The sentiment is changing somewhat though. The US used to be a leader in the Western world.
Currently: not so much. The value of the US with shared 'western' values is greatly declining, since they are retreating from almost every partnership.
This effect wasn't visible during previous White House administration and perhaps will be reversed within the next one. Current isolationist politics, with explicit mantra "America first" looks more like an aberration rather than a long term reality.
Trust is easier lost than gained. In international diplomacy "losing trust" simply means you get a wake-up call: what happens next time the White House decides to squeeze their allies? With populism on the rise the next president might go for the jugular for next to nothing because that's what voters with no understanding of international diplomacy and politics want and expect. Right now the US "pays" for the support of other western countries by footing the bill for everything military. When this is outweighed by the abuse of soft power it may just start pushing allies towards other soft power projecting countries.
Completely agree. America has a lot to do to gain it back; it's a long process.
"Squeezing allies" sounds interesting. Maybe they shouldn't be "squeezed" in the first place, so it's good that they can't? On the other hand, if, for example, Europe sees the benefits in countering some specific China expansion issue, USA won't need to ask too much for a concerted response.
And frankly, Western alliance has no alternative today; maybe only going alone - or as a European Union, but USA (and Canada to a degree) are still the best partners. That doesn't mean, of course, that USA doesn't make bad mistakes lately.
> Maybe they shouldn't be "squeezed" in the first place, so it's good that they can't?
Not sure how to read this.
> Western alliance has no alternative today
Of course not, every single alternative is considered an enemy by the USA and any attempt to have a relationship with them has to be sanctioned by the USA or face punishment. If these were companies the move would be monopolistic, anti-competitive, exclusive dealing, all illegal. But it's not companies, it's international relations, where some are still free to consider torture legitimate and moral.
Putting aside the arbitrary choice of who's a terrorist state and who's a "trusted ally" (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia?), trying to cooperate with countries like Iran, Russia, or China can be arbitrarily (depending on interest) seen as an aggressive act of "disobedience" and is punished. Even if the sanctions were unilateral and with no agreement from other allies.
that's the advantage of being a hegemon. the e.u can:
- throw its lot in with the u.s and take it when it hurts
- throw its lot in with another aspiring hegemon and take it when it hurts
- do what it taker to go it alone.
the e.u have ruled out the last on multiple occasions. perhaps when brexit and corona is behind us, they'll begin thinking about it again.
the second does not seem particularly appealing; between putin russia, a xi prc and a trump u.s, i think the u.s is best of a bad bunch. and its fair to say they have more upside than down; i would favor good government returning to the u.s and be reluctant to favor improving government returning to china or russia.
small, isolated western countries like au and n.z have effectively no choice in the matter: they get to pick china or the u.s, and china have made it clear they intend that choice to be hobson's choice.
It's always about the ratio between the benefit and the "taking it when it hurts". With other presidencies the ratio was OK. But with the rise of populism the moves are left to someone playing to please people with no understanding of the small or big pictures. And it's hard to forget when "friends" decide to abuse the stick because the carrot didn't sit well with their voting base.
Yes - if Trump loses by 2% of the vote, anyone is going to have to wonder when he or someone similar comes back. If he left under impeachment or a huge blowout loss, that would be far more convincing that his style of politics was rejected rather than edged out.
It was visible during Bush's presidency. Trump's foreign policies are effectively an extreme version of Bush's. For example Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol but Bush decided not to ratify it. Obama ratified the Paris agreement and Trump decided to withdraw from it.
Well it doesn't help when the ostensible NATO allies barring the U.S. have never once met their full monetary or self-defense obligations. Obama of all people had to take a stick to Germany just to get them to raise their rate to 15% from 8% per annum when they are supposed to be paying 33% per annum.
> The value of the US with shared 'western' values is greatly declining, since they are retreating from almost every partnership.
Sometimes there is a tendency to forget that there is more to the USA than Trump and co. I think most Europeans are well aware of the "battle for the soul of America" within USA. The retreats from partnerships are most likely only a temporary glitch.
Currently: not so much. The value of the US with shared 'western' values is greatly declining, since they are retreating from almost every partnership.