{"id":14223,"date":"2014-06-05T14:30:04","date_gmt":"2014-06-05T04:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=14223"},"modified":"2014-06-10T20:57:03","modified_gmt":"2014-06-10T10:57:03","slug":"america-and-the-international-system-where-will-it-lead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/america-and-the-international-system-where-will-it-lead\/","title":{"rendered":"America and the international system: where will it lead?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>The Strategist <\/i>has already posted a number<\/a> of pieces<\/a> on US President Barack Obama\u2019s use of a graduation address<\/a> at the United States Military Academy, West Point, to make a long-awaited foreign policy speech. There was a lot in it\u2014a statement of his administration\u2019s international achievements, a reaffirmation of America\u2019s indispensability as a nation, a riposte to the \u2018American decline\u2019 narrative, the Afghanistan withdrawal plan, a commitment to a more cautious and multilateral approach to international security and\u2014perhaps\u2014a higher threshold for the use of American military power. Most commentators have found it pretty unsatisfying, and as Graeme Dobell<\/a> notes, Australians would have preferred to hear more about the Asia-Pacific. Each of those points deserves its own consideration, but one aspect of major concern here in the US, and of key interest to Australia, is how America will pursue its future leadership role in the international system.<\/p>\n There\u2019s <\/span>a strong view in America<\/a>\u2014and it finds sympathy <\/span>elsewhere<\/a>\u2014that the current international system is one that America made and must lead. Given the audience, Obama naturally emphasised leading, including 14 mentions in the context of \u2018American leadership\u2019. Those references were positive and mostly familiar, asserting America\u2019s unique capacity to lead, its responsibility to do so, its leadership achievements and its determination to continue leading, albeit in a less costly and more multinational way.<\/span><\/p>\n The President\u2019s remarks attracted the usual applause, but many still worry. Their concerns aren\u2019t, in general, about America\u2019s <\/span>ability<\/i> to lead: there\u2019s a consensus that American leadership isn\u2019t doomed by anything in the fabric of the nation. The US has had \u2018a few rough years\u2019 and still faces its share of challenges, but <\/span>Bruce Jones<\/a> and <\/span>others<\/a> make the case that America\u2019s historic strengths endure and the risk of decline is manageable. Still, as <\/span>Richard Haass<\/a> argues, that management needs to start soon\u2014and may be painful\u2014if US foreign policy is to be re-energised and the international system kept functioning.<\/span><\/p>\n Likewise, there\u2019s little doubt of the <\/span>need<\/i> for American leadership in international affairs\u2014indeed, there\u2019s a positive appetite for it among America\u2019s partners, great and small. Concerns in America seem to be about America\u2019s <\/span>will<\/i> to lead, and in particular to lead with hard power if necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n