The historical U.S. and European alliance is making a marked shift, according to Pitt professors.
Amid growing clashes between the United States and its allies in NATO and the European Union, world leaders have described a “rupture” in the world’s rules-based order and the increasing responsibility of “middle powers.” Pitt professors offer their academic insight on the political futures of the U.S. and other countries around the world.
The rules-based order was an unofficial agreement established after World War II to promote stability, prevent conflicts and establish international relationships through institutions such as the United Nations. Primarily Western countries formed a set of norms when dealing with international conflicts and trade with the goal of promoting peace and security.
According to Gregor Thum, an associate professor of history, the U.S. was essential in establishing order and facilitating the cooperation between countries after WWII.
“The United States played a fundamental role after the Second World War in building up this rules-based system to create a stable order, and the U.S. also defended that system with its own economic, military and political weight in the world,” Thum said.
European world leaders view recent actions by the second Trump administration, such as withdrawing the country from the World Health Organization, threatening allies with an increase in tariffs and threatening to invade Greenland, as destabilizing to the post-WWII order. The administration’s change in international relations has pushed some allies to seek new alliances and question the future of the historical U.S. and European alliance.
Thum said he believes the Trump administration promotes an idea that the alliances only benefited our allies and that some people are accepting it.
“The U.S. is changing the terms of the alliance. It’s promoting that this partnership allegedly only benefited the partners, and not the U.S.,” Thum said. “There are lots of facts to disprove it, but it matters what people perceive to be the truth.”
According to Thum, America’s change in attitude towards its long-term allies puts the country on a potential path to isolationism.
“[The U.S.] might stand alone in the end, which I don’t see that necessarily coming, but it’s a possibility,” Thum said.
Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, a professor in the School of Public and International Affairs and director of the Center for Governance and Markets, said she believes transatlantic alliances are facing a “rupture” partially because the U.S. has diminished its support of its allies.
“We’re seeing a shift in geopolitics,” Murtazashvili said. “[There’s a shift in] the willingness of the United States to use its wealth and power to support a lot of countries around the world.”
Murtazashvili said she is not convinced the U.S. is moving towards an era of isolationism, but rather that the country is becoming more “strategic” in its use of power. Murtazashvili believes this shift allows smaller powers more freedom to form alliances that may align better with their own interests, as opposed to relying on the U.S.
“It’s a great time to be a middle power. They can use their power strategically, rather than being locked in a kind of a zero-sum alliance game,” Murtazashvili said.
Michael Kenney, a professor of international affairs in SPIA, said he believes the Trump administration is implementing tariffs against allies in an attempt to gain economic profit.
“The Trump administration is trying to bring investment back to the U.S., but the way that they’re going about it is a very coercive strategy,” Kenney said. “[Trump] wants a situation where [the United States] is selling more than we’re taking in, because that benefits our economy.”
Kenney said he believes the current moment is a good time for the middle powers to build stronger relationships with each other in upholding liberal values. However, Kenney said their economic relationships should be more expansive, including non-traditionally liberal countries such as China.
“[Middle powers can] pursue a two-track strategy — politically — to try to create a liberal democratic middle power order where you all share similar ideas and values,” Kenney said. “But economically, if all your trade is going to be limited to those countries, you’re going to be depriving yourself of economic opportunities.”
Thum said though European countries may have to re-evaluate their current alliances, and the change could have benefits.
“NATO would change and would probably become a much more even [and] symmetrical alliance, where the U.S. is one side and Europeans are the other side, and where the Europeans spend more [money] and also have more say in European affairs,” Thum said.
Murtazashvili said she believes institutions will never be perfect and change will always exist, but change can often lead to improved circumstances.
“Things are constantly going to be in flux, but there’s a real upside to that,” Murtazashvili said. “There’s more competition, and competition is a positive source for innovation, creativity, [and] for not locking countries into things that don’t work for their citizens, but to create better alliances.”
Yet moving away from a rules-based order, Kenney said this has negative implications for the future of democratic ideals such as voting in free and fair elections and forming political parties without punishment, especially because other countries “are already in a democratic recession.”
“This means there’s more countries moving in an authoritarian direction than are moving in a democratic direction,” Kenney said.
Thum also said defending the rules-based order is important for defending democracy.
“Democracy itself is a rules-based order within a country. If you don’t defend that order outside in the world, why would you defend it inside?” Thum said.