The United States, World Policeman and Guard into a

New Century?

Introduction

The End of the Cold War– the End of Russia as a superpower, also
The United States a superpower?

Future Concepts of a possible World Order:

US Hegemony
The Three-Bloc System
A Multi-Layer Concept

Superpower US in Worldwide Media

Superpower and the Internet

Conclusion
 Literature, citations and further readings

Introducing our Seminar - Paper

In this paper we tried to give an overview of tendencies of world politics from the end of the

Cold War until today. To deal with such a long and complex period of time we had to make a

distinguished selection of what to deal with. We for example could only tangibly cover

Multilateral Institutions. Very interesting would have been a closer examination of the Cold

War itself, the relationship between the US and the NATO, latest developments in the

European Union - but this would fill hundreds and hundreds of pages.

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.
I. The End of the Cold War

I.a. The End of Russia as a superpower

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)

Major competition areas according to this definition are: economy and ideology. Where the
fighting of Communism seems to be only an excuse to declare Soviet Russia enemy number
one, hostility because of economical competition seems to be far more reasonable. Very
interesting is also the question, who was responsible for the climate of Cold War. The
classical approach toward responsibility derivation, is, that the Soviet Union was the
aggressor and the US only the reactor.
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)

Only two years after the official end of the cold war, in 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to
exist and with it the biggest territorial state of the world. What was left behind was a big
question mark on global maps because nobody knew which direction the former Soviet Union
was about to take. But also the condition of world politics was transformed. The
unquestioning dominance of the Soviet Union suddenly was put into question. During the
ages of the Cold War the structure of the world was bipolar, centered around the United States
and the Soviet Union. The United States seems to have lost its counterpart.

"In December of 1991, as the world watched in amazement, the Soviet Union
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)

These conditions that remind of a third world country, make it nearly impossible for Russia to
remain a superpower.

"Now that the Soviet Union, with its centralized political and economic system,
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.
I.b. The United States as a superpower?

(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

During and after the Second World War, only two nations, namely the US and USSR, have
been internationally recognized as the only superpowers of the world. At Cold War times,
theses two nations greatly influenced the globe through their economy, military forces,
finances and ideology. Up to the 80s, it was the bipolarity of the Cold War, that deterred the
US from interfering in world affairs too harshly. It was the constant threat of the
thermonuclear war, that kept a balance of power. This system of bipolarity was not just, but
stable. The decline of Russia and Soviet loss of superpower status is discussed in detail in the
former chapter.

Nowadays US critics claim, that "US leaders have been possessed by what can be described
as the 'sole superpower syndrome' - a sense of nearly godlike power, derived from the absence
of any balancing forces in the international system". (taken from: Michael Klare)

To prove that the US is the only recognized superpower today the Royal College of Defense
Studies created a matrix which allowed a comparison of the major strengths of individual
countries (eg. In political, military, economic and financial areas).
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 22nd, 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.

"Instead of exercising the patience of collaborate with other countries about creative and
nonviolent resolutions to conflict, the temptation seems overpowering to impose American
will through military might and economic embargoes. The result can only be a growing
resentment of the United States and a breakdown in international dialogue, the life blood of
diplomacy." (taken from Mennonite Central Committee)

Especially critics from Third World countries warn that the US is becoming more and more
powerful. US actions may sometimes be convenient for Western countries but often to the
disadvantage of Third World states.
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)

The US nowadays still supports the United Nations in actions if it benefits and fulfills
personal strategy. The US acts unilaterally if the United Nations do not support ist
policy ,whenever US interests are endangered.
"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)

Even President Clinton mentions in a speech held at the National Defense University, at Fort
McNair, Washington, that "no other nation has acquired mastery of land, sea, sky and space,
and use[d] it to help advance world peace, instead of to pursue conquest."
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 21st 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 21st 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)

A real shocker is the comparison of diplomacy and military as being of the same kind. The
idea of saving the world from undemocratic systems seems to be very noble. But US history
has already shown that behind noble aims usually other intentions are hidden. As Clinton
mentioned one paragraph above, not the whole world needs to be saved, a selection needs to
be made - only those factors should be dealt with that put US interests at risk.
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)

The United States see their role as peacekeepers, but the way peace is achieved, is through
war and military actions, justified by the American moral obligation to bring peace to the
world. As President Clinton said, "In our hemisphere, where elected civilian governments
now reign, American leadership is spurring greater military cooperation than ever, promoting
regional confidence, working together as peacekeepers, supporting law enforcement efforts
against drugs." (Clinton's speech: Helping Write 21st Century International Rules, p.3)
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)

The strong is certainly to be understood as the military strength of the United States. In this
respect America is undoubtedly the leader of the world. But American dominance should
certainly not be underestimated, but also not exaggerated. But nowadays the criteria to
become a world power does not only mean to succeed all others in military technology and
know how. Sizes of countries and populations are by far not that important as they used to be.
Economy has become a major factor countries are measured up against. Japan and Europe
have already made up their deficits and are great competitives in global leadership. The
United States are in many field dependant on their cooperation.
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)

One further perspective of a possible world order is the "Three Bloc World". According to
this, military power would decrease, whereas economy would rise in importance. The
growing influence of international economy would then divide the world into three blocks.
The three blocks would consist of Northern America, Asia and Europe. Interestingly Russia is
not integrated in this theory at all.

"This argument sees the United States concentrating on North America and the Western
Hemisphere, Japan forming the heart of a yen bloc in East Asia; and Europe as the center of a
larger, self-sustained European region with Africa as an appendage." (taken from: Nye, p.97)
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)

Power is no longer limited to military force, but has become different faces. Economic as well
as organizational and instrumental power are different aspects that determine world
leadership.

The United States will not lose their influence, since its military force is the most powerful
one on the globe, but it will have to accept other regions dominating in different fields. Not
one country can be the master of all, but the master in one special field. This multy-level order
might be best described to a layer cake, "The Americans predominate the top military layer,
the economic middle layer is multipolar (and has been for two decades), and the bottom layer
of transnational interdependance is characterized by a diffusion of power." (taken from: Nye,
p. 100)

(caricature: Toyota)
III. Superpower US in Worldwide Media

Does the world seek for a US-American leadership?

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)

Russian press even more critical especially concerning American foreign policy than the other
European nations. This is understandable because of US's plans of NATO enlargement and its
"new world order".
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)

2. Press Releases from East Asia and the Pacific

Editorial analyzes from press releases of East Asia and the Pacific are dominated by fear of
provoking China, "Asia's sleeping giant". A number of new triangular paradigms of powers
for the region are suggested and it is speculated on the relative of what Asia's perceives as the
alliances of the future. The fear of the more "minor players" (Korea) is that US presence
provides stability and protection against an increasingly powerful China.

The official China Daily writes contrarily on the topic.

"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 Saudi Arabian Al Hayat (4/1) even suggests to freeze normal relations with the United
States as a consequence of the US ignoring of Arabian suggestions in the peace process.

The government owned Al-Bayan (1/22) from the United Arab Emirates states that "the US is
trying to dominate the entire world the way it wants." (taken from: US Information Agency)

Jerusalem's moderate pro-peace-process Al Quds (4/30) describes the current position of the
US on the peace process being very vague.
"The current crisis needs a clear US position in order for the United States to gain ist
credibility back." (taken from: US Information Agency)

4. African Press Releases

African newspapers also acknowledge the US as a superpower but at the same time fear that
US interventions are only made due to American economic benefits, which mostly result from
the interventions. Regarding the latest US military attacks Sudan and various other incidents
the opinion of the African newspaper we found can no longer be up-to-date.
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)
5. Latin American and Caribbean Press Releases

It seems that nearly all Latin American newspapers are of the opinion that only US leadership
and involvement are needed to help the region succeed in strengthening democracy and free
trade. (taken from: US Information Agency)

The business-oriented Siglio Veintuino (2/11) in Guatemala writes for example:

"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)

The Mexican conservative Ocho Columnas (4/14) writes about:

"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.
V. Conclusion

After having dealt with this huge amount of material and theories about superpowers and
world dominance we have come to the conclusion that not only sees America itself as the only
superpower, but also the rest of the world needs to accept its leadership.
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)

But it is not only for a country's outer strength that makes it a superpower. A country can only
be powerful when its domestic situation is strong and stable. America certainly suffers great
domestic problems.
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 21st 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
VI.r. http://www.enviroweb.org/enviroissues/nuketesting/altwarnuke/awn19976/0244.html
Further Readings

Petras, James and Morley, Morris. Empire or Republic. American Global Power and
Domestic Decay. New York/London: Routledge, 1995.

Forndran, Erhard. Die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Europa. Erfahrungen und
Beziehungen seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft,1991.

Michalak, Stanley J. Competing Conceptions of American Foreign Policy. Worldviews in

Conflict. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1992.

Chomsky, Noam. Die Herren der Welt. Konturen der US-Amerikanischen Innen-und
Außenpolitik in der "Neuen Weltordnung". Berlin: Dieter Mink Verlag, 1993.

The Future of American Foreign Policy. Ed. Kegley and Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1992.

Cultures of United States Imperialism. Ed. Kaplan and Pease. London: Duke University Press,
1993.