The United States is a great power, no doubt about it, but diminishing global influence is on the cards and more weapons will not buy influence. After all, look at the situation in Crimea or in Syria, where Russian intervention can't be matched by the US military machine. Take a further look at the situation in Afghanistan or in the South China Sea; you will have to rethink the American military and the US role as the policeman of the world. If this is the case for US military power, it is equally the case for US foreign policy that has failed in capitalising on its victory in the Cold War to forge a brighter future. US foreign policy wasted peace dividends, igniting ill-calculated wars that wiped out nearly an entire year of the country's GDP to date. As it spends almost 40 per cent of world military expenditure, US power is exhausted and a “leaderless world system” is approaching. Many great powers are now jockeying for position at the expense of the retreating US. As US foreign policy became more involved in regional conflicts under the banners of the “war on terror” or “regime change”, it lost direction and missed a potential lead in more important international issues such as environmental and climate policy, energy policy, fighting global poverty and building a basis for equality. The war in Afghanistan, within the strategy of the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, within the strategy of regime change, both resulted in military and political humiliation for the US administration. America lost thousands of lives and up to $6 trillion in military spending. Don't think that it is only Democrats or Republicans that shoulder responsibility for such a humiliation. In fact, although it was the Republicans who initiated the strategies of the war on terror and regime change at the beginning of this century, Democrats did nothing to put a brake on either. Under their leadership it was business as usual. But when it became clear that US military involvement was a burden rather than an advantage, the administration, with some resistance from the military, decided to reduce its activities in both countries. Now, very few people believe that the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan is better than it was before US intervention; in fact, it is worse. Iraqis are more divided than ever, thanks to Paul Bremmer who established a quota-based political system and threw the country into fierce and bloody ethnic and sectarian wars. Afghanis are no better, and are now trying to reach a formula for peace between traditional tribal leaders and the liberal class of bureaucrats and technocrats. Forget about freedom, democracy and human rights as long as there is no order. Perhaps, that is why in Syria US foreign policy was a lot more cautious. It relied mainly on airstrikes and agents, exactly as during the first campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. The US bought loyalty, used Saudi and Qatari monies, encouraged the Turks and tried to involve Egypt at one stage when the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi was president, but it did not want to repeat its experience in Afghanistan or in Iraq. When the Russians intervened, American policymakers chickened out of matching the actions of their rival. Not far away, some other countries were watching; Ukraine and the Baltic countries are deeply suspicious of US foreign policy towards NATO, the Baltics and Central Europe. In South East Asia, the United States is losing friends, such as the Philippines to China. Some countries have already made it public that they see no threat in the rising influence of China in the South China Sea where $5 trillion of world trade takes route. China is building a new and powerful navy, something that this country has never had in history. It is approaching its neighbours in a very smart way, sending messages of “respect, cooperation and non-interference” and getting positive responses from many. China's rising power is seen as a threat mainly by Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Not long ago, most of the region was backing the US strategy of opposing Chinese expansion in the region. US foreign policy relies on broad political, economic and military alliances across the world, such as NATO, APEC and NAFTA, but American influence in all of them is now in question. Trump's new foreign policy may be able to destroy what the Americans gained in decades of influence. NATO, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and NAFTA all are to be reviewed, perhaps on the basis of new rules that will play against neoliberalism and laissez-faire principles. Neoliberalism is coming under the hammer in the United States since 2007/2008 financial crisis that shocked the economic system across the whole world. After all, it was in the US that the crisis was manufactured. Since then the economic paradigm of neoliberalism lost its shine and nearly collapsed. The state came to the rescue with taxpayers' money, something that made taxpayers furious. On military issues, the US is asking its allies to pay more for their defence. The two per cent of GDP rule of military spending for NATO members may look now inadequate, as US is spending almost twice that while most other NATO members are paying much less. The US is no longer able to sustain such a high level of military expenditure; most of its allies, under economic pressure, are not able to increase their military spending, which will perhaps create a political and military rift within NATO. Other clients for the US military industry will clearly continue their purchases as long as they can afford, but some of them don't have the kind of leeway they used to. Oil exporting countries in the Arab Gulf region in particular will be in deep trouble. As the US strategy of regime change failed, so will fail calls for spreading democracy. US foreign policy objectives will shrink and concentrate on “America First”. The US may speak about liberal values, democracy and human rights, but it will not act the way it was doing, especially in the Middle East and South East Asia. This is very good news for authoritarian leaders, oppressive regimes and tribal ruling families. No wonder, Bashar Al-Assad of war-torn Syria portrayed Donald Trump as his “natural ally.” The Middle East will be the battleground for US foreign policy in the next four years, even if Donald Trump is impeached halfway through by events engineered by the establishment. There are five very important issues each of which urge quick answers: 1) The Russian military intervention in Syria that will impact events in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics; 2) Expanding Iranian influence in the East Mediterranean and in the Arab Peninsula that will impact events in the Gulf and the rest of the Arab world; 3) Future defence arrangements between the US and Arab Gulf States in addition to some other countries in North Africa that will impact futures alliances and defence policies in and between the region and other great powers; 4) The drive for democracy, freedom of expression and human rights that will impact potential political change in the region; and 5) The Palestinian question and future relations between the US and Israel that will impact the whole future of the Middle East and may lead to a dramatic turn of events. The new US administration has made no secret about its intention to make Jerusalem the home of its embassy in Israel. It seems from American-Israeli contacts since the election of Donald Trump that Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will have a great ally in the White House. Say goodbye to the two-state solution. Israeli “illegal” settlement will continue, Palestinian land in the West Bank will be swallowed leaving no real room for a viable Palestinian state, and in the crowded Gaza Strip disastrous catastrophes will be deliberately exported and left to Egypt to deal with. The writer is former senior political affairs officer at the UNDPA.
