By Sylvia T Villalobos
Given the significant expanse of its size, the span and intensity of its power, its UNIQUE alliance with ISRAEL and the indispensable role it plays in world affairs, the United States of America possesses a distinctive scale of primacy. Now, however, it seems that the present mishap and catastrophes predicts the end of the American era. America’s very size and predominance, foreign policy conduct, the war in Iraq, and what they see as its economic, structural and military vulnerabilities, are bound to trigger the emergence of an increasing number and variety of stubborn challenges to U.S. power and influence. Israel’s siege of Humanitarian Aid ship Freedom Flotilla branded as “The Second Gaza War: Israel Lost at sea” Nonetheless, counterbalancing and the decline of American primacy have yet to take place and it remains a matter of contention whether or when they will occur. Elsewhere, the threat from militant Islamic terrorism, the weakness of international institutions in confronting the most imperative and fatal problems, and the unique role of the United States have made a magnificent strategy of superpower superiority a logical and necessary adaptation to the realities of the post-9/11 world.
However a recent event tells us that we will soon be witnessing a major erosion of America’s capacity to play this role. One factor of change could emanate from shifts in the international allocation of power, so that other states, individually or in coalition, come to acquire power that challenges or even surpass that of America. Furthermore, at hand are the human and material costs of a lengthy and complicated war in Iraq also the ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan which continue to undermine America’s power.
Further on, America faces current or probable coercion from regional and smaller powers as well as radical Islamist terrorist groups, and most of all the diffuse but real threat from nuclear proliferation and failed states. Ultimately, the ascensions of the authoritarian capitalist powers, Russia and China, imply the possible re-emergence of great power alliances and competitions. Confrontation to primacy can emerge from various directions, not only from overseas. A very noteworthy yet often under-emphasized aspect concerns the safeguarding of a strong domestic foundation.
Facing the Real Challenge
Can American primacy would be able to preserve and sustain? Threats from radical Islamist groups, nuclear Proliferation, the potential use of CBRN weapons, and possible confrontations and challenges from authoritarian capitalist powers pose threats that give the intuition requiring assertive US engagement. Moreover, other democratic allies have revealed few signs of agreement to miss out on the involvement of the North American “Goliath,”and despite heated rhetoric about “hyperpower”and real or imagined excesses of unilateralism, an excellent deal of multilateral cooperation have continued to take place. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 articulated an approval of ultilateralism and, the Bush administration fervently wanted to increase its coalition of the willing for the use of force against Saddam. In the past years there have been six party dialogue with North Korea, obsequiousness to Germany, Britain and France (the EU-3) in their failed discussions with Iran over its nuclear program, endorsement of the multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative aimed at underpinning the NPT, co-sponsorship with France of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, augmentation in financial support to combat AIDS in Africa, an extended NATO role in Afghanistan, and even a UN mandate – UNSC Resolutions 1546 (2004) and 1637 (2005) – for the U.S. led conglomerate force in Iraq.
Valuable options to the role played by the United States are insufficient or missing in general, and neither the United Nations, nor other international bodies such as the European Union, the African Union, the Arab league or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations propose an effectual alternative. In the words of Robert Kagan, “American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world….It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world.”
Restraint on the facility of adversaries also needs to be taken into account. Russia under Putin has imposed strain on its direct neighbours and seeking to reconstruct its armed forces; however Moscow’s ability to reclaim the superpower status of the former Soviet Union remains narrow. Russian armed forces are in sorrowful condition, the entire population is half that of the USSR and deteriorating by 700,000 annually, the economy is tremendously reliant on revenues coming from oil and natural gas and therefore susceptible if world market prices elevate, the long term steadiness of its crony capitalism and progressively more authoritarian political system are vague. China, notwithstanding astonishing economic growth and modernization, will persist to depend on brisk growth of trade and the amalgamation of huge figures of people moving from the countryside to the cities. Will turn
out to be a foremost military contender of America.
The recent event Freedom Flotilla scenario rocked the world, many analyst deduced that US is now a failed state (Dr. Paul Craig Roberts interview) US: A Plague Upon The World, also discussed in detail elsewhere and are used here simply to show the limitations of any U.S. response to Israel’s actions, ambitions and their consequences. Turkish ground, maritime or aerial invasion to overthrow Israel is very likely. However, the United States to date never prepared or failed to take solid actions against Israel. Such an attack would be disastrous for both nations.
Any attack against Turkey will likely result in repercussions; Turkey could play its fellow Muslims card with co-religionists in Pakistan and elsewhere by fomenting large scale rebellion or guerrilla warfare; unleash its proxies in a wave of international aggression and embark on asymmetrical warfare against U.S. forces in Afghanistan ,Pakistan and Iraq.
Whereas this is an apparent concern, similar consideration also are inclined to scrutinize only decisions regarding threatening crises and decisions on the use of military force US deal favourably with Israeli decision making in a theoretically meticulous and general approach,and also even fewer deal in the equal manner with Israeli non-military decisions. In thorough explorations of Israel’s foreign policy decision making procedure in the milieu of both war- and peace-making: It is evident that Israel’s past history with the Arab states and the Palestinians is full of decisions to engage in armed action.
US –Israel foreign policy centred on Israeli identity than anything else: the legacy of the Holocaust which is also attached into modern-day concerns for security political culture i.e. democracy, liberalism, national identity disputes such as secularism/democracy versus religion, ultra-nationalist Zionism versus more nuanced Zionism and many others.
Perchance the most consequential and radical decision in Israeli foreign policy in recent years was the decision to engage in direct, albeit secret, negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the authentic representative of the Palestinian people. This is significant because since the capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel has sought to ignore or marginalize the PLO, preferring to try and build up local Palestinians in the West Bank as the official representatives with whom Israel would deal. And the recent siege of Freedom Flotilla which left 19 dead and 60 others wounded. Exhibited US –ISRAEL Alliance and the real picture of what is behind this alliance (Opinion Maker Dr. Alan Sabrosky ISRAEL SAYS NO, THE US AGREES) These two events combined left Israel’s closest ally, the United States, as the defender, and demonstrate its capability and readiness to engage itself should its interests be threatened. This had the impact of both giving the impression that its ally Israel could not be seriously threatened, but this llusion has greatly eroded. The monstrous siege gained both more animosity and condemnation in a global scale to push Israel toward an external threat and, the possibility of a future mass casualty attack.
Precision and the rule of law. Even the mutual norms and beliefs of Israel’s siege are flawed, and why, Israel’s decision about threats to the peace becomes more legitimate when it is validated by the representatives of Imperialist regimes in Washington. During the time of crisis the invocation of global governance, international rule, treaty obligations, or the duty-to-protect, is treated much or more probable to be an excuse for inaction rather than an encouragement to compliance. ISRAEL will be isolated from the rest of the world and US primacy will soon disintegrate and very likely to collapse. US lost sympathy of the international community .These event illustrate the limitations of the US apabilities and mechanisms of global governance.
It would be appropriate to deduced that the world has turned against the United States and Israel. Here we can conclude that “Power itself by no means doesn’t guarantee the achievement of desired outcomes.”
Sylvia T Villalobos is a lawyer and doing research in International Affairs. Her special focus is on the Muslim World.