by Keith Redfern

Created on: December 16, 2009   Last Updated: December 17, 2009

America’s position as leader in world politics has not come about through any international agreement, nor by way of a proven track record in world diplomacy. It was simply the case at the end of WW2 that it was the country with the greatest economic strength and the largest military machine.

Before the war, the major countries of Europe led the way in world politics, particularly the UK and France. This was because of their international influence in depth through many years of colonial development. A few other European countries had similar world influence, but to a lesser extent.

In 1945 the UK was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt, as were the countries which had been overrun by Germany during the war, and Germany itself. Only through America’s Marshall Plan was any level of sustained redevelopment made possible in Europe.

Meanwhile, in Asia, only Japan had wielded any power up to and including WW2, and it was defeated and demoralised when the war ended, needing American help to kick start its economy.  

So as the post war period began, there was America and the Soviet Union, two massive and opposed political powers, dominating the world stage. The USSR began to make its own way with its Warsaw Pact allies. 

The conference at Bretton Woods, setting the stage for a future western economic structure, made the dollar the main international currency and, with the United Nations based in New York, all western eyes focussed on Washington DC for leadership. 

Although not in any way contrived, America’s dominance in the west was inevitable and, when the communist empire crumbled, it had no competition at all. But a sustained position as leader needs to be earned, and it is worth considering what America has achieved since 1945.    

In south east Asia it became heavily mired in the so called Police Action in Korea, since when Korea has been divided, and North Korea has been a thorn in the flesh ever since. So no success there. Viet Nam was an unmitigated disaster in every respect, so no success there.

In the Middle East America is tied to a policy of support for Israel. Any presidential candidate who even hinted at a change in that respect would never be elected. Therefore America’s policy in that area is biased, and on that basis it can never expect to achieve a lasting settlement.

A number of countries, many of them small and Latin American, have experienced

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>