The United States, as a global superpower, has historically been at the forefront of international affairs, making promises and drawing red lines in pursuit of its national interests and global stability. However, over time, the credibility of these commitments has been both tested and scrutinised. A comprehensive evaluation of America’s history of promises and red lines reveals a complex tapestry of successes, failures, and lessons that have shaped its role in the international arena.
Throughout history, the United States has made numerous promises to its allies and partners, forging strong relationships based on trust and shared values. From the formation of NATO in 1949, which pledged collective defence against aggression, to the security guarantees extended to Japan and South Korea, the U.S. has sought to demonstrate its commitment to defending its allies and maintaining stability in key regions. These promises have played a crucial role in bolstering American leadership and projecting its influence worldwide.
Drawing red lines, articulating clear boundaries that should not be crossed, has been a tool employed by American presidents to deter potential adversaries and protect vital interests. One notable example was President John F. Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when he issued a red line warning to the Soviet Union against placing offensive nuclear weapons in Cuba. The credible enforcement of this red line averted a potential nuclear conflict and reaffirmed America’s resolve.
While some promises and red lines have bolstered America’s credibility, others have faced challenges that have tested the nation’s reputation on the global stage. In August 2012, President Barack Obama issued a strong statement, drawing a red line concerning the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against its own people. The intention behind this declaration was to deter the Assad regime from employing these banned and inhumane weapons, which cause indiscriminate harm to civilians. However, in August 2013, evidence emerged indicating that the Syrian government had indeed used chemical weapons in an attack in the Damascus suburbs, confirmed by the OPCW and UN, crossing the red line set by President Obama. The failure to respond with the military force as previously stated led to perceptions of inconsistency and wavering resolve on the part of the United States. Consequently, this episode significantly damaged the credibility of the USA and President Obama, as adversaries, including the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran, felt emboldened to act without facing meaningful consequences. Moreover, it raised doubts among America’s allies about the reliability of US commitments and deterrence capabilities in the region and on the global stage. However, when red lines were drawn but not enforced.
This cannot be ignored in the context of the prelude to the conflict in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which tested America’s credibility further. Following Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the United States and its allies condemned the annexation of Crimea and imposed sanctions on Russia. However, some critics argued that a stronger response was needed to prevent further aggression and enforce the red lines set in defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Biden administration’s response to the larger-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shows much more willingness to deploy offensive material support, but the final result will only come at the end of the war when it is clear if the USA recognises an offensive war as legitimate means to gain territory from a neighbour (against all post-WWII international relations philosophy), though it remains unclear if the current administration will outlive the conflict.
In contrast, during President Donald Trump’s tenure, a red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria was swiftly enforced. In April 2017, after a chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed civilians, including children, President Trump ordered a targeted missile strike on the Syrian Shayrat Airbase, believed to be the source of the attack. This decisive action sent a strong message that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerated, restoring credibility to US commitments and deterrence capabilities. Russia did not take any major offensive steps in Donbas during the Trump Presidency, though neither was there any clear withdrawal.
The complexities of credibility in international relations are vast, influenced by the dynamic nature of geopolitics, changing administrations, and shifting priorities. The responses of different presidents to similar challenges have varied, impacting America’s standing on the global stage. Perceptions of wavering resolve can damage credibility, while decisive actions can reinforce it.
In conclusion, a comprehensive evaluation of America’s history of promises and red lines reveals a mixed record, comprising both successes and challenges. The enforcement of red lines, such as in the case of Syria under President Trump, can restore credibility and demonstrate a willingness to uphold international norms. However, the failure to respond to violations, as seen under President Obama during the Crimea annexation, may raise doubts about America’s commitment to its promises. As a global leader, the United States must continue to learn from its experiences, striking a balance between commitment and adaptability. Russia on the other hand, consistently seen as being ruled by one leader for decades rather than flipping between two parties, can be regarded as having reliably stood by their ally Bashar Al-Assad against a significant proportion of the world. Demonstrating credibility in actions and words will be crucial to strengthening America’s standing in the international community and contributing to a more stable and secure world. By upholding its promises and drawing red lines thoughtfully and responsibly, the United States can set a positive example for global diplomacy and reinforce its role as a credible force in shaping the future of international relations.
