The United States, World Policeman and Guard into a New Century?

The United States, World Policeman and Guard into a New Century?

The United States a superpower?

Conclusion

Literature, citations and further readings

Our great emphasis was on the internet and articles published in the Net.

This was the first so called "internet paper" we have ever written. It was very time consuming but a great experience. We think it is very useful to learn how to operate with and in the internet. Because internet competence is very useful in today's world and will be even more so tomorrow.

Special thanks to Erwin Giedenbacher for his internet know-how and Prof. Wagnleitner for his support.

Since the end of the World War II. the political map was altered by great changes. Most significant for the whole global system certainly were the End of the Cold War, the opening of the East and the Reunification of Germany. These changes are reflected in the roles, capabilities and policies of Western Europe and the United States.

In 1989 the end of the Cold War was proclaimed by policy makers in the Soviet Union and the United States. But what was the Cold War?

The Cold War period is best defined as a period of

"competition, hostility, and tension between the Western powers

and communist bloc states. While frequently intense, it never escalated

into direct and open warfare between the bloc leaders - the Soviet Union

and the United States. No single issue or geographic area dominated

the conflict. At any point in time, the U.S.-Soviet cold war interactions

were characterized by some combination of political maneuvering, diplomatic

wrangling, psychological warfare, ideological competition, economic coercion,

arms races, and proxy wars." (taken from: Hastedt, p. 44 - 45)

From a revisionist point of view, the Soviet Union's military power has always been overestimated, as well as the USSR's expansion plans.

"Subject to even more disagreement [...] is who, if anyone

was responsible for it. According to the orthodox interpretation,

responsibility for cold war is placed in the Soviet Union.

The United States is pictured as basically reacting to and trying

to check Soviet outward thrusts. Where advocates of the orthodox

view see a constant pattern of Soviet expansion combined with

an inflexible and Messianic ideology, the revisionists see an insecure

and week Soviet Union. In their view, the United States is primarily

responsible for the cold war. Its misreading Soviet goals (which are

held by revisionists to be fundamentally defensive in nature),

exaggeration of Soviet military power, and obsession with communism

combined to produce a series of policies that left the Soviet Union no

choice but to act unilaterally in protecting its national interest."

(taken from: Hastedt, p.51)

disintegrated into fifteen separate countries. Its collapse was hailed by the

West as a victory for freedom, a triumph over totalitarianism, and evidence

of the superiority of capitalism over socialism. The United States rejoiced as

its formidable enemy was brought to its knees, thereby ending the Cold War

which had hovered over these two superpowers since the end of

World War Two." (taken from: Cold War)
On the one hand Russia still has a vast amount of nuclear weapons. Russia is still one of the biggest territories on the globe, is the world's largest oil producer and has a vast amount of natural resources as well as a large educated population. It lies in the heart of Eurasia and is the gate from Europe to the East. But the End of the Cold War also made clear, that Soviet Union power had been overestimated, and that the country itself suffered great economy problems. In the year 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, there were only 50 000 personal computers in the Soviet Union, whereas in the same year, the United States had more than 30 million personal computers. (taken from: New York Times)

Soviet economist Nikolai Schmelkov furthermore reports, that 92 percent of the Soviet Union's industry is below world standard. (taken from: Schmelko, p.12)

has ceased to exist, the fifteen newly formed independent countries, which emerged

in its aftermath are faced with an overwhelming task. They must develop their economies,

reorganize their political system, and, in many cases, settle bitter territorial disputes.

A number of wars have developed on the peripheries of the former Soviet Union.

Additionally, the entire region is suffering a period of severe economic hardship.

However, despite the many hardships facing the region, bold steps are being taken

toward democratization, reorganization, and rebuilding in most of the countries of

the former Soviet Union." (taken from: Cold War)

But not only Russia's role as the second superpower in the two-bloc system changed, but also its relationship towards Europe was altered. When during the Cold War Europe was Russia's and the United States' center of interest, it seems to have lost their attention. American strategic and military theories concerning Europe as the gate to number one enemy, the Soviet Union, have diminished and play a minor role. The US today is much more interested in regional politics and focuses on countries that have gained importance through economy.

(caricature of Uncle Sam over-viewing the globe)

Generally speaking one could describe a superpower as a country dominating and influencing the world in most of the following aspect: + world politics

+ military forces

+ economy

+ ideology

According to this matrix, Russia compared to the US, holds on to military power and is week and unstable in political, economic and financial areas.

"The matrix [...] supported the status of the US as the only superpower today." (taken from: Royal College of Defense Studies)
Another expert Dan Hiester stresses US extraordinary position as a world superpower.

"Since 1945, the only true global power has been the United Stated,

based on all aspects of influence, not just military. While its position

is certainly more constrained that it once was, it still has and will

continue to play a unique international role. No other country,

or group of countries, certainly not Japan or the European Community,

would have the international political credibility to replace the

United States' role, leaving on one side the question of

economic and military might."(taken from: Dan Hiester)
Bare in mind that Dan Hiester's article was published in 1991, since then global power relations have changed. Europe, namely the European Union, has established itself as an influential power in many fields.

The United States and the United Nations
US power is not only possible because of nuclear strength or military power, it is also the lack of an equal counterpart and the failure and inefficiency of the United Nations, that helps to create an American superpower status. The UN was founded in order to secure international political order as well as "World Peace". Quoting the harsh critic Noam Chomsky in his speech, delivered on September 22^nd, 1998, at the University of Calgary, Chomsky claims, that the UN simply is unable to cope with specific world problems because they are not given enough power.
"Now of course, there is no enforcement mechanism - this has

to be by acceptance. There is in fact an enforcement mechanism,

namely the great powers, and to be realistic, exactly one of them,

namely the United States, so that's the enforcement mechanism.

But that suffices to show that the whole system is null and void

because the United States rejects the principles out of hand. It

rejects them both in practice and in fact in doctrine. There's no

need to waste time on the practice in the past half century;

the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan a couple

of weeks ago is a recent illustration but one that is completely

trivial in historical context, though I suppose that terrorist destruction

of half of the medical supplies and fertilizers in the United States

might be taken a shade more seriously." (taken from: Chomsky)

Furthermore he asserts, that since the Reagan administration, the famous Article 51 (which says that nothing in the UN Charter abrogates the right of self-defense against armed attack until the UN - Security Council acts), was reinterpreted by the US to justify its repeated reliance on force.

"It has held that Article 51, I'm quoting actually, authorizes self-defense against future attack. Article 51 permits the United States to defend its interests."(taken from: Chomsky)

He concludes, that the US respects the United Nations and its Charter when they serve as an instrument to fulfill their own interests. Otherwise the decisions and condemnations are ignored and not obeyed.

The US justify their interventions claiming act in the name of Human Rights and democracy but when it comes to the point, they very freely disregard international rules and ignore UN resolutions.

"It was all formulated rather straightforwardly by Ambassador Albright, now Secretary of State, when she informed the UN Security Council which was then refusing to along with some US demands about Iraq...she informed the Security Council that the United Stated will act 'multilaterally when we can, unilaterally when we must in an area important for our interests.'" (taken from: Chomsky)
Another interesting book about the US's relationship with the United Nations and other organizations is "The United States and Multilateral Institutions" by M. Karns and K. Mingst.

"The United States has clearly found UNESCO, FAO (food and Agriculture Organization), the UN human rights organs, the OAS (Organization of American States), and the UN less useful for regime and rule creation and for collective legitimation of its policies and interests. The UN was primarily useful during the height of the cold war and the process of decolonization"(taken from: Forsythe, David)

"Many unilateral US actions come at a time when the United States seems to display an increased disregard for the United Nations- the one international government body with some potential for holding the sole superpower accountable." (taken from: Mennonite Central Committee)

The United Nations are still to weak to control world politics and secure justice. Furthermore it is highly influenced by the United States and cannot be seen objective world police.

The US and the rising superpower China
In recent literature, it is especially China, that is mentioned, when it comes to 21^st century world superpower. While it was unmentioned a couple of years ago, China has become the USSR's successor as a possible counterpart of the US.

It is not only the country's size, its huge number of inhabitants (1 billion) and its enormous military force that makes one wonder why it has not established itself as a great dominator earlier. Some experts see China's clear efforts to become a superpower in the future.

"China is also seeking to limit the US military influence" (taken from: "China's Superpower Strategy")
China sees the US dictated "new world order" as reason for limiting American power.

It is worth mentioning that "China still has the world's third largest nuclear arsenal and missiles that can reach the US." (taken from: China Summit)

China's military force may be old and out-dated, Western analysts describe it as "the world's largest military museum", but it is huge (2,8 million people) and seeking to develop its own capabilities and upgrading its military technology. (taken from: China Summit)

China will certainly play a more important role in world politics in the future. If it will threaten the US superpower status on its own, is doubtful. Maybe it will rise to a regional influential dominator but by far not comparable to the United States.

China will dominate in one aspect of superpower concept- in economy.

"It was shown that economic development was the key to China's success [...] A Chinese superpower with a high Gross Domestic Product, could be expected to pursue the re-unification of Taiwan with mainland China by predominately political means." (taken from: Royal College of Defense)

Therefore economic growth and development should be observed carefully.
One option is that China will rise up to an Asia-Pacific superpower but it is miles apart from becoming a world dominator. Or saying it even more drastically: "China's long term goal may be to someday challenge US superiority - but the reality today is that the United States is the 800 pound gorilla in Asia and the Pacific, while China remains a superpower wannabe." (taken from: China Summit)

II. Future Concepts of a possible World Order
During the ages of the Cold War the structure of world power was bipolar, centered around the United States and the Soviet Union. This polarity, may it have been good or bad was very stable. With the end of the Cold War and decline of Russia, the world seems to be left with only one superpower, the United States. But can the US remain an only dominator without a counterpart to justify their actions? Some theorists say, yes, the United States are the only country capable of leading the world.
II.a. US Hegemony

Theorist argue about the fact whether or not the US is the only superpower left and able to control and lead the rest of the world. Theorist Zbiginiew Brezinski sees clear US hegemony. He compares the role of America to the Ancient Roman empire and argues that this kind of dominance over the rest of the world is something singular in human history. The US do not only have the best military forces, they control all oceans and world seas. American economy also offers (in contrast to Russian economy) the basis that makes US dominance possible. Even though Europe and Japan have gained influence, the US share of the global BIP still succeeds thirty percent and is still increasing.

"Nicht nur beherrschen die Vereinigten Staaten sämtliche Ozeane

und Meere, sie verfügen mittlerweile auch über militärische Mittel,

die Küsten mit Amphibienfahrzeugen unter Kontrolle zu halten, mit

denen sie bis ins Innere eines Landes vorstoßen und ihrer Macht

politisch Geltung verschaffen können. Amerikanische Armeeverbände

stehen in den westlichen und östlichen Randgebieten des eurasischen

Kontinents und kontrollieren außerdem den Persischen Golf. [...]

Die Dynamik der amerikanischen Wirtschaft schafft die notwendige

Voraussetzung für die Ausübung globaler Vorherrschaft." (taken

from: Zbigniew, p.41 ff)

The United States are the global leaders concerning weapons and technology. And this superiority makes influence in other fields possible.

(graphic: world map)

American politicians and also the American population likes to see itself as the world dominator. The reasons for this are various. First of all it would be a loss of status, if after the fall of Soviet Russia, the second world power would lose influence and start to decline. Another good reason is to disregard major domestic problems.
There are clear indications in speeches and statements by official US politicians and also the president of the United States, that global leadership is in US hands.

In a speech, held by President Clinton at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington in 1998, on the topic "Helping Write 21st Century International Rules", Clinton talks about US responsibility "to build a new era of peace and cooperation in the world."

He also stresses the US as the only power of global leadership in a world full of risks and challenges.

"In this new world, our global leadership is more important

than ever. This doesn't mean we can go it alone or respond to

every crisis. We have to be clear where our national interests are

at stake. But more than ever the world looks to America to get

the job done. Our nation is leading in building a new network

of institutions and arrangements to harness the forces of change,

while guarding against their dangers. We are helping to write the

international rules of the road for the 21^st century, protecting those

who've joined the family of nations and isolating those who do not."

(taken from: Clinton. Helping Write 21st Century Rules.)

Very interesting is Clinton's stress on the importance of American leadership - so undoubtedly the US are the leaders of the world and according to him US hegemony exists. But he also mentions that America cannot respond to every crisis, what they have to do is, make a clear selection whether it really concerns them, whether or not US interests are threatened and then they would react. The gurus of democracy have made a very undemocratic selection. As world guards they only react when their own well being is at stake and they do react they way they do best, by military actions. Throughout his speech Clinton praises the US military. He even proclaims,

"To advance this strategy (of writing 21^st century rules), we have

to preserve and strengthen the tools of our engagement of fully

funded diplomacy backed by a strong and modern defense.

Diplomacy and force are two sides of the same coin. Our diplomacy

is effective precisely because it is backed by the finest military in the

world. Nothing illustrates the scope of our interests or the purpose of

our power better than our unified commands."

(taken from: Clinton. Helping Write 21st Century Rules)

US military actions are justified by the assumption that state behavior can be judged morally. In order to protect democracy every action is justified. America has a moral obligation to show the world 'the right way'.

"The [...] pattern to American foreign policy is moral pragmatism.

The American sense of morality involves two elements. The first is,

that state behavior can be judged by moral standards. The second is,

hat American morality provides the universal standard for making

those judgements. By definition American actions are taken morally

correct and justifiable.[...] American pragmatism takes the form

of an engineering approach to foreign policy solving. US involvement is

typically put in terms of 'setting things right'. It assumes that a right

answer does exist and that is the American answer."

(taken from: Hastedt, p. 27 - 28)

If this speech were held ten years ago, it might have been Communism instead of drugs that needed law enforcement efforts.

The United States as the leaders of the world and the only successors after the end of the two-bloc system once more pointed out by the President of the United States, when he asks the American population for their support:

"Let our common commitment be to support our troops. Let that be the bottom line. And let us uphold in the future, as well as the past, the legacy of our American leadership.[...] I saw emblazoned in the wall a quote from Gen. George Marshall. It read, 'We are now concerned with the peace of the entire world. And the peace can only be maintained by the strong." (Clinton's speech: Helping Write 21st Century International Rules, p.7)

This shift, where importance is specified by economic power, has given way to a broader range of policy options for countries and at the same time restricts US influence and dominance. Perhaps this shift and the fear of a possible loss of power and influence make politicians stress American leadership in such a great amount. A country strong and certain of its strength does not need so much praise and justification for its doings. In the 21^st century countries like Germany and Japan will even mores willingly make use of their new options and force the United States into a partnership relation.

Joseph Nye sees at least three reasons why the hegemony theory of the United States is highly improbable in the future.

"Although the premise of America remaining the only superpower

is correct, the hegemonic conclusion does no follow for at least three

reasons. First of all, there is little sign of public support for such a role.

Second [...] the world has become economically multipolar.

The United States, Europe and Japan account for two-thirds of

world product today, just as they did twenty years ago, and are likely

to do so for some time in the future. Thus economic multipolarity,

though not new, does restrict any temptations Americans might have

to exercise a hegemonic role. The third reason that American hegemony

is unlikely is the diffusion of power in world politics." (taken from: Nye, p.99)

II.b. The Three-Bloc Theory

The U.S.A + Europe + Asia (China + Japan)

Very interesting is the role the United States play in this respect. The US is not seen as a global leader that runs the whole world, but is restricted to some areas. The Three-Bloc System divides power and influence geographically. The United States would dominate in Northern-, Middle- and Central America as well as Australia, Europe would widen its boarders to the East and South - very interesting is the description of Africa as an European appendix - , and Japan together with China would be the leaders of the East.

The United States, Europe and Asia are seen as equal partners.

What speaks against such a theory are economy and technology. Economy and technology have gone international and can no longer be divided into blocks. Globalization in this respect has taken place.

"Trends in technology and economics run against a block view. Some corporations will be satisfied with protected niches, whereas others wishing to achieve economies of scale in global markets will not want to be limited to one-third of the potential market. In that sense some strong economic and political forces will resist fragmentation of the international economy." (taken from: Nye, p.98)
II.c. A Multy-Layer Concept
This view sees military force as not the dominant instrument of power in a future world order. One of the reasons is, that it is expensive and besides, new instruments of power have evolved. Communication and its manipulation among many other things have become powerful weapons and will increasingly do so during the next centuries.

"Other instruments such as communication, organizational and institutional skills, manipulation of interdependence have become important instruments of power." (taken from: Nye, p. 99)

(caricature: Toyota)

Does it ideologically support a US global interventions?

Is there a need for American guidance?
The internet offers a useful selection of worldwide press releases, which provide you with a broader view than Euro- and America-centered newspapers and magazines.

To give you an idea of how different opinions on the Unites States can be, we included a selection of international press releases into our paper. This selection is by far not complete - we picked out those articles we considered as especially interesting and worth mentioning.

Not only do papers reflect publishers' convictions, but give a hint to trends in national political views and vice versa influence them. Public opinion is not only reported, but shaped.

1. 
   European press releases
   

Having observed European press releases, a great support for the US as a sole superpower, in the areas of security, peacekeeping as well as international economic policy is emminent.

Only very few opinions remain critical. One example is the German left of center Frankfurter Rundschau (2/25) : "The increasingly rude manner with which the United States is trying to push through its global economic and political interest, is going beyond bounds that can be tolerated... The question is, who formes a counterpart to the only remaining superpower. To keep the tendency toward recklessness a bit under control?" (taken from: The United States Information Agency)

In Britain the independent weekly Economist's (04/18) stated that "if a single word can summarize America's view of ist role in the world, it is 'leadership'." (taken from: The United States Information Agency)

In Italy, the left leaning, influential La Repubblicana (02/22) claims that " the role of the only superpower has to be interpreted in the right way, not as a license to abuse, not as the right bend international rules to one's liking." (taken from: The United States Information Agency)
These releases show that in Europe the US is seen as a superpower, but highly criticized. But there is a demand for a controlling counterpart has come up in almost very European newspaper.
Nonetheless Europe seems to be quite satisfied with the role of America as a "globe-cop". Although it is a curse and a blessing for Europe.

"The United States leads, and this is the natural function of a superpower. In many respects this is a blessing and an advantage which the despondent Europeans have enjoyed long enough, but the United States as a leading power in international environment and development policy is rather a curse." (taken from: US Information Agency)

The National Opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (3/29) writes "Genuine and effective strategic partnership with China and India will only become possible when Russia throws off the yoke of the current corrupt pro-Western regime, restores economic and political independence revives as a great power and makes the rest of the world reckon with her. Then her partnership with the great neighbors in the south and the east will become a factor of world politics and an effective counterbalance to NATO." (taken from: US Information Agency)

"What the US wants is to establish a security system in Asia led by the United States. Hardly any Asian country will accept such an arrangement." (taken from: US Information Agency)

On the one hand it is clear that American leadership in Asia is unwanted from a Chinese perspective.
The official central political and legal commission Legal Daily (4/17) writes: "Human rights diplomacy is an important measure by which the United States carries out ist global strategy. The real intention of the United States is to use the Human Rights issue to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, seek world domination and establish an international order that confirms of the interests of the United States." (taken from: US Information Agency)
On the contrary the Japanese Asahi (4/1) desire a US-Chinese-Japanese partnership in the future stressing that economic and not military strength is the source of Japanese influence.
The liberal Tokyo Shimbun (3/28) assures: "In Japan we welcome US and Chinese moves to promote a dialogue despite differences on certain issues." (taken from: US Information Agency)
In Singapore the pro government Straight Times confirms the position of the US as a superpower. "Despite fervent denials the United States shows every sign of emerging again the world's policeman... In principle no one is better equipped to be custodian of a code of global morality than the chief executive of the world's only superpower. But the man who would aspire to that exacting role must, like Caesar's wife, also be above suspicion." (taken from: US Information Agency)
One can conclude from the East Asian and Pacific press releases that there are many diverging opinions depending on national background, and dependence on US or Chinese influence.

3. Press Releases from the Middle East
Press releases from that region mainly focus on the topic of the peace-process in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Many writers emphasize that the US was the only nation capable of solving the problem. Even though US policy is criticized by Arab writers, who claim that the US is biased in favor of Israel. The articles make clear what special status the United States have, even among anti-American nations like Saudi Arabia.
The Egyptian pro-government Al Ahram (4/30) claims

"[...] American efforts have focused on defending Israeli policies at the UN, pressuring Palestinians to resume security cooperation with Israel and on propangandizing for a pro-Israeli campaign against Egypt." (taken from: US Information Agency)

"The current crisis needs a clear US position in order for the United States to gain ist credibility back." (taken from: US Information Agency)

Since 1997 African-American relationship must have altered.

We picked one article that is still relevant today.
The independent Financial Gazette (1/23) in Zimbabwe claims:

"We are not against US government - far from it. We are merely supporting an elementary principle of democracy and saying that Washington, which rightfully says that governments worldwide must embrace transparency and freedom for themselves and their peoples, should stop dictating others what they have to do." (taken from: US Information Agency)

"Washington's efforts to get closer to the southern part of the continent should be welcome.... Clinton's renewed interest in Latin America resurrects the objectives of the 1994 summit of the Americas: strengthening democracy in the hemisphere, boasting prosperity by economic integration and free trade, and the abolition of poverty and discrimination." (taken from: US Information Agency)

"As the step before establishing the universal new world order and as a successor to manifest destiny... the US has evoked international laws and now certifies other nations in every possible area.....from drug trafficing to internal political affairs... This happens for two reasons: The corruption leaders of the developing nations, who fall prey to the pressures of powerful US interest groups and because of the absence of balancing forces in the world to oppose the United States." (taken from: US Information Agency)

One can conclude that all over the world the US is regarded as the only superpower.

There is a demand for a regulating counterpart. A lot of countries want the US to exercise leadership through international agreements and multilateral cooperation through consultation with other countries and occasionally international and regional forces such as the UN, NATO and APEC.

A remarkable turnaround is to be observed in the international view of the United States.
"For decades Washington was pilloried by the Third World for his 'hegemonic designs' on many issues even European allies sought to distance themselves from Washington.[...]Why now do these same countries speak wishfully of the need for a global problem solver?" (taken from: Newsweek)
The author of this article claims that it is mainly due to the end of the Cold War, that the attitudes were shifted. During the US-Soviet standoff US world involvement was pushed away from Washington, today the world's pressure is on Washington.

During the Cold War American intervention was prompted by anti-Soviet strategy and anti-communist ideology. Today humanitarian concerns are claimed to be the reason for American intervention.

"In fact the new interventionists urge American involvement in precisely those areas where Washington has few national interests" - this should assure that its motives are pure. (taken from: Newsweek)


IV. Superpower and the Internet
The variety of topics on United States superpower offered on the web is fascinating. The web is not only very informative but also has a great influence on its audience, a fact often been underestimated. We could experience the opinion-shaping impact of the web ourselves.

At first we only selected our literature web-sources due to trivial things as eye-catchy front-pages and striking headlines. There was so much topic-related material on the web so that we were even glad to have to compile a selection.

Only then we selected qualitatively and interpreted the articles in terms of reliability and objectivity.

The impact of the web on public opinion shaping is something not to be underestimated. We came across chat-groups where housewives articulate their worries next to reputed experts like Noam Chomsky on world politics.

To give you an idea of how biased and subjective an entry on China can be, here is a short excerpt out of such a chat-group. Somebody wrote: "You are right we are worried about you china bastards. We are worried about you billion third world punks multiplying." (taken from: China: New Superpower in the 21st century)

Searching the internet, it is in fact impossible to get a representative view of how many web-sites about US superpower or Foreign Policy are offered on the internet. You can only get a glimpse of how much information is presented. Very confusing was that the word superpower not only refers to political sites but also computer software sites. It is hard to dispose of the useless sights.

It is hard to say which opinion on US supremacy dominates the web. We only searched

Web-sites written in German or English. The majority was written in English by American or British authors and therefore the US superpower theory dominated.

While some countries were glad to be able to lean back and let America do the "messy job" they now become more and more dissatisfied with the situation. They also want to step into the limelight and get their share of global cake. Europe, Japan and China have established themselves in world order. What they have in common is, that they are very successful and powerful countries.

Yet for some years America will lead, but leadership will not be natural and undiscussed. The role the US will have to take is going to be hard because power will no longer be clearly divided.

"The United States in a post-Cold War world will be less able

to command others than in the past; instead it must assume a role

in persuading others to form coalitions and institutions to deal

with new problems in interdependence that will require greater

use of soft power resources. [...] In structural terms, the United States

will remain the largest state, but there will be a diffusion of power

and growth of multiple interdependencies." (taken from: Nye, p.88)

Crime Rates, Drug abuses, AIDS, a government that loses credibility because of scandals and suspected corruption, among many other things do not weaken American foreign power, but also US reputation in the world. It is hard to believe in the American gospel of democracy and human empathy which justify US interventions, when the real reasons are so obvious.

If America came to bring democracy and human rights to the world, it was more than welcomed and desperately needed - but if it is only a means to draw attention away from domestic problems and benefit from intervention American action needs to be condemned.
One clear indication for US' bad conscience on some of their involvement is the refusal to accept an international criminal court on war crimes.

"[Having followed] the recent debate about founding an international

criminal court on war crimes and as you know the United States, essentially

alone refused to go along with that. US opposition is effectively a veto

when the General Assembly votes 151 to 1 on something (or two if the

US picks up a client state). That amounts to a veto, just for straight

power reasons - nothing obscure about it. And this effectively vetoes

the criminal court on war that an international tribunal might carry

out frivolous prosecution of US soldiers engaged in

operations." (taken from: Chomsky)

We have come to the conclusion that US world leadership is effective but limited in theory. Up to now US superpower has been omnipotent. In our opinion the future will bring a more diverged system of power distribution.

VI. Literature and further readings
Literature
VI.a. Clinton, William. Helping Write 21^st Century International Rules.

In: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/

VI.b. Hastedt, Glenn. American Foreign Policy. Present Past and Future. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice Hall, 1988.

VI.c. New York Times, May 30, 1988.

VI.d. Schmelko. Advances and Debts. In: Novy Mir, June 1987. p. 12.

VI.e. Zbigniew, Brzezinski. Die Einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. Beltz

Quadria Verlag: Weinheim/Berlin, 1997.

VI.f. Nye, Joseph.

VI.g. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/people/...twt/Foreign_Policy/SuperSyndrom_ITT.html

(13.Dec.1998)

VI.h. Hiester, Dan. The United States as a power in Europe. In: Europe and the Superpowers.

ed. Robert Jordan. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd, 1991. p.45-46.

VI.i. http://www.mennonitecc.ca/mcc/pr/1996/09-13/2.html (13.Dec.1998)

VI.j. http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/talks/9809-calgary.html (13. Dec.1998)

VI.k. Forsythe, David.P. The United States, the United Nations and Human Rights. In: The

United States and Multilateral Institutions. Ed. Karns and Mingst. London/New York:

Routledge, 1992. p.294.

VI.l. http://www.lookoutpoint.com/look/china.html (13.Dec.1998)

VI.m. http://www.europe.cnn.com/SPECIALS/china.summit/china.threat/ (12. Dec.1998)

VI.n. http://www.usia.gov/plweb-cgi/fastweb?get...es%20commentaries%20termed%20overwhelming

VI.o. http://www.usia.gov/plweb- gi/fastweb?getdoc+view2+mediareac+170+37++US%20leadership%20august%20assessment%20mixed%20VISIONS%20febuary%20mines%20september...

VI.p. http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/nw-srv/printed/us/in/in0214_1.htm

VI.q. http://www.coldwar.org/fallsoviet.html