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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers