Withdrawal from Afghanistan... Is it the end of the era of American hegemony over the world?

Introduction to translation

In his article published in the British magazine "The Economist", Francis Fukuyama, the Japanese-American writer and thinker, and one of the most famous theorists of what became known as the "neo-conservative" movement, comments on the scenes of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and whether this withdrawal represents a sign of the end of the rule of the United States. America over the world, stressing that the decline in Washington's global presence is primarily due to internal reasons, even if it is apparently linked to errors in the country's foreign policy.

translation text

There is no doubt that the horrific images circulating this week of Afghans desperate to get out of Kabul, following the collapse of the US-backed government, marked a defining moment in history, and the beginning of an era of America's disassociation from the world. But in fact, the end of America's hegemony came much earlier than this moment. Not only that, but I claim that the factors of America's weakness and deterioration are more local than external. This does not prevent America from remaining a superpower in the world for many years, but the effectiveness of this influence will, of course, depend on its ability to resolve its internal issues and not to review its foreign policies.

The era of American hegemony over the world lasted less than twenty years, from the moment the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

During that period, America imposed its hegemony on many fields, military, economic, political and cultural.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the height of American hegemony and arrogance in the world, as it hoped that through this move it would be able to remake not only Iraq and Afghanistan (which it invaded two years before the invasion of Iraq), but also the entire Middle East.

It is clear that America has overestimated the effectiveness of its military ability to bring about fundamental political change, while underestimating the impact of the free-market economic model on global finance.

That is why this era ended with its armies faltering in two wars, and the occurrence of a global financial crisis that increased the huge differences caused by the globalization led by the United States.

It is worth noting that the unipolarity that characterized that period was a rare thing in history.

Therefore, the world quickly began to return to its normal state in which multipolarity prevails, and countries such as China, Russia, India and other axes such as Europe gained influence at the expense of America.

Nevertheless, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to have little impact on the geopolitics.

Before, America faced the repercussions of a humiliating defeat when it withdrew from Vietnam in 1975, but quickly regained its power in less than a decade, and today it is cooperating with Vietnam to curb Chinese expansion.

the biggest challenge

The biggest challenge that threatens America's standing in the world - in my estimation - is the domestic factor. American society is deeply polarized and finds it extremely difficult to reach agreement on just about everything. This polarization began with a divergence from the usual politics of taxation and abortion, but then turned into a bitter struggle over cultural identity. I point out here that the issue of demanding recognition by groups that feel marginalized by elites is an issue I identified 30 years ago as the weak point of modern democracy [1]. Although a major external threat to countries such as the threat of a global pandemic is usually supposed to be an occasion for citizens to rally to form a common response, the “Covid-19” crisisIt deepened the division among Americans, who disagreed about the interpretation of social distancing and wearing masks, and now they view vaccinations not as public health measures, but as political measures.

These struggles have spilled over into all aspects of life, from sports to brands of consumer products Americans buy in both the Republican and Democratic parties. The civic identity that America prided itself on as a democratic, multi-ethnic nation in the post-civil rights era has been replaced by warring narratives over the interpretation of the birth date of the American state in 1619 versus 1776, i.e. the debate over whether the state was built on the inheritance of slavery or was based on the struggle of for freedom [2]. Thus, the conflict is expanding in creating facts that each party sees independently and separately, which made the November 2020 elections appear to one of the parties as one of the most fair elections in American history, while the other party viewed it as an election that witnessed widespread fraud and led to Illegal presidency.

Throughout the Cold War years into the early 2000s, there was a strong consensus among American elites in favor of maintaining America's leadership in world politics. However, the ferocity of the wars that are now unfolding in Afghanistan and Iraq has made many Americans impatient with issues of intervention, not only in difficult places like the Middle East, but also international interventions in general.

This trend directly affected foreign policy. In the Obama years, Republicans took a hard line and berated Democrats for being naive about their stance on President Putin. Then President Trump turned the tables and publicly celebrated Mr. Putin. Today, nearly half of Republicans believe that Democrats pose a greater threat to the American way of life than Russia. In evidence of this polarization, Tucker Carlson, a conservative television host, traveled to Budapest to celebrate Viktor Orbán, Hungarian's dictatorial prime minister. He noticed how antagonizing the liberal trend [3] (ie antagonizing the left) became more important than defending democratic values.

On the call with @SecBlinken and @SecDef this morning I confirmed that had Biden decided to abandon the agreed negotiated by President Trump, the US would have had to surge thousands of additional troops into Afghanistan.

The 2,500 that Trump had left were not nearly enough.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) August 15, 2021

On the other hand, there is a clearer consensus with regard to China. Everyone in the Republican and Democratic parties agree that China is a threat to democratic values.

Therefore, Taiwan will be the most difficult test for US foreign policy than Afghanistan, especially if Taiwan is subjected to a direct Chinese attack.

Will the United States be willing to sacrifice its own children in the interests of defending the independence of that island, that is, Taiwan?

The other question is: Does the United States risk entering into a military conflict with Russia if the latter decides to invade Ukraine?

These are serious questions that are not easy to answer, but a rational debate is likely to take place about the American national interest, but primarily from the perspective of the impact of those issues on partisan conflicts.

The time of American decay

Polarization has already damaged America's global influence before such tests can take place in the future. For that influence, America has long relied on what foreign policy scholar Joseph Nye called “soft power,” the attractiveness of American institutions and society to people around the world. The appeal of this model has greatly diminished: it is hard for anyone to say that America's democratic institutions have been doing well in recent years, or that any country should emulate the political nervousness and dysfunction of America. The hallmark of a mature democracy is the ability to conduct peaceful transitions of power after elections, a test that the country failed so spectacularly on January 6, 2021.

The greatest political disaster for the Joe Biden administration during its seven months in office is its failure to plan commensurate with the rapid collapse of Afghanistan. But no matter how unsuccessful this may seem, it does not cancel the wisdom behind the basic decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, as time may prove in the end that it was the right decision. Mr. Biden noted that the withdrawal was necessary in order to focus on meeting the major challenges from Russia and China in the future, and I hope he is serious about this. Barack Obama has never succeeded in concluding an "alliance" for Asia because America has always been preoccupied with combating rebellion and rebellion in the Middle East. For this, the current administration needs to redistribute the resources and attention of policymakers from elsewhere in order to deter geopolitical rivals and engage with allies.

The United States is unlikely and should not aspire to regain its former hegemonic position.

What Americans can hope for is to work with like-minded countries to preserve a world order that is friendly to democratic values.

In the final analysis, the extent to which the United States can do this depends not on short-term actions in Kabul, but on its ability to restore a sense of national identity and a sense of purpose within the country.

____________________________________________________________

Margins:

[1] - The reference here may refer to Fukuyama's well-known book "The End of History and the Last Man." Under the title: "Against Identity Politics: The New Tribalism and the Crisis of Democracy". Because of the importance of Fukuyama's article, Maidan translated it into Arabic (here). In the March-April 2019 issue, Foreign Affairs published responses to Fukuyama's thesis, and Maidan translated the first article of those responses (here), written by "Stacy Abrams", a prominent lawyer and politician in the Democratic Party who She was minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives from 2011-2017.

[2] - The reference here is to a cultural and legal debate taking place in America about the founding of the state. According to official accounts, America was founded in 1776, when the Founding Fathers agreed to write the Declaration of Independence. But recently, a current has emerged opposing this narrative and arguing that the birth of the state preceded this date. An initiative launched by the New York Times magazine known as "Project 1619" is at the forefront of those calling for a revision of history, as it believes that the birth of the American state is supposed to be dated to 1619, when the first slave ship arrived on American shores.

[3] The phrase "owning the Lib" literally means "possession of the liberals", and is taken from a colloquial use of the word "owning", which means "control", "defeat" or "humiliation".

For example, if a person makes a completely false statement, and then corrects another person in a way that insults him or ends his argument, it is said that he became "owned" by that person, that is, he severely eliminated him.

From here, the Republicans used to take actions that arouse the tone of the Democratic trend, and then they commented on that by saying that they had completely eliminated them and they no longer had any excuse.

_________________________________________________

Translation: Mansour Suleiman

This report is translated from: The Economist and does not necessarily represent the site of Medan.