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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry