American Politics: US decline, from Palestine to Seoul

By Tom Switzer

Distinguished Australian journalist Paul McGeough penned a perceptive analysis of the decline of US influence in the Middle East for today's Sydney Morning Herald.  He argues:

The limits of American power, an in-vogue line of analysis for much of the past decade, will be starkly revealed in the coming days, as a Palestinian quest for recognition as a state at the United Nations reveals Washington's dwindling influence in the Middle East. Traditional allies who receive US aid worth billions of dollars — Israel and the Palestinian National Authority — now openly reject American overtures. And allies that in the past might have acted as Washington's trusted go-betweens in a crisis such as this — Egypt and Turkey — have become the most enthusiastic backers of the Palestinians.

The Obama administration says it will use veto power to stop the Palestinian quest for statehood in the UN Security Council, but Washington’s warnings appear to carry little weight among the regional actors.

To highlight his point, McGeough cites a recent New York Times op-ed by Prince Turki al-Faisal, formerly a Saudi ambassador to the US and head of Saudi intelligence.

According to the Saudi prince:

The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further ... Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has.

The controversy over the Palestinian bid for statehood is a reminder of the limits to US influence and power in not just the Middle East, but the world more generally. Much has been written about the folly of George W. Bush’s radical grand strategy to transform the Middle East — if not indeed the world — with military force and massive social engineering. We all know it increased the level of anti-Americanism around the globe.

But it is not so much that the US is hated: a global power can cope with being reviled. What is more serious is the loss of credibility, prestige, and respect, and consequently a reduced ability to lead, persuade, and influence. The US suffered significantly in this respect during the Bush era.

What is less noted is that this state of affairs has continued in recent years. Europeans may remain grateful that Obama is no Bush — one poll found that 78 per cent of Europeans approve of the Democrat President’s leadership — but he has failed to translate his personal popularity into more authority and influence internationally.

From the Middle East and North Korea to global economics and climate change, we have witnessed an astonishingly self-damaging American performance in recent times. This is not so much a criticism of Obama’s foreign policy as it is recognising the reality of the limits to US power in an increasingly plural world.

For example: earlier this year, when Washington sought to influence its largest aid recipients — Israel and Egypt — its requests had little sway in Jerusalem and Cairo.

To encourage a renewed peace process with the Palestinians, Obama has consistently called on Benjamin Netanyahu to stop building any further settlements, albeit briefly. To enable an orderly transition of power at the height of this year’s Egyptian uprising, he implored Hosni Mubarak to leave office as soon as possible.

Both leaders rebuffed the President’s calls. Even when Mubarak belatedly resigned, it was on instructions from the Egyptian army rather than from Egypt’s long-time benefactor.

The US is also being routinely knocked back on global economic matters. At the G20 meeting in Seoul last November, Obama and his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to achieve any of their goals on deficit spending, easy money and exchange rate policies. Worse, other world leaders, most notably the Germans and Chinese, repudiated Washington’s solution of getting the Federal Reserve to pump $600 billion of extra liquidity into the economy to devalue the greenback.

The concern was that such efforts would distort trade, create bubbles, prompt other nations to engage in similar devaluations, and set the scene for more global economic instability. In response, the Wall Street Journal editorialised:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a US President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G20 meeting in Seoul?

One could provide more examples of America’s failure to assert its leadership in the world, but the point is clear: US credibility, prestige, and basic respect have been dissipated and squandered in recent times. The result is that Washington’s authority has been diminished and its ability to lead and persuade other states has been reduced.

To say again, this process began during the Bush years; it has merely continued during the Obama era, even though Washington has presented a more conciliatory face to the world. 

This is a novel world the American people find themselves in, one where they are likely to find it more difficult to impose their will, influence, and leadership across the globe.

19 September 2011