of the great powers towards the role of bases has changed due to new threats. The fight against terrorism, especially after 9/11, is the center of gravity of the United States’ strategy. Religious radicalism, asymmetric threats, terrorism, and the prevention of the spread of weapons of mass destruction are major threats to the United States. The shock of the 9/11 attacks drew the United States’ attention from Europe to Central Asia and the Middle East, especially the Caucasus. The expansion of the anti-terrorist front after the invasion of the United States led to the presence of Western forces in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. Also, the presence and establishment of military bases in Afghanistan and some Central Asian countries, such as Kyrgyzstan, have brought the United States closer to the Chinese-Russian border.

Theoretical Foundations: The Balance of Power (With an Emphasis on the Concept of Sphere of Influence)

Using the balance of power approach, the Realists explain different periods of world history and important political events. In their view, the history of international relations is based on power and the theory of the balance of power. On the other hand, this theory is presented as a political guideline for politicians and executive elites in the political arena so that their security power, interests, and influence over their political rivals do not decline.

According to the theory of the balance of power, the governments are the main actors in the international system and rationally seek to increase their power or security because of the pressure exerted on them by the international anarchist system; accordingly, the mechanism of the survival of the governments necessitates countering the concentration of power presenting the “balance of power” as a fundamental dynamic of international politics that simultaneously facilitates the reproduction of the alliances of states and increasing of the survival of units.

According to this theory, power is the most fundamental concept in political science and international relations. One of the most important functions of foreign policy is to translate power into influence. To analyze this issue, two concepts of capabilities and political will must be considered. The factor of capabilities has four aspects which are reflected in hard power and soft power: military, economics, technology, population, and culture which are unequally divided between states. The Political will is the ability to recognize strategic goals and have the tools to achieve those goals in practice. Influence is the ability to combine capabilities and political will.

When applied to the study of overseas military presence, the balance of power theory might suggest that the rise of a particular threat for the United States could lead to the establishment of American bases abroad. International events such as the end of the Cold War could lead to the end of the United States’ military presence. In addition, the domestic politics of the host countries seem to account for such phenomena. For example, an uncertain future security environment and the need to hedge against potential threats render continued military presence.[1]

The sphere of influence in international politics is the domination and control of foreign arenas and territories. In the late 1880s, European colonial powers defined their spheres of influence in Asia and Africa through legal agreements. After the end of the colonial era, geopolitics was an important element in creating the spheres of influence by the great powers. For example, in the nineteenth century, the United States, according to the Monroe Doctine, sought to dominate the Western Hemisphere, and in the twentieth century, the Soviet Union expanded its sphere of influence over Eastern Europe following the policy of the balance of power. 

In other words, creating a sphere of influence means that the dominant foreign power dominates a certain area and limits the political independence of the government and the weaker actors. The sphere of influence plays a central role in the analysis of the politics of the great powers and imperialism. The concept of the sphere of influence includes three dimensions:

1) The nature and scope of the sphere of influence; the scope of influence in the areas of foreign policy, political or economic institutions of the weak government;

2) The second dimension addresses the features of the relations of power, including the types of power (forcing, institutionalized and intellectual) and a degree of influence and active cooperation with individuals and groups within the government (such as pro-American militias in Latin America or local communist parties in Eastern Europe during the Cold war);

3) The third dimension is related to distinguishing the sphere of influence by other states or the international community in general.

Official agreements between governments may be reached in the spheres of influence. For example, the action of European imperialism at the Berlin Conference in 1884 or the 1907 Convention between the United Kingdom and the Russian Empire to divide Iran are clear examples in this regard; Or the governments’ attempts to legally guarantee the contract reached in the sphere of influence, such as the failed American attempt to embed the Monroe Doctrine in the Charter of the League of Nations. The sphere of influence may be embodied in official political norms as part of the rivalry of the main powers. Like the position and role of the United States in the Western Hemisphere, Russia in Eastern Europe or current Russia in its near abroad.

The Reasons for Establishing Military Bases 

1) Strategic Interest: 

When the governments concern about the common strategic interests, they would establish military bases in another country. For example, Japan and the United States signed a security treaty (showing that the two have more or less similar strategic interests), and Japan provides bases to American forces in Japan. Also, having fought with the United States in the Korean War (1950–1953), South Korea hosts American forces. However, occasionally, there are protests among the Korean citizens, and some have called for the withdrawal of American forces but because of the common interest, American bases remain in South Korea.[2]

Understanding the United States’ strategic interest is essential in grasping why bases are set. In general, if there is a need to counter a particular threat, and having a base near the enemy seems helpful in defeating the enemy, then there will be an incentive for the great powers like the United States to set up a base. For example, the United States’ bases located on the soil of Afghanistan and Iraq, play a role in deterring threats, fighting wars, collecting intelligence, exercises, and transit.

2) Economic and Military Advantages: Power is a guarantee for the payment of compensation to the host country instead of using its territory. The host country may not necessarily share the same level of strategic interest as the basing nation, but it may nonetheless agree to offer base sites because of the benefit gained in economic and military assistance. The Philippines, Turkey, and Spain have been the main recipients of American aid. Moreover, Russia which sought to establish a naval base in Ukraine agreed to cut the price of natural gas by about 30 percent.[3]

3) The Changing of the Government: Bases can be available to the sending nation when there is a change of government in the host country. This occurs when a pro-sending nation government defeats the previous government that opposed the use of the base by foreign powers. The previous policy is reversed and the use of the base is now allowed. For example, President Viktor A. Yushchenko initially decided that Ukraine’s bases would not be leased to Russia after 2017 when the term was scheduled to expire. However, after the new president Viktor F. Yanukovich came into power, the new government extended the lease beyond 2017.[4]

4) Technological Advancement: Technological advancement can be another reason for establishing bases. The need for coal stations for naval ships was one of the first rationales for setting up bases overseas. The advancement of aero craft technology required airfields in various parts of the world. The post-World War II plan devised by the United States is a good example. The American military leaders were keen on acquiring overseas air bases for the purpose of long-distance force projection. In addition to military use, commercial purposes were important in developing airfields overseas in the post-war era.

The advancement in intelligence technologies also called for the establishment of bases around the globe. Intelligence facilities were built in English-speaking countries to track communications. Some bases were established to detect nuclear testing.[5]

 

5) Outright Conquest: In this case, a powerful country forcefully occupies the land of a weaker country and sets up bases. For great powers, outright conquest is perhaps the most direct way to acquire bases overseas, although the purpose of conquest often goes beyond the establishment of bases. Host countries become a target of great powers because of their strategic value or because of their mere weakness or both. An important point is that conquered countries did not necessarily declare war on the United States nor did they pose serious security threats. In other words, the United States’ military presence was a result of the United States imperialistic expansions, and not necessarily to counter threats. For example, in the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States set up bases in Spanish colonies, including Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

6) Defeat and Occupy: This usually occurs when a war is fought between a great power and its enemy, and after the defeat of the enemy, the victor (the great power) occupies the land and sets up bases. This might sound similar to outright conquest, as both involve fighting. The difference, however, is that the relationship between the sending country and the host country is initially characterized as one of enmity. Japan and Germany after World War II are good examples. After some years of occupation, American forces remained in these countries to deter a possible attack.[6]

7) The Closure of Bases: Factors that contribute to the closure of American bases overseas include (1) changes in the strategic interest, (2) declining power of the sending nations, (3) disappearance of common strategic interest, (4) isolationist policy of the United States, (5) anti-American regime shift/revolution, (6) nationalism, and (7) further technological advancement.

8) Changes in the Strategic Interest: Once the strategic significance of a base disappears, the basing nation may decide to withdraw. The decline in strategic significance is most likely to be caused by shifts in the international structure. Iceland is one country that has been affected by such a change. Initially, the Nazis occupied Iceland during World War II, but the British pushed them out. Later, American forces landed on Iceland and remained until 2006. During the Cold War, Iceland was an important naval base for American submarines for carrying out submarine warfare against the Soviet Union. The bases in Iceland have become less relevant in the present security environment.

According to Rear Admiral Noel Preston, a European regional commander of the Navy, ‘Now the world has changed, and we are facing a war on terrorism. We are changing how we plan and prepare for this war.” Also, according to Stratfor, an American global intelligence company, the threat has almost completely evaporated. In March 2006, the United States announced its decision to close down the bases in Iceland.[7]

9) Declining Power of the Sending Countries: Sending countries might have been quite powerful and wealthy when they first established bases around the globe. However, once their national power declines to the point that maintaining overseas bases becomes impossible, they decide to let them go. The British Empire is a case in point. No longer able to maintain its own bases around the world, the United Kingdom shifted base management to the United States. It was a beginning for the United States’ control of worldwide overseas bases, but at the same time, it was an end for the British base system.[8]

10) Isolationist Policy of the United States: the foreign policy of the United States influences the establishment, continuation of the existence, or closure of the foreign bases. Different types of strategic thinking in the United States affect the United States’ global military presence. While some advocate more presence abroad (internationalists), some call for minimal engagement (isolationists). Liberals who seek to spread democracy and the rules of law while realists do not advocate total withdrawal but call for engagement when a regional hegemon is likely to be on the rise. the United States’ financial problems could also strengthen isolationist views, as overseas military activities are costly.[9] 

11) Regime Shift/Revolution: When the previous government that was backed by the United States is replaced by a new government that tries to distance itself from the United States’ influence, the American military presence will be negatively affected. This type of regime shift in a host nation often leads to the end of the United States’ military presence. Revolution can also change the strategic environment dramatically as was witnessed in the case of the Iranian Revolution. In this case, a pro-American regime was replaced by a strong anti-American government. Friendly relations were suddenly over and the prospects for continued American presence ended quickly.[10]

12) Nationalism: Having another country’s military base in a sovereign country is an unusual circumstance. As such, it has the potential to easily ignite nationalism. An accident that killed Korean schoolgirls in 2002 set off a massive demonstration calling for the withdrawal of American forces. The rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl also caused a massive demonstration and led to the agreement in 1996 between the two governments to shut down Futenma airbase, although that has not yet happened.[11]

Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution