Strategic Panorama 2009 - 2010 - IEEE

International relations and the new world governance
the determining factor is ability to influence. In this respect it has to be
recognised that only the United States has interests all over the planet
and the ability to assert them using economic and diplomatic means or,
if necessary, military means. Perhaps the term which best reflects what
the United States represents today is «hyper power», coined by the
French writer and politician Hubert Vedrine. Once again it is no coincidence
that it should be a European who has suggested conceptualising
the role of this major power on the international scene. A new term for
a new period, one that is devoid of awkward meanings but expresses
the fact of the difference: whereas the traditional great powers exercise
their influence in a regional or limited geographical framework, hyper
powers do so throughout the planet.
Are we facing the irony that while we discuss whether the United
States is an empire, a hyper power or a major power that is experiencing
its «unipolar moment» it is in fact already in decline? Literature on the
decline of the US began to appear after the Vietnam War—a war in which,
after winning all the battles, the country yielded to a considerably weaker
enemy because its public opinion was incapable of withstanding the
necessary tension until the last minute. It was a defeat that gave way to a
string of episodes characteristic of a power in decline, such as the showdown
with Iran during the Carter presidency, the humiliating withdrawal of
the marines from Lebanon under Reagan and from Somalia under Clinton.
However, in parallel with the foregoing the United States made impressive
shows of power such as «Star Wars» under Reagan, the victory in the
Cold War and the consequent disintegration of the Soviet Union, the First
Gulf War during the presidency of Bush senior, and displays of technology
during the Afghanistan war and the Second Gulf War while Bush junior
was in office.
Influence is the result of a combination of two elements: being willing
and able. There are those who are willing but not able. And others are
able but not always willing, as is often the case of the United States. For
many of its enemies and to the West in general, this contrast shows that
the great power is invincible if fought on its own terms, but extremely
vulnerable when a rift is caused between public opinion and government.
«Asymmetrical strategies» are the response to the United States’ military
dominance in the world. Its armed forces are numerous, well trained and
even better equipped. They are lethal on a conventional battlefield. In
order to defeat them it is necessary remove them from such a theatre of
operations and place them in one where the outcome depends on not
— 96 —