|
Resistance grows to US assumption of primacy
By Simon Tisdall
02/01/06 "The
Guardian" -- -- Stressing the indispensability of
American global leadership is standard fare in State of the
Union addresses, and George Bush's speech last night was no
exception. But a string of foreign policy setbacks has
highlighted growing flaws in Washington's long cherished
assumption of international primacy.
China's rapid rise presents the most obvious long-term challenge
to American ascendancy. It recently overtook Britain and Italy
to become the world's fourth largest economy. And its political
clout is growing even faster, as Robert Zoellick, the US deputy
secretary of state, was reminded last week.
Visiting Beijing, Mr Zoellick said the US wanted China to become
a "responsible stakeholder" in global good governance. "China
could play a very positive role in the international system,
from issues dealing with non-proliferation to energy security to
counter-terrorism," he said.
But Mr Zoellick quickly hit trouble when he got down to
specifics. His plea for China to back the formal referral of
Iran's nuclear activities to the UN security council for
possible punitive sanctions was rebuffed. Beijing's stonewalling
recalled similar blocking action over Darfur.
China's simultaneous feting in Beijing of King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia meanwhile offered a different, unsettling perspective on
the energy security issues raised by Mr Zoellick. Joint
agreements on extraction and refining mean increasing amounts of
Saudi crude oil will be earmarked for China rather than the US,
Riyadh's long-time number one customer.
China's courting of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, who
secretly toured the country last month, may only aggravate
another of Mr Zoellick's concerns - how to separate Pyongyang
from the nuclear bombs it claims to possess. Adding to American
discomfiture, South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, warned
Washington not to use or even threaten to use force to achieve
regime change and the overthrow of Mr Kim. Such mutinous talk
from a traditionally close US ally would once have been quite
unthinkable - but not now.
Similarly jolting rejections of once unquestioned American
authority are proliferating. The Palestinian vote for Hamas
ignored US pressure and financial string-pulling and left its
Middle East peace policy in tatters.
While they might once have quietly acquiesced, India and
Pakistan reacted sharply and publicly to recent US attempts to
block trade with Iran and an "unauthorised" attack on a supposed
al-Qaida hideout. Flexing its energy muscle, Russia has simply
ignored US protests over its treatment of NGOs and its gas
pipeline rows with Ukraine and Georgia.
Despite Condoleezza Rice's bid for a post-Iraq fresh start,
European opinion has been alienated all over again by the
extraordinary rendition row. In Iraq itself, allies such as
Italy are breaking ranks, intent on bringing troops home whether
or not Mr Bush deems the job done.
In his book The Opportunity, Richard Haass suggested that US
over-reaching, as seen in Iraq and in Mr Bush's grandiose second
term "vision" to set the world free, was partly responsible for
the trend towards rejection of American leadership. "It is
neither desirable nor practical to make democracy promotion a
foreign policy doctrine," Mr Haass, a former US government
official, said. "Too many pressing threats in which the lives of
millions hang in the balance (threats such as nuclear
proliferation and genocide) will not be solved by the emergence
of democracy."
But he argued that US primacy was also increasingly vulnerable
to non-military challenges that were beyond the control of any
administration. The US should pursue more collaborative,
integrated policies - or risk rising "passive resistance"
internationally. "For the immediate future, non-cooperation is
likely to be a more frequent and bigger problem for US foreign
policy than direct opposition."
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
