The Incline and Decline of US Supremacy in Global Diplomacy: Europeans’ Self-inflicted Problems

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

Europe has always been largely responsible for global insecurity right from 1618 to date. The 30-year old war that dovetailed into the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 was the genesis. Wars were fought over religious, territorial, commercial, and dynastic interests by various countries from 1618 through 1648. Major participants in the war included Austria, Denmark, Dutch Republic, Holy Roman empire, Poland, Protestant Union, Russia, Spain and Sweden. The war started because the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II, as King of Bohemia, attempted in 1619 to impose Roman Catholic absolutism on his domains. The Protestant nobles in Bohemia and Austria objected to it, refusing to be coerced into Catholicism. It was a case of order and counter-order amounting to disorder. Spain and Austria fought on the side of the Catholics while England, Denmark and the Dutch Republic supported the Protestants. Eventually, the Catholics won the war. Negotiations for peace began as early as 1644 in Osnabruck and Munster. Netherlands and Switzerland became self-independent while France became the dominant power in Europe.

The post-war emergence of a philosophical Enlightenment movement in the 18th century was noteworthy. The Movement preached tolerance, freedom, progress, separation of the State and the Church and constitutional parliament. More importantly, the Enlightenment ‘held the basic idea that reason is the primary source of legitimacy, and authority. Its products include the separation of human rights, powers, civil society, and civil rights.’

Without doubt, the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia laid the foundation for the state system in international relations. The Congress of Vienna, held from September 1814 to June 9, 1815, reorganised Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. The four main powers that fought to oust Napoleon, Austria, Prussia, Russia and Great Britain, concluded a special alliance by signing the Treaty of Chaumont on March 9, 1814. Even though invitation was extended to all plenipotentiaries to convene in Austria for peace negotiations, the four signatories to the Chaumont alliance treaty reserved their real decision-making for themselves.

In the same vein, the 1818 Congress of Aix-la Chapel, which was a high-level diplomatic meeting of France and the four allied powers (Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia) otherwise the Chaumont Treaty signatories, took place to decide on the withdrawal of the army of occupation from France and renegotiate the reparations it owed. Even though the occupation was formally terminated at the conference on 30 September 1818 and France was admitted as a full discussion partner in the European congress system and France’s position as a European power was restored, Europe never had enduring peace. The 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian war, the First and Second World Wars are clear illustrations of a belligerent Europe. In fact, it has been European of war after war since 1618 until now, the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Declining US Supremacy 

US diplomacy in international relations began to be on the incline as from the end of World War I, especially with the 14 Principles of President Woodrow Wilson and the development of International Relations as a new special field of study when it was carved out of Political Science after World War I. President Wilson, in his speech to the US Congress on January 8, 1918, underscored the conditions or principles to guide the final settlement of war claims, as well as to ensure global peace and security. The principles included open diplomacy or agreements without secret treaties, arms reductions, freedom of the high seas, economic free trade during war and peace time, equal trade conditions, adjustment of  colonial claims, evacuation of all Central Powers from Russia to enable it define its own independence, and self-determination for oppressed minorities. The principles were internationally recognised as blueprint for peace and peace negotiations in order to end World War I. The principles were also meant to ensure that Russians remained fighting on the side of the Allies. Thus, while President Wilson was much interested in the making of the League of Nations, US congressmen observed that US membership of the League could undermine US sovereignty. Consequently, many objected to US membership of the League of Nations. In spite of this, the development clearly brought the United States into a more constructive engagement in global diplomacy.

The 27 August 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, done in Quai D’Orsay, Paris, is another illustration of the inclining influence of the United States in global diplomacy. The pact, also known as the Pact of Paris, was sponsored by the United States and France and named after the authors: US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand. The Pact was a General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy. Although the Pact, signed by many countries, including Germany, could not prevent World War II, there is no disputing the fact that the same Pact was used in prosecuting the Nazi leaders during the prosecution of World War II. As at today, can it be rightly argued that war has been renounced as an instrument of national policy? Far from it, war is frequently used for multidimensional purposes and frequently under the pretext of legitimate self-defence and national security and orderliness.

Perhaps more interestingly, at the end of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as Superpowers. By implication, they moved from the ordinary status of a great power to that of superpower, thus leaving countries like the United Kingdom, France, Italy, etc. in the category of great powers. The fundamental difference between a great power and a super power is that a superpower has the capacity to act in full force in any part of the globe militarily, economically, culturally, politically, in fact, in all ramifications. The scope of intervention of great powers is limited and not universal like that of a super power. This factor in itself would later be a major dynamic of the East-West Cold War and particularly Sovieto-American rivalry.

It is important to note that the Soviet Union and the United States became Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with the right of veto. The two countries took the advantage of the veto power to advance their national interest more than they did in the maintenance of global peace and security. Being nuclear weapon states is another argument entirely. Western allies seek protection under the nuclear umbrella of the United States and by so doing, sustaining the inclining diplomatic influence of the United States in international relations.

In this regard, the United States is on record to have compelled the British and French colonialists to decolonise based on the principle of self-determination. This placed US diplomacy on the ascendancy. The diplomatic ascendancy was because of new technological developments and feats by both the Soviet Union and the United States on the basis of which there was stiff rivalry. For instance, the United States decided to go to space and came up with the idea of astronauts. The Soviets responded competitively with cosmonauts. Astronaut generally refers to any American or Western European space traveller while cosmonaut refers to any Soviet or Russian space traveller. Cosmonaut is derived from Kosmos, a Greek word meaning universe, and nautes meaning sailor. The Soviet Union adopted cosmonauts officially after Yuri Gagarin successfully went to space in 1961. He was the first human being to be in the space. The late Russian cosmonaut, Valeri Polyakov, logged 437 continuous days in orbit aboard Russia’s Mir space station between 1994 and 1995. This has been a world record. The Americans have been responding competitively to the Soviet challenges, and even to the Chinese who refer to their own space travellers as taikonauts. All these developments make US diplomacy very active.

Particularly worthy of mention is the role of the United States in the settlement of the Europeans to normalcy after the end of World War II. The United States came up with the Marshall Plan of assistance in order to consolidate the Western Alliance. The Bretons Woods institutions were put into place. A new international monetary system was adopted. The capital of the whole world became the United States with particular importance to New York which plays host to the United Nations headquarters.

United States with Africa should also be mentioned. Development assistance was given to enlist support on the side of the west in the cold war against the Soviet Union.  Following Nigeria’s independence, Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa paid official visit to Washington. He was given a very warm presidential welcome. When the Nigerian Institute of international Affairs was established in 1961, the United States donated books. Nigeria’s non-alignment policy was in favour of the US-led western world. To a great extent, African external relations have been largely oriented towards the West, especially in terms of trade, military cooperation, development funding, and technical assistance.

Thus, rising US diplomatic profile is one thing. It is one beginning. The end of the beginning is another kettle of fish entirely. In other words, American diplomatic supremacy is witnessing decline but it is difficult for the Washingtonian authorities to accept this reality. Even at the level of the Western alliance, the transformation of the European Economic Community to European Community and then to European Union following the 1993 Maastritch Treaty is a first impediment to the US inclining diplomatic leadership. The European Union is underscoring European identity and the European Union as another separate centre of power as distinct from the Washington centre. The European Union is not opposed to collaboration with the United States but the basis must recognise the right to separate identity.

The position of France within the European Union is noteworthy. France has always been opposed to the mainmise of the United States even within the framework of the NATO politics. It was because of this that France subjected its military integrative membership of the NATO to prior consent. This position was not found convenient. And for other reasons too, the NATO headquarters had to be moved from Paris to Brussels. This is one pointer to a declining US diplomatic leadership. Let us explicate the decline in the context of the self-inflicted problems of the European countries.

Europeans’ Self-inflicted Problems 

The starting problem is not simply the arrogance with which the United States is managing international question but particularly the non-readiness to accept that whatever has a beginning must also have an end. American government does not believe in it. American leadership of the world has a beginning and cannot have an end, at least for now. Europeans condone the US policy attitude. In response to this, international uprising against the United States began to mount.

Without any iota of gainsaying, the United States arrogantly, if not recklessly, announces foreign policy that is always very offending. There was the time President Donald Trump came with the policy of ‘America First’ and the policy of making ‘America Great Again.’ The implications of the policy of ‘America First,’ are serious. It implies that in whatever international negotiations that are held, the protection of the US national interest must be given priority. The policy does not allow for compromise. In the eyes of opponents, it is an offensive policy as there is no one ready to sacrifice its own national interest at the altar of the United States interests.

The policy of making America great again directly admits that America has lost its greatness at a point in time. It also recognises the need to restore the lost greatness. This was the policy under President Donald Trump. Under President Joe Biden, the policy does not accept that America has lost any greatness. It is still the America of permanent greatness and this is reflected in the instructional directives often given to other sovereign states of the world.

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because of the vested interest of the United States and the European Union in the conflict, efforts are made to coerce all other countries to support the Euro-American position. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) came up with a Resolution on 2nd March, 2022 which sought to condemn Russia. The resolution is particularly symbolic even though UNGA resolutions are generally not legally binding. It can only influence world opinion. The resolution was adopted within the framework of the first emergency session convened since 1997, that is, since 25 years.

141 countries voted for the resolution condemning Russia. Only five countries – Belarus, Democratic Republic of Korea, Syria, Russia, and Eritrea – There were 35 abstentions. The resolution, ‘condemning the decision of the Russian Federation to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces,’ and ‘expressing concern also about the potential impact of the conflict on increased food insecurity globally, as Ukraine and the region  are one of the world’s most important areas for grain and agricultural exports, when millions of people are facing famine or the immediate risk of famine or are experiencing severe food insecurity in several regions of the world, as well as on energy security,’ ‘deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter.’

What appears offending to the United States is the abstention of several African States. Uganda, Sudan, South Sudan, South Africa, Senegal, Namibia, Mozambique, Mali, Madagascar, Congo, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Angola and Algeria all abstained. This means that, of the total of 35 countries that abstained from the vote, sixteen of them were from Africa. This was taken as a major concern for the Joe Biden administration. In response, President Biden told the world that henceforth and country that votes or acts contrarily to the US foreign policy interests shall be duly sanctioned. What does this mean? Are sovereign states, Member States of the international community, no longer having the legitimate right to vote in accordance with their national interest? US foreign policy is being carried too far to the liking of other members of the international community. The policy is often fraught with duplicity.

On the occasion of one year anniversary of the Russian invasion, US Secretary of State, Anthony J. Blinken, noted in his remarks at the UNSC Ministerial Meeting on Ukraine on February 24, 2023, that abandoning Ukraine is synonymous with abandoning the UN Charter, and particularly the principles and rules that make the whole world safer: no seizing land by force. No erasing another country’s borders, no targeting civilians in war and no wars of aggression. As Blinken put it, ‘if we do not defend these principles, we invite a world in which might makes right, the strong dominate the weak. That’s the world this body was created to end. And members of this council have a unique responsibility to make sure that we do not return to it…’ This is a sermon that is not consistent with the US disregard for other countries to act sovereignly.

The particular case of South Africa and Russia within the context of the BRICS is very relevant here. It is truism to say that Russia and United States are arch enemies. The United States wants the complete neutralisation of Russian power in order to pave the way for the global domination by the NATO. Russia is not only contesting the purported supremacy of western civilisation and US leadership, but also wants to reconstitute the defunct Soviet Union. Thus, the interests are therefore very conflicting. 

In this regard, South Africa not only abstained from the UNGA resolution against Russian invasion but is openly carrying out military drills with Russia. The United States is not happy with this development. A Russian vessel was to arrive in South Africa for controversial purposes. The United States advised against allowing the vessel to birth but his was to no avail. The US ambassador to South Africa alleged that the Russian vessel was loaded with arms and ammunitions which the South African government denied but only promised to investigate.

Another important issue here is the politics of the forthcoming BRICS summit in August 2023. The first aspect is whether the Russian president could attend without being arrested in compliance with the international warrant of arrest placed on President Putin by the International Criminal Court. The second aspect is the French request to participate in the forthcoming summit. The request is currently generating heated debate. Initially South Africa was under obligation by virtue of being a signatory to the Rome Statute. President Omar Al-Bashir was in South Africa for an AU summitry. He was to have been arrested and handed over to the ICC. This was to no avail. Again, Russian president is expected at the next BRICS summit in South Africa. What will happen? What is crystal clear is that increasingly, US self-appointed role of global policeman is being contested. This is an expression of declining power. 

The European countries created problems for themselves by taking sanctions against Russia.