For a long time, US foreign policy has draped itself in the rhetoric of security alliances, collective defense, and shared values.
From the Nato framework to bilateral agreements across the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, Washington has consistently portrayed itself as the ultimate guarantor of global stability and security.
Yet viewed through the lens of history and the lived reality of the Global South, America’s alliance system is not an architecture of equal partnership, but an instrument crafted to serve its own strategic self-interest.
As former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger famously observed: “It is dangerous to be America’s enemy, but it is fatal to be America’s ally.” Ample evidence reveals that US security pledges are deeply utilitarian and transactional.
Once an ally no longer serves its interests, it is readily abandoned or even subverted.
For developing nations, over-reliance on US alliances often leads to fragile security, eroded sovereignty, and development distress.
Genuine and lasting security can only come from sovereign independence, regional cooperation, and diversified, balanced diplomacy.
The Middle East: The repeated failure of US security promises
The Middle East has become the clearest showcase of the transactional nature of American alliances.
The United States has long treated regional partners as short-term tactical assets rather than equal and reliable allies, turning security guarantees into empty promises.
The Kurds: Used on the battlefield, abandoned strategically
The Kurdish forces under the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were America’s most relied-upon ground troops in the fight against ISIS.
They paid a heavy price of thousands of casualties, liberated vast territories, and contained the expansion of terrorist forces.
In return, US officials repeatedly promised security protection and political support.
Yet when Turkey launched military operations against Kurdish areas in northern Syria in 2018 and 2019, the US quickly withdrew its troops without taking any substantive defensive measures.
This betrayal made one fact unambiguous: the Kurds were merely pawns for America’s counter-terrorism goals, to be discarded once their mission was fulfilled.
Afghanistan: Two decades of investment and a hasty retreat
From 2001 to 2021, the U.S. propped up the Kabul administration, pouring massive funds into training and equipping Afghan security forces, with successive presidents pledging long-term commitment.
However, in 2021, the Biden administration unilaterally withdrew troops without full coordination with the Afghan side, directly leading to the rapid collapse of Afghanistan’s security architecture.
Translators, soldiers, and officials who had served alongside U.S. troops were left behind to face retaliation from extremist forces.
The outcome in Afghanistan confirmed that US promises to partners are always subordinate to domestic politics and strategic retrenchment.
Iraq: Invasion, chaos, and absent responsibility
In 2003, the U.S. launched the Iraq War on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction.
After overthrowing Saddam Hussein, Washington did not strive to rebuild a stable order; instead, it dismantled state institutions, inflamed sectarian divisions, and left a massive power vacuum that nurtured the rise of extremist groups.
Following its gradual withdrawal, Iraq descended into prolonged turmoil and fragmentation.
The so-called “strategic partnership” brought nothing but war, widespread suffering, and foreign infiltration.
Africa: Intervention and neglect in geopolitical games
US policy toward Africa centers on counter-terrorism, resource control, and great-power competition.
Often intervening under the guise of security cooperation and economic assistance, it has rarely delivered genuine stability, instead fueling conflict and division.
Libya: External intervention and national collapse
By the early 2000s, the Gaddafi regime had abandoned its nuclear program, cooperated with the West on counter-terrorism, and sought normalized relations with the US and Europe, believing that disarmament would guarantee regime security.
In 2011, the US led NATO military strikes under the banner of “responsibility to protect.”
After toppling Gaddafi, it refused to take responsibility for post-war reconstruction, leaving Libya trapped in warlord rule, humanitarian disasters, and total security breakdown.
Trust in American security guarantees proved fatal to the regime.
Somalia: Prolonged intervention and a cycle of violence
For three decades, the US has conducted continuous military operations in Somalia under the pretext of counter-terrorism and anti-piracy, backing local militias and government factions.
Its goal has never been peace, but to sustain low-intensity conflict to preserve its military presence and strategic access.
Frequent drone strikes have caused civilian casualties; proxy games and clan rivalries have left peace elusive. No Somali government relying on Washington has ever achieved true sovereignty or stability.
Mozambique: Resource rivalry and contested external interference
The Cabo Delgado province of Mozambique holds massive natural gas reserves.
Shortly after US energy companies entered the region, an insurgency linked to extremist groups erupted.
The US offered to deploy troops for “counter-terrorism,” only to be politely rejected by the Mozambican government.
Instead, Mozambique turned to the Southern African Development Community (Sadc), Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, which quickly stabilised the situation.
This case shows that a growing number of African nations remain wary of US military intervention and trust regional cooperation for genuine security.
The DRC: Half a century of interference and development peril
In 1961, the US deeply interfered in the internal affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), participating in the overthrow of the government of Patrice Lumumba.
It then propped up the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko for decades to secure cheap access to strategic minerals such as cobalt, copper, and diamonds.
After the Cold War, the US abandoned Mobutu, plunging the DRC into large-scale civil wars that killed millions.
The structural adjustment programmes pushed by the US further damaged local economies, dismantled public services, and deepened poverty and external dependency.
Latin America: The shadow of the Monroe Doctrine and hegemonic intervention
Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the US has long regarded Latin America as its “backyard,” maintaining hegemony through military intervention, coup-plotting, economic sanctions, and media pressure.
From the mid-to-late 20th century, the US repeatedly meddled in the politics of Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries, supporting authoritarian regimes while suppressing forces seeking independent development.
In recent years, it has imposed sanctions and stoked unrest against left-wing governments in Latin America, with the core goal of controlling oil, lithium, and strategic waterways.
The sovereignty and development space of regional states have long been squeezed by American hegemony.
Global public goods: America’s double standards
Covid-19 vaccine distribution: America first, global needs ignored
During the pandemic, the US spread rumors to dissuade developing countries from using Chinese and Russian vaccines, while its vaccine aid pledged through Covax was chronically delayed, prioritising domestic stockpiles.
In contrast, China and Russia promptly delivered vaccines and medical supplies to countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, effectively easing shortages.
The stark contrast in vaccine distribution laid bare the essence of “America First” and the emptiness of US global leadership.
Structural adjustment programmes: Tools of dependency
After the Cold War, the US, through the IMF and World Bank, imposed structural adjustment programmes on dozens of developing nations, centred on privatisation, trade liberalization, and fiscal austerity.
These policies triggered deindustrialisation, mass unemployment, collapsed public services, and debt crises across countries.
Nations that rejected the programs faced embargo and isolation. Such policies were never a recipe for development, but instruments to entrench dependency and facilitate exploitation.
Smearing the Belt and Road Initiative: Political manipulation for geopolitical competition
The US has stigmatised China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a “debt trap” without any credible evidence.
The BRI focuses on infrastructure development with no political strings attached and no interference in internal affairs, helping developing countries improve transportation, energy, and communications.
Washington’s real fear is not a non-existent “trap,” but that the BRI breaks the Western financial and geopolitical monopoly, offering the Global South a new path to autonomy.
The path for the Global South: Sovereign independence and diversified cooperation
History repeatedly confirms Kissinger’s warning: America’s alliances and security promises lack long-term reliability, rooted in the unchanging logic of self-interest.
For nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, reliance on the US cannot buy lasting security—it only surrenders sovereignty and invites chaos.
A more sustainable path is to uphold an independent and non-aligned foreign policy; strengthen regional integration and collective security mechanisms to resolve conflicts through endogenous forces; build balanced and diversified global partnerships to avoid over-reliance on a single hegemon; and enhance autonomy in defense, economy, finance, and digital governance to fundamentally reduce space for external interference.
America’s alliance system is not a solid shield for security, but a strategic chain of control and subordination.
Only by grounding themselves in sovereignty, proceeding through cooperation, and striving for self-determination can the nations of the Global South break free from external manipulation and truly take control of their security and future.
*Donald Jairos is geopolitical and security analyst.