The U.S. National Security Strategy document, which President Donald Trump read out like an election declaration, tells us both about what has been happening in our region for a while and what will happen in the economy and foreign politics in the coming days. In fact, this document and the way it was presented shows that the U.S. has come to "anxiously" accept the fact that its absolute economic and political power of the previous century is on the decline.
Undoubtedly, this points to a new era in which the global and regional economic-political status quo, or even the basic paradigm, will change rapidly.
We are also coming to the end of the U.S.'s Pax Americana strategy, which spread and protected "liberalism" in the previous century, playing the role of a hegemonic mediator through institutions that were established after World War II.
Henry Kissinger puts this (old) strategy, suggesting that the U.S. has the best administration system in the world and the rest of humanity can achieve peace and welfare only if they abandon traditional diplomacy and accept its respect for international law and democracy.
These remarks are a clear threat to the world, meaning that you will either accept U.S. hegemony or you will be far from peace and welfare. Madeleine Albright, one of the female democrat secretaries of state of the U.S., stated during Bill Clinton's era, "If we have to use force, it is because we are America." Actually, she was paraphrasing what Kissinger had said.
The U.S. put forward a very irrational doctrine regarding its own interests as the common interests of mankind and wanting everything to be subject to itself, and if not, using force. Moreover, China, Russia, the U.K. and France and other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, accepted it. This "quintet" accepted the abovementioned doctrine of Kissinger, whether explicitly or implicitly, for a whole century and, of course, up to now, thinking that the deterioration of the existing balance would mean losing what existed both economically and politically.
The security paper, read out by Trump on tenterhooks, like a party declaring its election bulletin rather than a hegemonic global state, revealed that absolute U.S. hegemony will begin faltering even in institutions like the U.N., which indirectly transformed multilateralism into U.S. hegemony. This is because Trump's security document does not see Russia and China as a threat because they have alternative nuclear power or potential apart from itself. China and Russia are viewed as a threat because their economies and technological power are growing outside the U.S.-controlled and U.S.-imposed monetary system. So, even though the security document clearly mentioned China and Russia, all economically growing countries that take steps outside the Washington Consensus, declared when the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) control over developing countries started declining in the 1990s, are an indirect threat to the U.S. But the opposite is true as well.
Based on all this, prior to voting on Jerusalem in the U.N. General Assembly, the U.S. threatened countries that move toward alternatives apart from its own impositions, which is unacceptable. Certainly, the U.N. General Assembly will overlook this threat. This process, at the same time, is the process of isolating the U.S. and the loss of hegemony that will come as a result of these wrong policies.
Of course, there is something strange in the security document. The U.S. accepts the trade and monetary system established after World War II and its institutions as directly its own national institutions and systems. And it sees countries that grow outside its own control as countries that grow by using their own institutions, and that threaten the U.S. economy. For this reason, more often in the recent period, it not only controls the global dollar cycle through swift application, but also restricts it and delays cash flow.
On the other hand, the U.S. does not see global warming as a threat, saying that measures to be taken against it will threaten its economy, and it declared that it would openly practice protectionism, which all G20 platforms emphasize as a threat.
In fact, this economic "nationalism" orientation also discourages the U.S. from becoming a "liberal big brother." But let us note that the world will face very striking political changes in the short and medium term due to its economic consequences.
The U.S. should stop seeing its allies as a threat and give up the new but very dangerous tendency of creating micro-ethnic states under its own control and integrating them with old petrodollar states by using terrorist organizations in the region.
I think the U.N. will not remain indifferent to this trend that threatens peace.