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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US