"Readjustment to American Weakness: Signs of a Power Vacuum"

[bemildred]

Indications are growing of a shift in the world balance of power in the wake of the American occupation of Iraq. Two events reported widely in the press on June 24, 2004 show the broad ramifications of the loss of power incurred by the United States through its Iraq intervention.

A reversal of policy on the North Korea nuclear issue and failure of the United States to renew its exemption from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at the United Nations Security Council show in different ways a slackening of American influence. Neither of them marks a decisive readjustment and realignment, but together they point to a tendency that moves in a single direction -- the erosion of American power.

In the dimension of world politics, the strategic intentions of the Iraq intervention were to stabilize the Middle East through a successful demonstration project of market democratization and to convince the other "rogue states" of Iran and North Korea that they would face unacceptable consequences if they did not abandon their nuclear programs. Neither of these goals has been met; indeed, they are farther from realization than ever.

The most obvious slackening of American resolve reported on June 24 was the proposal presented by the United States to the Beijing talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program that offered North Korea a phased plan of de-nuclearization in exchange for a security guarantee and a generous economic aid package. The significance of this move is not as a predictor of the course of the negotiations -- the differences between the two sides are still serious; the intentions of neither side are clear and the good faith of their positions is problematic. The importance of the American proposal is that it represents a public -- and perhaps an actual -- concession to multilateralism.

more

[Hoping4Change]

1. Neocons are idiots for abandoning Roosevelt's foreign affairs

policy to talk softly and carry a big stick. By proceeding as they did the neocons have simply shown to the world that its big stick isn't so big and powerful after all.

[enough]

2. interesting

snip>

At the Security Council, there was sufficient resolve to teach the United States a lesson to override interests in Iraqi stability. That resolve was made possible by the perception of the other powers that the United States had no option but to accept the blow to its claims to exceptionalism. Those claims are based on the notion made famous by former American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who articulated that the United States is the "indispensable nation" and, therefore, deserves privileges commensurate with its role. The Security Council did not agree, portending similar reactions to American initiatives in other international forums.

snip>

[bemildred]

3. I thought so.

It coincides with my recent thinking about several news item including
those discussed. This stuff is never stated outright and you have
to kind of read the tea leaves to figure out what is going on. So,
it's always nice to find someone else thinking the same way. I would
mention the defiance of CARICOM and Latin America, the "Summer Pulse"
carrier deployment, the crumbling of the Iraq coalition, the crumbling
of Israel's war with the Palestinians, and the degradation of the
political situation in Central Asia as other indicators of US loss of
influence and efforts to paper that over and compensate for it. Of
course that is all speculative, but taken together, its hard to ignore.

[teryang]

4. Of course, the neocons have wagered all on

...one bet, the Persian Gulf "choke point" of which Iraq is the keystone.

The antipathy they have aroused world wide is, according to their fascist view of power, irrelevant because they fantasize that they control the world's lines of (energy) communication.

While the election here in November is most important, assuming the worst, any attempt to reduce Iran to Anglo-American control may result in a drift to more widespread and debilitating conflict, perhaps a low key world war restricted primarily to Asia. I'm sure that the Iranians would receive support from virtually all the great Asian powers. Under some circumstances caused by American induced instabilities, India might be tempted to give Pakistan a decapitation. Support for Iran would necessarily come over land and tie down virtually all conventional American military power. Such a conflict would be hampered by political instability in Saudi Arabia which would undertake to destabilize the American position from the rear. For these lunatics, this would present an opportunity to take the final prize.

[bemildred]

5. And crapped out. nt

[izzie]

6. Also look where Bush went for new bases.

He by passed indo-china and went to the Aus. He is really pushing for Pakistan to get bin Laden, (we can't seem to do it) and it seems to be a world wide weakness in our pull then say 5 years ago. I can not really put my finger on it but it seems to be every place you read a less than good feeling about the USA, or Bush and Co. and our power.The power thing I think is starting to also fad in peoples mind world wide. People stepped up to USSR at the end and people seem to be doing that to us now. Just a feeling I am getting. We seem to have become a toothless tiger.I think this is what is really turning on the bully's in this country.

[Capt_Nemo]

8. And who would pay for that?

The flow of resources needed to inject in expanding regime change
into Iran would finish off the US economy, that is only being held
from colapse by the flow of capital from countries that would be
alienated by such move.

bigger debt + bigger budget deficit + bigger comercial deficit = ruin

Is the US realy the 80's USSR on crack?

[dudeness]

7. this may be of some interest..(audio)

AMERICA: QUESTIONS OF POWER

Laurie Taylor meets three social scientists who have each produced a book exploring the nature and extent of the power of the United States. Three very different books: Incoherent Empire by Michael Mann, the forth-coming After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd and Empire Lite by Michael Ignatieff.

Michael Ignatieff believes that American leadership is the key to world order and the continuation of the human rights project.

Michael Mann has spent much of his life exploring the sources of social power and he believes the US has become a one-eyed giant, its current over-emphasis on military might distorting both its place in the world and its future prosperity at home.

Neither question the reality of US military power but a generation ago the historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union he now proposes a similar fate for an America using micro-militarism as a smoke screen for real structural weaknesses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed_20031210.shtml