America Resigns Itself to Wielding Soft Power

The world refuses to acknowledge the truth that American power is suffering from fatigue, its weakness clearly visible in its heavy plodding. To begin with, no one wants to acknowledge that America can become tired, or that the U.S. is experiencing all of the things other entities have gone through when they suffer from exhaustion and a decline in power. This is not because it is a legendary entity and not because its efforts are unenforceable. Instead, it’s because everyone thinks of America the way America wants them to: the force in control of all variables, and the driver of action. Perhaps this is because everyone is used to living under America's rules, and they don't want to envision the alternatives or unpredictable changes.

A few nations have realized this situation and have begun to adjust their policies accordingly. Washington wanted to change the pattern of its international policies. The philosophy of Barack Obama made it necessary to dismantle America's relationships with regions of intense conflict and to change its approach to them. New mechanisms have been introduced to achieve this change: the withdrawal of the U.S. military from conflict areas throughout the world, and an adjustment in the way the U.S. exerts influence and control, by focusing “soft power” on areas seen to have a strategic interest for the United States. America wants to obtain more by reducing its more costly engagements, and it has gone far in this direction. While America has not reached its imagined role, nor its desired position or status in international politics, it has avoided staying on the periphery of its previous policies, preventing it from overseeing changes of power in the world.

The American withdrawal from the Middle East is no more of an excuse to shift attention toward Asia than it is an attempt by the U.S. administration to cover up its own fatigue and lack of resources. All indications suggest there has been no change in the geopolitical status quo in Southeast Asia, meaning the American presence is having no effect. China is carrying out its geopolitical mission with no modifications to speak of. China continues its standing policy of threatening and putting pressure on Washington's allies in the region and has proceeded with its geographically corrosive behavior in the South China Sea without the slightest change in plans. North Korea, moreover, continues to support its ballistic and nuclear programs to an even greater extent than ever before.

But how did America get to this point? By all accounts, there's not a single competing world power that could have pushed America more than one step down the hierarchy of global power. No power has arisen that can compete with America’s military, political or commercial influence. Most of the geopolitical structures announced and endorsed in the past decade — the BRICS countries (an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the like — are not real alternative powers on the global level as much as they are a geopolitical review, in the same way that, to a large extent, the economic power strings of China are pulled by Washington.

Many analysts attribute America's decline to their disproportionate involvement in wars and conflicts in recent years, resulting in traumatic shocks to policymaking in the United States, and disappointment at the popular level. On the other hand, American militarism has not been able to adapt to the patterns of modern warfare, depriving it of any real victories that could prevent future conflicts. As costs increase dramatically, they are put under more and more pressure and kept on high alert. American diplomacy, likewise, has not been able to maintain control over the complex negotiations in a number of fields. They have not exerted their power skillfully but have had to share it with the likes of Russia and China. Furthermore, America has not come up with new ways of strengthening its influence or support. Its diplomacy has relied on a balance of conventional American power, without proportional updates to counter swift changes at the global level.

Oftentimes, some try to imagine the regression in American effectiveness as a phase, linked — to a large extent — to the policies and vision of Barack Obama, who prefers the use of diplomatic patience to produce sustained commitments with his international counterparts. All of this will change with the election of a new American president. This happened before, when American power and effectiveness were negatively affected by Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Ronald Reagan was able to regain that effectiveness, to the extent of tearing down the former Soviet Union. But there is a difference between then and now. Then, the competing powers were in a state of decline, grouped together to form a bloc of specific and known antagonists. More importantly, Washington, at that time, understood that its interests were, to a large extent, tied specifically to the expansion of their military influence. In short, America was an aggressive imperial power, whereas the America of today is cautious and hesitant, favoring soft policies and adapting its skills to further develop its own style and mastery.