Politics

L’Amérique partenaire indispensable

Mar 9, 2015 Ana Palacio

MADRID – Les États-Unis se préparent actuellement au plus grisant (et au plus éreintant) de tous les événements politiques : une course ouverte à la présidence. Dans la mesure où il est peu probable que concoure le vice-président Joe Biden, il devrait s’agir d’une bataille sans candidat sortant. Ainsi l’élection pourrait-elle consister bien moins en un référendum autour des huit dernières années qu’en un véritable combat d’idées, faisant émerger la politique étrangère en tant que sujet clé.

Les candidats potentiels se sont d’ores et déjà efforcés de faire valoir leurs positions autour de problématiques majeures de politique étrangère, le favori républicain Jeb Bush ayant notamment prononcé un discours intégralement axé sur le sujet. Du côté des démocrates, la probable nomination de l’ancienne Secrétaire d’État Hillary Clinton (en dépit de récentes révélations selon lesquelles elle aurait utilisé son compte e-mail personnel pour traiter d’affaires gouvernementales) renforce par ailleurs le caractère central de la politique étrangère dans cette élection.

Conscient de cette tendance, le Conseil de l’agenda international du Forum économique mondial a réuni un groupe d’experts et de professionnels afin de conférer une substance aux débats de politique étrangère qui s’opéreront jusqu’aux élections présidentielles américaines, en préparant notamment un document public de réflexion. En tant que seule membre européenne de ce groupe, j’ai pour point de vue qu’il s’agirait pour les États-Unis de projeter un message global selon lequel ils ne se considèrent pas comme « la puissance indispensable », mais comme « le partenaire indispensable ».

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 Comments on this article

jagjeet sinha Mar 21, 2015

American assumption of leadership from Britain a century earlier has perhaps produced progress for mankind that hitherto was never achieved. The City on the Hill has an interesting origin in Mount Gridhakut - a hill outside the then Capital of Ashoka the Great's predecessors - where the Lotus Sutra was delivered. All participants in the 'Ceremony-on-the- Hill' were guaranteed Enlightenment, and a seat in the Heavenly Abode. The transposition of folklore from India to Greece (perhaps via Alexander the Great campaigns in India ) to American Values is wonderful, as America's leadership has indeed reaffirmed the prophecy. However, the Concert of Nations empowered to ensure collective guidance for mankind, seems to be in a state of perpetual challenge to end the dominance of The Anglosphere. But natural, this requires adjustments, to make the empowerment democratic. Hence the G20 - as G7 was seen as a Concert of Europe, rather than the World after China and India resumed the return to historical normal. European dominance of World Organizations - predicated on American leadership - was in the aftermath of 1945. Both Britain and American economics were linked to Asian partnerships - India China Japan and ASEAN. The central challenge in 2015 is how to accomplish a more representative Concert of the World - without the bloodshed that preceded the adjustments required a century earlier. The world has changed - as is natural, and a century from now, it may change again. Dominance by Clubs based on the Three R's - Religion Region Race - have been mankind's greatest misery. Lessons perhaps never learnt - only time can tell if man has changed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
眼光 Canadian / China Mar 13, 2015

Someone should tell the USA that a democary does not work in Middle East countries where the culture is older than the usa .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 13, 2015

In the run-up to the 2014 mid-term and 2016 presidential elections, the World Economic Forum has set up the "Global Agenda Council on the United States 2014-2016" to start a debate on the global role that the US plays and the new challenges it faces. Our author, Ms Ana Palacio is the only European on board. She is appealing to those who run for presidency to "re-conceive" America's "role in the world". They should stop dwelling on its "exceptionalism" and seeing it as an "indsipensable power". Her advice to the presidential candidates is that America should re-invent itself, due to the shifting of the balance of power!
What makes America exceptional and would Americans "abandon" this "worst" of most "notions"? When Marco Rubio became Senator of Florida, he said: "Americans believe with all their hearts, the vast majority of them, that the United States of America is simply the single greatest nation in all of human history." Most Americans do agree with him, one way or the other that no nation has liberated more people or done more to "promote prosperity, security, and freedom worldwide".
No doubt its geographical and demographic uniqueness had helped the US thrive economically. It had been the beacon of hope for people around the world through trade and charity. But this belief in exceptionalism has often "led the US to undermine the international system that it nurtured".
In September 2013 in a New York Times opinion piece Putin rebuked Obama for the use of the word "exceptionalism", saying: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation."
Yet Obama's reluctance to intervene in Syria in 2013 prompted observers to believe America's retreat into "isolationism". But Ms Palacio sees its “exemptionalism" as worse, reminding Washington of a number of conventions it has failed to ratified, sending the international community the signal that the US is above the law and that rules and laws were for the others to follow. She says the US is an "indispensable partner" in the community and that it has to "recommit to the rules-based order that has served it", by supporting and approving various projects, that aim to improve global stability and security.
- Petey Bee Mar 13, 2015
  
  regarding "exceptionalism" as a highly valued element in US policy...
  
  Ties in to another recent proj-syn article, on American "Primacy". I think the analysis you get when you go with "Primacy" may be on to something. Being "first" is a good thing, and the task seems to be to maintain that condition for as long as possible. I'm just going to talk about how that comes back to exceptionalism, as a goal -- without getting into practical matters that I think might be in the way, like the self-defeating nature of some of the methods that are brought to bear in the name of maintaining Primacy.
  
  Just want to cut up Exceptionalism into smaller bites that can be digested. Apply the rusty old verbal knife. No grace at all. Here we go:
  
  Exceptionalism is a mix of two concepts, called exceptional-as-in-uniquely-blessed, and Exceptional-as-in-exempt-from-the-rules.
  
  Exceptional-as-in-uniquely-blessed is being one of a kind. There's the messianic element, a "chosen people" element (sorry Israel, you're not the only ones!). Supposedly, one of the archetypes Americans seek in a President is a Moses-figure, to lead them through the wilderness (according to the man who brought us "The Best Part of Waking Up is Folgers In Your Cup!). It's about pride and good feelings. This is all nice but is mostly good for PR and rhetoric. Not something that bears on decisions made on a cold materialist level.
  
  Exceptional-as-in-exempt-from-the-rules means having the option, when necessary, to be exempt from norms of social order, on an international level. It is the natural right possessed but hopefully voluntarily forsworn by all judges and legislators: To write and interpret rules to their benefit. This aspect of Exceptionalism is the opposite of the rules-based process.
  
  This is the much more important and toxic aspect of Exceptionalism.
  
  Incidentally, Exceptionalism is incompatible with law-as-in-justice. But Exceptionalism is fully compatible with law-as-in-order.
  
  So returning to the task of maintaining Primacy:
  
  Is Exceptionalism-as-in-being-exempt a value that is useful for maintaining primacy? I'm an engineer, not a political theorist, but I get the impression there was once a day when this was debated in American political and IR thinking, and that day is now several decades in the past. So if we follow the road of "Primacy" as a value, I think in today's climate that leads us back to exceptionalism, which is the end of that path.
  
  So backing up to the previous fork in the road, when we chose to go down the road of Maintaining-Primacy as the principal goal. The other road... choosing Maintaining-Prosperity as the principal goal. Down the path of Maintainin-Prosperity . . . we might find logic that steers us around Exceptionalism-as-in-being-exempt-from-the-rules.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Mar 12, 2015

To whatever extent a US presidential election is going to determine the direction of ideas behind future policy, it's going to happen mostly behind closed doors, in the deliberations of the various business-world sponsors of the political process.

If you believe the economic theory, they would be asking this: Do our future commercial prospects benefit from the current US stance in international relations?

My personal impression of the general theme of US foreign policy is that it prioritizes the destabilization of any and all rivals, with minimal regard to side effects and long term consequences. If this is true, one might ask about the wisdom of undermining significant potential markets like the Middle east, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia, and now China too, with the most recent baby steps in the direction of an adversarial relationship.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Mar 10, 2015

Wishful thinking?
- Ana Palacio Mar 10, 2015
  
  Not wishful thinking. Just food for thought.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Mar 9, 2015

Russia invading the Russian speaking part of Ukraine would be somewhat similar to the US invading the Hawaii if (say for example) it declared independence and allied with China - somewhat expected. Americans have 'assisted' sides in hundred of conflicts since the end of WW2 - so its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
- Michael Public Mar 9, 2015
  
  Site needs an edit button with a 5 minute timer.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/zRB0r2kfr

L’Amérique partenaire indispensable

Subscribe to PS Digital

The Erosion of Law

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

L’Amérique partenaire indispensable

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification