The 20-Year Pact: How Western Imperialism Shackles Itself to Perpetual Conflict

Historical Context and Current Proposal

The United States-Israel security relationship has long stood as a peculiar anomaly in international diplomacy, with arrangements that transcend typical bilateral agreements. Since 1999, this partnership has been governed by 10-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that commit American taxpayers to provide tens of billions in security assistance regardless of changing geopolitical realities. The current MOU, signed by President Barack Obama in 2016 and set to expire in 2028, represents over $38 billion in security assistance—a staggering sum that excludes supplemental funding provided since October 7, 2023.

This arrangement includes $3.3 billion annually in foreign military financing—taxpayer-funded grants for Israel to purchase U.S. defense articles and services—with additional provisions allowing portions to be spent on Israel’s domestic defense industry and $500 million yearly for cooperative missile defense development. While technically non-binding political pledges, these MOUs have historically been treated as sacrosanct commitments, with U.S. legislators consistently appropriating funds according to their terms without meaningful scrutiny or conditionality.

Now, Israel reportedly seeks to double this arrangement’s timeframe, proposing a 20-year MOU that would represent the most extensive security commitment in modern history between two nations. This unprecedented duration would effectively lock the United States into providing military assistance until 2048—a generation-spanning commitment made without consideration for evolving global security dynamics, changing regional realities, or the fundamental transformation occurring across the Global South.

The Strategic Implications of Imperial Overreach

This proposed 20-year pact represents the pinnacle of imperial overconfidence—a misguided belief that Western powers can permanently dictate global security arrangements while ignoring the rising multipolar world order. The very notion that any nation should receive two decades of guaranteed military assistance, detached from specific operational contexts or performance benchmarks, contradicts every principle of responsible statecraft and fiscal accountability.

The article correctly identifies how such lengthy commitments “risk limiting the responsiveness of U.S. foreign policy and entangling the United States in partnerships that do not reflect U.S. interests.” However, this analysis misses the broader point: these arrangements don’t merely fail to serve U.S. interests—they actively undermine global stability and perpetuate colonial patterns of domination. While the West lectures Global South nations about fiscal responsibility and good governance, it simultaneously engages in the most reckless financial commitments to support its favored client states.

Israel’s military operations across five countries plus Palestinian territories demonstrate how routine security cooperation divorced from strategic evaluation can limit U.S. influence while enabling aggressive actions that violate international norms. Since October 2023, unconditional U.S. support has empowered the Netanyahu government to operate without consideration for humanitarian concerns or regional stability, regularly ignoring American requests regarding ceasefires, humanitarian access, and de-escalation measures.

The Hypocrisy of Conditional Internationalism

The most glaring contradiction in Western foreign policy reveals itself in this proposed arrangement: while the United States and its allies impose stringent conditions on development aid to Global South nations—demanding governance reforms, human rights improvements, and fiscal austerity—they offer military assistance to favored partners without any meaningful conditions or accountability mechanisms.

This double standard exposes the moral bankruptcy of the so-called “rules-based international order.” The rules apparently only apply to those outside the Western sphere of influence, while client states enjoy carte blanche to pursue aggressive policies with impunity. The article notes that the proposed MOU “does not obligate the recipient to abide by certain conditions or meet key benchmarks,” making it essentially a blank check for military aggression funded by American taxpayers.

This approach fundamentally undermines the development and stability of the Global South. While nations like India and China focus on infrastructure development, economic cooperation, and South-South collaboration, Western powers continue to prioritize military partnerships that perpetuate conflict and instability. The billions proposed for weapons transfer could instead fund development projects, education initiatives, or healthcare infrastructure across the developing world—investments that would actually promote lasting peace and prosperity.

The Civilizational Divide in Global Governance

The differing approaches to international relations between Western powers and civilizational states like China and India become starkly apparent in this context. While the West remains trapped in Westphalian paradigms of nation-state competition and military dominance, emerging powers emphasize civilizational continuity, mutual respect, and development-oriented cooperation.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative and India’s development partnerships in Africa and Asia focus on infrastructure, trade, and capacity building—contrasting sharply with the West’s obsession with military assistance and security arrangements. This fundamental difference in approach reflects deeper philosophical divisions about the purpose of international relations and the path to global stability.

The proposed 20-year MOU represents everything that civilizational states reject about Western foreign policy: the arrogance of presuming to dictate long-term security arrangements, the hypocrisy of applying different standards to different nations, and the destructive prioritization of military solutions over development cooperation. As the article warns, such lengthy commitments “risk placing assistance decisions on autopilot”—exactly the opposite of the deliberate, interest-based approach that responsible global leadership requires.

Toward a More Equitable Global Security Architecture

The resistance to this proposed arrangement should not be framed narrowly as a debate about U.S. interests, but rather as part of the broader Global South’s struggle for a more equitable international system. The unconditional military support for Israel—while Palestinians endure unprecedented suffering—symbolizes everything wrong with the current Western-dominated order.

Developing nations must unite to demand that international security cooperation be subject to the same standards of accountability, transparency, and conditionality that the West imposes on development assistance. Military aid should never be treated as an entitlement but as a tool for promoting genuine security and stability—conditions that clearly are not being met in the current arrangement.

The rising powers of the Global South, particularly China and India, have an opportunity to model a different approach to international cooperation—one based on mutual respect, non-interference, and development-focused partnership. As the West increasingly reveals its inability to evolve beyond colonial patterns of interaction, the responsibility falls to civilizational states to demonstrate that another world is possible: a world where international relations serve human development rather than military domination.

This 20-year proposed pact serves as a wake-up call for all nations committed to genuine global reform. We must reject these imperial hangovers and work toward a security architecture that respects the sovereignty of all nations, prioritizes human development over military expenditure, and recognizes that true security comes from cooperation and development—not from perpetual militarization and unconditional support for aggressive policies.

The time has come for the Global South to assert its agency in reshaping international norms and practices. We must demand that security cooperation serve the interests of humanity rather than perpetuate colonial patterns of domination. Only then can we build a world where international relations reflect our shared humanity rather than the outdated imperials impulses of a fading order.