The power of the US has been so overwhelming for so long that many think it has survived US President George W. Bush's presidency unscathed. That this is untrue is demonstrated by those, from Russian President Vladimir Putin and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who are exploiting the US' loss of standing and influence. This is no cause for gloating, however.
On the contrary, it is high time for friends of the US, particularly in Europe, to realize that Washington's weakness undermines their international influence as well.
The evidence of the US' weakness is clear enough. At the height of the US' power, Russia had resigned itself to the apparently unstoppable encroachment of NATO on the Soviet Union's former sphere of influence. Putin tolerated a US presence in Central Asia to assist in the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan and raised no serious objections when the US trashed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibiting strategic missile defenses.
The US, eager to bring both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, felt scant need to consider Russian concerns, convinced that the Kremlin would have no choice but to bow to the inevitable.
That was yesterday.
Today, Putin seeks to regain the influence Russia lost in previous years. He is skillfully playing the anti-US card across Europe while putting pressure on the Baltic states, a clear warning not to extend NATO any further.
In Ukraine, political forces resisting closer strategic links to the West have gained ground. And the Kremlin is aggressively portraying the planned establishment of a modest US missile defense installation in Poland and the Czech Republic as a threat to Russia's vital security interests.
Or consider Iran, another power exploiting US weakness. Only a few years ago, Iran's government seemed sufficiently in awe of the US to inch toward an agreement on its nuclear program that would have interrupted, and perhaps even halted, its enrichment activities. There was talk of possible bilateral contacts with the US, which, if successful, would have ended almost three decades of hostile relations.
Today, Iran's enrichment program is going ahead despite the UN Security Council's warnings of new sanctions, while Iranian officials publicly ridicule threats of US military action.
These examples reflect the same message -- the US is losing clout around the world. The Bush administration is internationally exposed in both the arrogance of its concepts and the limits of its power. It lacks support at home and respect abroad.
Never since the US became the world's predominant power during World War II has there been a similar decline in its international influence. Even during the Vietnam War and following its withdrawal from Southeast Asia, there was never any serious doubt about the US' authority and ability to deal with what was then the central strategic challenge, the Cold War.
In today's interdependent world, however, it is no longer the number of nuclear warheads that bestows influence, but a country's ability to get others to go along with policies that it regards as serving its major interests. Bush's US has forfeited that influence in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and in much of Europe.
Many in the US like to think that this is a temporary state of affairs that will vanish with the election of a new president and Congress next year.
But they are neither sufficiently aware of the damage done nor realistic enough about the chances of Bush's potential successors -- many of whom initially supported his adventurism -- to revive the trust and respect their country once enjoyed.
To achieve that will take more than a new face in the White House. It will require years of hard work to reconcile US resources and requirements and to ensure that its initiatives can once again be seen as designed not to serve narrow US ideologies, but to advance a fair international order.
The result of protracted US weakness is also a weaker Europe. In the heyday of US dominance, European governments profited doubly: they were part of a powerful West and courted as a potential counterweight to US dominance by third countries. If they dissented from US positions, this did not seriously impair the West's strategic efficacy because US power was more than sufficient to compensate.
That arrangement no longer works. If European governments today distance themselves from the US, as their citizens frequently demand, they will both antagonize and further weaken the US.
At the same time, they will undermine their own international influence, allow others to play off Europe against US, destroying as well what chance remains for rebuilding the West with a reformed US.
European leaders, even when unhappy over US positions, therefore need to combine forceful support for the transatlantic community of interests with discrete but firm lobbying in Washington not to strain it to the breaking point.
Whether they can successfully perform this difficult act remains to be seen. Fortunately, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown understand the challenge and at least some parts of the Bush government seem aware of the problem.
In the long period of US weakness, European leaders will have to demonstrate statesmanship for the West as a whole. It is a role for which decades of US supremacy have scarcely prepared them.
Christoph Bertram is the former head of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under