How effective is the United States’ supremacy?

Despite its status as a global superpower, the US' approach to international relations frequently undermines its credibility and effectiveness.

American political elites frequently remind the rest of the world of their nation’s supremacy. Despite its status as a global superpower, the US’ approach to international relations frequently undermines its credibility and effectiveness. While the US frequently champions democracy and freedom on the outside, its ambiguous, self-interest-driven policies, coupled with its selective advocacy for the principles it advertises, erode its public standing. 

The US frequently emphasizes the importance of democracy and freedom in the world, and while it regularly criticizes its adversaries, such as China or Russia, for the lack of these traits, it turns a blind eye to human rights violations committed by its allies in the Middle East. This type of hypocrisy and inconsistency casts doubt on the US’ credibility with both friends and foes in the global arena, frequently interpreted as a lack of dedication to its principles.

The US has a natural inclination towards dividing the world into categories, such as allies, adversaries, and sidelined nations. However, the US does not always translate its praises for allies into tangible commitments. When it comes to addressing external threats that its allies may be facing, the US is bound to turn away. Prime examples of this include China seizing Taiwan and Iran invading the Gulf states. A more recent example pertains to the US criticizing Hungary’s President Viktor Orban, despite Hungary’s NATO membership, for not aligning with Western ideals, highlighting a rigid, unforgiving approach to alliances.

By labeling certain nations as part of an â€œaxis of evil,” the US exacerbates conflicts rather than seeking diplomatic solutions. The US used the “axis of evil” mantra to characterize nations with which it has political disputes, exaggerating their political misbehaviors to portray them as “evil.”. This approach further complicates any kind of peace settlement while neglecting countries that do not align with the US’ current interests. The process demonized countries like Iran and organizations like Hamas, alienating large segments of the global population.

Meanwhile, the US enjoys a number of privileges over its main rivals, namely China and Russia. The English language dominates global communication; American authors’ ideas significantly influence global intellect; American technology across various sectors enjoys widespread recognition; and movies play a soft-power role in shaping global narratives. However, these advantages haven’t shaped the world’s citizens in accordance with US preferences, which role model is gradually waning.

Nowadays, populist-produced programs and news on social media platforms significantly influence the masses, who inherently disregard the US’s dominant position. People in autocratic nations, like myself, refuse to accept US economic sanctions that damage their country’s economic status and dignity, nor do they appreciate US influence over an autocratic leader that jeopardizes their nation’s sovereignty.

Furthermore, communication is a two-way channel. While its cultural exports and technological innovation are vast, the US faces challenges in comprehending the cultures and dynamics of the world’s 195 nations. Thus, it becomes nearly impossible to devise customized solutions for each nation or conflict. Furthermore, these preemptive solutions may conflict with the US’s hegemony and its default egoism as a superpower nation.

Subsequently, the US tends to define and frame issues according to its own understanding. While the US labels Iran as an evil nation and Hamas as a terrorist organization, the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims may perceive Iran as a challenger to the superpower and Hamas as a resistance group fighting an occupier. In foreign policy, the main pillar of US hegemony is the President, who typically serves as the sole decision-maker, even during wartime, thereby superseding the US “checks and balances” mechanism.

Moreover, the United States has a number of defective political structures and policies that hinder its functionality as a universal superpower. One of these defects is the frequent power swapping between its two dominant parties, which can lead to significant policy shifts and overhauls every four years. The US tends to produce shallow initiatives, such as President Biden’s Democracy Conference, that have added no value to its participant nations.

However, the most flawed aspect of the US’ approach is its military power, which might yield conciliatory ideas. With over 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, the US’ military presence is unmatched by the rest of the world, which has only a fraction of what the US has. This competitive advantage is sufficient to intensify the perception of US hegemony in the event of a comprehensive military engagement with its rivals, but it hasn’t prevented Russia from invading Ukraine, for example.

Ironically, without a clear mission and functioning mechanism, the United States’ military bases risk becoming costly symbols of outdated hegemonic ambitions. Although Chinese military bases are not as extensive as those of the US, they are embracing alternative strategies, such as the global south, as exemplified by BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative, which prioritize economic and infrastructural dominance over military superiority. Construction of ports for other nations is a major part of this initiative, which could potentially grant China unknown privileges in the future.

During the Gaza crisis, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) convened three sessions to formulate a resolution to halt the war in Gaza. The US was the only nation that vetoed two of these resolutions and abstained from the third, in which the US Ambassador to the UNSC clarified that the third produced resolution is not mandatory for Israel. These actions illustrate the US’s isolation on the global stage. While the US may justify these decisions based on strategic interests, they further alienate global partners and undermine the principles the US claims to sustain.

Ultimately, the US continues to expand its universal military presence at the expense of its soft power potential. Throughout history, America’s internal morality has made significant strides in abolishing slavery, promoting equality, and advancing women’s rights, all while the US’s hegemony has significantly grown. The first Gulf War, which aimed to liberate Kuwait as a sovereign nation, and the second Gulf War, which aimed to avenge Iraq’s president and resulted in the destruction of a nation, demonstrate the positive and negative aspects of US hegemony.

I am not examining the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of global citizens towards US dominance, but rather the effectiveness of this domination in shaping the world, or alternatively, the US’s return on investment, which is primarily measured by its ability to achieve pre-established objectives. If the US’ goal in the Middle East, for example, is to keep the entire region in a state of war, then it is successful. However, if the US’s mission is to spread peace and prosperity in the same region, then its supremacy has proven to be a complete failure. My premise is that supremacy only benefits the American elites, adding nothing to the vast majority of the population.

The US must reconsider its approach to global leadership and hegemony. Many nations have currently lost trust in the US because it prioritizes bullying over leadership. Constructive engagement and capitalizing on the strengths of its rivals in addressing global challenges could restore US credibility and influence. Running an egalitarian dialogue with China and Hungary may be able to play a fruitful role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Only by embracing a more inclusive and balanced foreign policy may the US maintain its supremacy in a rapidly changing world.

Mohammed Nosseir
Mohammed Nosseir
Mohammed Nosseir is an Egyptian liberal politician, living in Cairo and advocating for political participation, liberal values and economic freedom. He tweets @MohammedNosseir