Fatma Al Sayegh: U.S. must allow other powers to emerge

<a href=www.gulf-news.com>gulf-news.com  |  | 11-05-2003

Lenin once remarked that there were decades in which history would stand still, and weeks when it would move forward by a decade. It seems that in the past few weeks it moved forward by a decade. In the past few weeks we witnessed not only the rise of the U.S. as the super power arranging the world order but also as the key player preventing any other power from being an effective partner in the international arena.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had, in fact, maintained its superiority. The decline of the Soviet Union made America even stronger and more powerful. There were hopes that Europe would become an alternative power source to the U.S. but it has been hobbled by habits of weakness, and despite its unity, it is not yet apparent whether the EU will ever be able to play an effective role in international affairs.

In fact, the EU does not behave like a great power. Europe, therefore, could not become a rival to the U.S. In the absence of any counterparts, America was left alone to re-arrange the current structure of the world.

The absence of any major player that might compete with America is due to several factors. The U.S. has more military power than all of the five next powerful countries of the world combined. In addition, the U.S. military superiority is backed by an economy that is again as big as that of the five next economies combined (Germany, Japan, France, Canada, and England).

With all its military and economic superiority, the U.S. is also supported by a pervasive popular culture, a culture that favours power and authority. This explains why America would like to control the world and not allow any other power to emerge. So far the U.S. has used all that power for a distasteful cause.

The Americans indicated during the Iraqi crisis that they are willing to pay for those who supported them. And while some countries have the ethic not to support illegal actions, others chose to ignore ethics and opt for the lucrative U.S. support. The collation of the willing became nothing but a collation of the billing.

The French, Chinese, Germans and Russians all could be major players in international affairs if the U.S. wishes to allow them the space and the opportunity. But America insists on playing a unilateral role. In fact, Washington was working hard in the last few months to dismantle the Western alliance and expose the weakness of its unity vis-a-vis American power.

The U.S. has isolated the European states so they will play no role in the Middle East peace plan or in the conflict in North Korea or other issues of concern to the entire global community. France has tried to set itself up at the head of all countries that resent the American foreign policy and American hegemony, but its actions failed to produce satisfactory political results.

Germany, as well, tried to form an alliance with France, and oppose American superiority, but both countries failed to have a profound impact on America's attitude or foreign polices. If this situation persists, these countries and others will no longer be effective players in international affairs. America could be left alone to decide the future of the globe, and that could be very dangerous for America and for the rest of the world.

Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has assigned to itself the role of the dominant power and embarked on policies aimed to ensure that it maintains its stranglehold over world affairs. Washington also gave itself the right to interfere in any country's internal affairs and to redress the wrong doings of any nation. Such a task of policing the world has proved extremely expensive and complex.

It has meant that the U.S. should spend on its military capabilities more than any country in the world. Some policy-makers argued that America's national security deserves this lofty price. Others, however, were in favour of just the opposite.

During the Cold War, when the world was essentially divided into two camps: the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a number of American policy-makers, including Senator George Kennan and William Fulbright, argued that it was in America's interest to encourage Western Europe and Japan to claim their righteous place in the world arena in order to relieve the U.S. of the "burdens of bi-polarity".

Their argument was based on a sound belief that policing the world is a costly matter and could endanger American interests, rather than safeguard it.

They argued that by allowing Western Europe and Japan to defend their own interests, Washington would relieve itself of such burden. Nonetheless, the majority of American policy-makers held the view that the U.S. has to contain its allies as much as it had to contain the Soviet Union.

The slogan of "the White Man's Burden" has an interesting history among western powers. Almost a century ago it was Great Britain that carried the torch of this slogan, which also highlighted Britain's responsibility in policing the world. Now it is America's turn to do so and decide the fate of the world. By assuming such a task, both take their share of troubles and political surprises.

Washington, so far, has contained, and in many cases prevented, any power from developing its military capability and providing security to its own interests.

The zealots who craft America's foreign policy believe that America must continue to dominate the world, and in order to be able to do that, it must discourage, and in fact prevent, the advanced industrial nations from challenging its leadership or even aspiring to a larger global role. To do this Washington must retain its powerful role in the world, and do nothing to encourage other powers to challenge the American superiority.

To accomplish this end America must be ready to re-address those wrong doings which threaten America's interests or that of its friends and allies. This interpretation provides America with moral obligations not only to defend its allies but also to defend the whole world. In other words, America must be ready at any time to defend not only its interests but also that of its friends and allies.

Some critics argue that in pursuing such pervasive policy, America is treating its allies not as equal partners but as inferiors. Its "Adult supervision" policy is not in the interest of America because these states are developing a sense of dependency on the U.S. and accordingly not developing their own military capabilities.

Therefore, America needs to spend more on its military capability in order to meet the challenge of defending the interest of its allies.

However, those who are in favour of a greater American role argue that the American strategy requires a good calculation of the world situation. For instance, although most Americans believe that a free and democratic Iraq and nuclear free North Korea would be in America's interest, some argue that this situation would constitute a challenge to American national security.

The argument goes that the situation in Iraq and North Korea would probably require the presence of more American troops, which could lead to a U.S. pullback from other vital areas in the world that could, in turn, lead to another power becoming militarily more self-sufficient, leading to political and military rivalry among major powers.

A similar point is made on the heavy American involvement in the Gulf region. Many argue that it is oil which makes America's polices so entangled in the Gulf. But that is misleading. The Gulf provides America with only 25 per cent of its oil needs while the rest comes from other sources such as Venezuela, Canada and Alaska.

By pursuing a certain economic policy, the U.S. could free itself totally from its dependence on Gulf oil. However, with America's role in the world and its assumed responsibility for the stability of its allies like Japan and Western Europe and possibly China, America wants to discourage those powers from developing the means to rely on themselves to secure their oil supplies.

By acting on their behalf, the U.S. wants to send these countries a message that their oil supplies are secure, and therefore, they should not feel the need to create their own military power to secure their economic interests.

As a result, America would remain the sole power in the world. Despite their acceptable logic, American policy- makers fail to see that power is indeed a seductive matter. In its search for absolute authority, America might risk its own security. History has shown that when a state acquires too much power, others fear that it enhances itself at their own expenses.

This explains why great empires faced great universal resistance. America's recent involvement in Iraq crystallised fears of U.S. hegemony, prompting not only the emergence of anti-U.S. sentiments worldwide but also fear and doubt among its allies and supporters.

The role the U.S. has assigned to itself in the world today could trigger a hostile reaction towards itself and towards its interests worldwide. Beside its lofty price, America's role in world will make it, not the European Union or Japan, a vulnerable target to backlash.

Aggrieved groups throughout the world would direct their dissatisfaction and anger towards the U.S. and its interests worldwide. This highlights further the vulnerability of the U.S. For the sake of its national security, this is why America should accept the inevitability of the rise of new powers.

The witer is a visiting scholar, Georgetown University, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.