DISADVANTAGE/LEADERSHIP BAD

USA SUSTAINED LEADERSHIP UNITES THE WORLD AGAINST IT

USA GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IS NO LONGER ACCEPTED IN THE WORLD — IT CREATES PROBLEMS

Robert Ellsworth & Dimitri Simes, vice chairman and president of The Nixon Center, January 18, 2001 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 14A HEADLINE: New administration meets a new world order //VT2002acsln

World stability is more precarious than eight years ago, when Bill Clinton succeeded George W. Bush's father. The period in which unprecedented American dominance is at least tacitly accepted by most of the world is ending.

A new global environment will rest to a large extent upon the quality of American leadership. Yet backlash against this very leadership is a central element of today's world and is not limited to outlaw states such as Iraq or failed states such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, which has become a haven for terrorists, narcotics traffickers and others on the dark side of globalization.

In fact, it includes many nations, some described as America's "strategic partners" or even staunch allies -- as well as middle-class Americans such as those who harassed the trade summit in Seattle.

Being the sole superpower is a heavy burden, and bearing it often wins resentment rather than gratitude. But the Clinton administration's self-righteousness -- its presumption that America, as the "indispensable nation," was entitled (indeed supposed) to provide answers to every international crisis -- only increased that resentment.

APPLICATION OF USA WORLD LEADERSHIP WILL ONLY REBOUND AGAINST US

ROBERT W. TUCKER, Professor Emeritus of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs November, 1999 / December, 1999 SECTION: COMMENTS; Pg. 15 HEADLINE: Alone or With Others; The Temptations of Post -- Cold War Power // acs-ln-12-28-99

Edmund Burke's famous warning and lament eloquently summarizes the deeper and persisting current criticism of foreign policy:

I dread our own power and our own ambition; I dread our being too much dreaded. . . . We may say that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard-of power. But every other nation will think we shall abuse it. It is impossible but that, sooner or later, this state of things must produce a combination against us which may end in our ruin.

HISTORY SHOWS ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE HEGEMONY ARE FOOLISH, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE BANDS TOGETHER AGAINST THEM

CHRISTOPHER LAYNE, The Plain Dealer November 17, 1999 SECTION: EDITORIALS & FORUM; Pg. 11B HEADLINE: SUPERPOWER ROLE IS SELF-DEFEATING

History is strewn with the remains of states that have bid for supremacy: France under Louis XIV and Napoleon, Victorian Britain, Germany under Hitler. The reason for their ultimate failure is simple: When one state becomes too powerful, other states become fearful and unite to "balance" against it.

Until recently, American policymakers have acted as if the United States somehow is exempt from this pattern. But, if recent events are any indication, this is wishful thinking.

EXERCISE OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IS LEADING TO A HUGE BACKLASH

CHRISTOPHER LAYNE, The Plain Dealer November 17, 1999 SECTION: EDITORIALS & FORUM; Pg. 11B HEADLINE: SUPERPOWER ROLE IS SELF-DEFEATING

America's superpower strategy is triggering a geopolitical backlash that will run counter to its interests. The ill-considered policy of NATO expansion has heightened Russia's sense of strategic insecurity, and underscored for Moscow the dangers of American power. America's position on Taiwan, and its human rights policies, are regarded by Beijing as unwarranted intrusions in China's domestic affairs.

THE RICH NATIONS HAVE IMPOSED THEIR WILL ON THE MAJORITY WORLD

The Toronto Star January 28, 2001, HEADLINE: DEVELOPING WORLD MUST HAVE A SAY //VT2002acsln

Over the past 50 years, the rich countries - the U. S., Canada, the European nations and Japan - have run the world the way that suited them best. Our priorities and standards were imposed on the billions of people who lived elsewhere.

In trade, for example, we badgered developing nations to remove import quotas on a wide range of manufactured products, insisting it was in their own best interest to do so. At the same time, we insisted we needed to maintain our own import quotas on textiles, clothing, agricultural products and, through various non-tariff barriers, steel.

While developing countries were told they could not protect jobs of their workers, we insisted on the right to protect jobs of our workers.

But, as developing countries have demanded at this year's World Economic Forum, this kind of unfairness is no longer acceptable.

Nor can the rich nations expect to decide on their own, as they used to do, whether to launch a new world trade round, reform international finance and take other global governance steps, or determine the agendas of trade and other negotiations.