During President Barack Obama's first term, I often noted the many precedents he set. For example, he was America's first African-American president and he was the first president to bring a healthcare law into reality. Now, in his second term, it looks like he merits credit for a totally different type of first: the president who has succeeded, during his tenure, in dismantling the US's major alliances. Within the space of a single week, Washington has found itself at loggerheads with all its major allies without exception. The nature of the contention varies from case to case. Some are more about structural or strategic aspects in the management of vital multiparty international relations; others concern the immediate and tangible aspects of transient policies that turn the world upside down. The amazing irony is that Obama had long been regarded as the most successful president, since Ronald Reagan, at communicating with others. Now he seems unable to convey a sensible message and sometimes he is at a loss for words. Last week, I kept close track of the federal government shutdown crisis that was set into motion by Congress's failure to enact legislation appropriating funds for the forthcoming fiscal year. As Washington was turning out the lights in its offices, the rest of the world was gnawing at its fingers. What Americans, and perhaps Obama too, fail to understand is that the US administration can not suddenly shut down about 20 per cent of the global economy while it awaits the outcome of the deliberations, squabbles and machinations between the White House and the majority of the House of Representatives. This is not just about international stock exchanges, the movement of global investment, or even the safety of the seas and space. It is also a question of the US's ability to take sound political and economic decisions. The US's major allies in the Western world were the first to feel the effects of that crisis. Yet, Washington was unconcerned. This was a purely domestic issue in which the Tea Party and the “coffee party” battled it out over who was responsible for footing the bill of the US's national deficit. But European countries, together with Canada, Australia, Japan and other US allies, were forced to hold their breath for a long time. Eventually, they would breath a sigh of relief. But the question and a considerable element of anxiety remained over the US's ability to lead the global economy. As subsequent days passed, this question of US leadership loomed much greater than had been thought. The US's economic leadership stems from the American share in global GDP. But technically, this leadership is riddled with serious problems. On the surface, the trouble began when former US National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowdon fled to Russia after having revealed that US intelligence agencies spied on the electronic communications of American citizens as part of their antiterrorism drive. The revelation triggered widespread public concern and debate over how far government prying into people's lives could go. Initially, the problem appeared to be little more than a flare up in that conventional debate over the individual's right to privacy versus national security exigencies. But then it came to light that the electronics spying operations included other governments, among which was some of Washington's foremost allies. Incidentally, this spying on allies is not new or out of the ordinary. Until 1971 the CIA had a department that specialised in spying on the UK. Just because that department has been closed down does not mean that the spying has stopped; only that the means and perhaps the conditions have changed. In all events, today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel barked into her private phone, echoing France's insistence on direct negotiations with Washington to address this urgent situation. Other European governments reacted more furiously, suggesting that EU states halt trans-Atlantic trade talks. To some extent, European anger extends beyond the spying, to a concrete reality behind it. The US almost holds a monopoly on the instruments of the “third industrial revolution” and, above all, intensive satellite technology that has made it possible for the NSA to control the traffic in, and intercept, global communications. The fact is that nowhere else in the world is there anything comparable to that conglomeration of such companies as Apple, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo through which pass most of the world's communications, especially now that Nokia and Sony have been sidelined. With their unimaginably huge profits, these companies are endlessly capable of rejuvenating themselves, expanding and swallowing up smaller and less powerful European ones. Of course, the countries of the EU and members of NATO are not about to sever their partnership with the US, but their national sovereignty is being put to the test. The US, for its part, appears helpless in dealing with the global technological sprawl that may have ranged beyond control. But the administration in Washington also appears unable to rein in the technological power of its own espionage agencies, which has developed to such an extent that it can strike not only enemies but friends as well. The same problem surfaced in a different context during Pakistani Prime Minister Nazar Sharif's visit to Washington last week. Although the prime minister had many issues to raise, prime on his list was the question of Predator drone strikes. Although aimed at terrorist bases in Pakistan's borders regions with Afghanistan, the fact that these strikes kill civilians as well has put Islamabad in an extremely difficult position with respect to public opinion at home, as the government is finding it increasingly difficult to defend its alliance with Washington when the latter violates Pakistani sovereignty at will. Again, the Pakistani-US alliance is not about to vanish. There are mutual interests that override the drone strikes. However, bilateral relations come in varying degrees and alliances come in different kinds. When trust in these relations begins to waver, countries eventually begin to take major decisions. Something of this sort has occurred in the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Washington. This has been a close and strategic relationship since the heads of state of the two countries met at the Suez Canal in 1944 towards the end of World War II, and the relationship was strengthened along the way by their shared antagonism toward communism and their cooperation during the Cold War and, subsequently, in their collaboration against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and their shared positions towards the unrest and anarchy sown by Iran in the region. Yet, this heretofore strong relationship was rippled by a powerful tremor in recent days by virtue of Riyadh's courageous decision to turn down a seat on the UN Security Council. Saudi Arabia was not willing to be party to a political farce in which the Security Council would serve as cover for the massacre of the Syrian people, the burial of the Palestinian cause, collusion with terrorist groups against Egyptian interests, and collusion with Tehran at the expense of Arab interests. This is not the way that international alliances should be conducted. That was the message that Riyadh had been driven to deliver by Obama's conflicting policies and his inability to take stances to which the US's allies can respond positively.
