This essay was written by Jakub Škopek, a graduate student in Prof. Jana Sehnálková’s class, “Major Issues in Contemporary Public Debates” in the Department of North American Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Her class partnered with Dr. Mark Neuzil’s TommieMedia students to produce opinion pieces on issues of interest to Czech students. Chief Studio Producer and Podcast Producer Kayla Mayer edited.

American leadership in the world is in decline. New powers are emerging and threatening the United States’ position in the world. American hegemony is diminishing, and it slowly establishes the multi-power world order. The decline came into geopolitical and power discourse in the last four years during former President Donald Trump’s administration. His policy “America First” and his agenda of untying the United States from established alliances made the country an unreliable partner. It caused the world community to start to look for a new leader.

In some cases, they found it in China, Russia, or both. It seems like Trump’s presidency is the direct cause, that he and his political agenda are to blame. I would argue otherwise.

The decline is a slow process ongoing from former President Bill Clinton’s administration till nowadays. Each administration took part in the decline due to wrong policy decision-making. However, international relations are not a zero-sum game, so we discuss the decline as a relative process.

When the Cold War ended, the world community aligned itself with the United States’ global leadership. The United States showed their leadership during the Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm. The operation was successful and contained Saddam Hussein. In the following years after the Cold War conflict, positivity prevailed among the U.S. policymakers. The United States was a hegemon, role-model, lone superpower that the world community looked up to.

During Clinton’s presidency, the American-led world order started struggling. The unsuccessful intervention in the United States’ Somali war had a complete counter-effect to the previous intervention in the Gulf war. The ignorance of the genocide in Rwanda also discredited American leadership. The bombing of Serbian positions during the war in Kosovo, following the decision to bomb the Bosnian Serbs during the Bosnian war, led to Americans being criticized even more.

Countries that felt betrayed by the United States started to look for an alternative leader. They aligned themselves with Russia or China. These events did not mean an imminent threat to American leadership, but it was the starting point of a slow, continuous decline.

The most significant factor of this starting decline was in 2000 when Clinton signed the U.S.-China Relations Act, followed by the official entering of China in the World Trade Organization. It fastened China’s economic rise, whose outcome we can see today since China is the second-largest economy in the world and direct rival of the United States on the geopolitical and economic field.

George W. Bush’s presidency and some lousy policy decision-making contributed to the decline of American leadership too. The 9/11 attacks endangered American inviolability. The world community met a new actor on the international stage – the non-state actor. To this day, the world community cannot fully adapt to this new challenge. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States was not an invincible superpower.

Following the sudden event, former President Bush waged a new war on terror. The war on terror was a part of Bush’s comprehensive doctrine. His new doctrine and the waged war on terror resulted in military interventions in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

Although the administration’s official goals were promoting democracy, freedom and American values, real targets were primarily motivated by the United States’ pursuit for broader American influence in the Middle East. A broad coalition supported the intervention in Afghanistan. The 2003 intervention in Iraq did not have the same support. The intervention was based on false claims and caused a split within the transatlantic alliance.

Together with the military and economic power, the transatlantic alliance is the central pillar of American leadership. Divided views on intervention in Iraq meant a massive blow for American leadership. Internally, Americans perceived the war on terror negatively due to the massive cost of American lives and materials. These attitudes resulted in American unwillingness to fight abroad and get involved in international relations. So, U.S. internal attitudes might cause even bigger damage for the American leadership of the global community.

Former President Barack Obama was, by some, perceived as a savior of the American position in the world. There was a hope that Obama’s multilateral and liberal approach would restore the weakened American leadership, but suddenly that was limited by U.S. internal politics.

Obama’s concentration on internal and external political issues, the economic-financial crisis, or healthcare reform meant that his administration sometimes overlooked the foreign policy and therefore shaped it by bad decision-making.

Obama did try to restore American leadership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (known as the Iran Nuclear Deal), Paris Climate Accords and many other agreements and declarations were supposed to have the right effect. In some cases, these agreements were signed in a hurry due to little emphasis on foreign policy. Most of these agreements were terminated or left by Trump.

Obama’s efforts to reestablish American leadership were essentially influenced by the Arab spring in 2011. If the events of the Arab spring were handled correctly by the United States, it would have created a front of democratic countries aligned to the U.S. However, Obama did not express sufficient support for the pro-democracy forces in Arab countries, which meant that some of these countries fell into turmoil and civil wars.

The unregulated Arab spring caused the rise of militant and terrorist groups worldwide, mainly the Islamic State’s rise in Syria and Iraq. Upheavals and civil wars in Libya and Syria were followed by the intervention of the American led coalition.

In Libya’s case, the intervention faced intense criticism because the United Nations Security Council resolution did not support it. The intervention in Syria had broader recognition and support, but Obama’s administration’s uncertain decision-making was met with criticism. Obama’s weak foreign policy meant that Russia’s, and mainly China’s, status rose once again. The American leadership among the world community took another huge blow. Actions taken by Obama’s administration were essentially influenced by his predecessor and had utmost importance in Trump’s election, with whom the United States’ relative decline quickened.

Trump’s policy’s crux was “America First,” which was supposed to strengthen the United States’ position in the global community. His agenda was concentrating on distancing himself from his predecessor.

Trump’s main agenda was to terminate agreements like TPP, JCPOA or the Paris Climate Accords, ending America’s endless wars, and containing China’s rise. Although Trump successfully terminated existing agreements, it meant that the vital transatlantic partnership was shattered.

He tried to end the U.S. military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. The withdrawal from Syria caused Russia and Iran to take a strategic position in the Middle East, which is perceived as an important geopolitical region. The withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was not accomplished. It is highly possible that these two cases would follow the framework created in Syria. Russia, China or Iran would substitute the presence of the United States. It would, even more, disrupt American leadership among the global community.

Trump did wage a trade war against the People’s Republic of China and, compared to his predecessors, took a harder line against PRC. However, he did not achieve to contain China’s economic and geopolitical rise. In some countries, China is now perceived as a more reliable partner than the United States due to Trump’s actions.

For President Joe Biden, his position will be complicated.

Although he expressed that the U.S. is ready to reenter former agreements and alliances, the world is not the same as when they left them. China’s influence is enormous, and part of the world community is now relying on China. PRC lures certain countries under its influence, also thanks to providing an alternative model of governance. Once liberal democracies aligned to the United States are now transformed into illiberal democracies with tight ties to China.

Biden’s presidency will not be revolutionary because of his age. As it seems irrelevant, Biden is probably a one-term president, so there will not be enough time for any comprehensive foreign policy.
In my opinion, Biden’s task will be to normalize the U.S. position in the world community by reestablishing American reliability and reshaping the core of the U.S. foreign policy.

That is the only way to stop the United States’ leadership decline and prepare for American leadership’s future rise.

Biden could be successful. Obama’s idealism essentially influences his approach, but unlike Obama, Biden can mix idealism with a level of realism. That combination is, in my opinion, essential for the American future among the global community.