By Shria Pallati

Abstract

America has remained a great power in the world for decades. However, recently, due to economic and political climate shifts, there is some arguable instability in their credibility and support among the world. This article examines potential instances of power instability or decline for America: its handling of the Venezuelan crisis and policy rhetoric changes. Its perception in the world is important, especially with the threat of power held in the East or BRICS nations, and while it has orchestrated events which have concerned the world, it still remains a key player across contexts. 

Introduction

America has served to be a major power for decades, rising to prominence, especially after World War II. It has gained power in all dimensions, hard and soft, allowing it to gain control of and remain a key stakeholder in multilateral organizations and their decision-making. However, in recent years, there has been an arguably slow decline in its power and influence internationally, and even at home domestically, among its own population. This essay will explore two instances that can depict this decline. This is the USA response to the economic and political Venezuelan crisis and the last two presidential terms’ effect on international sentiment (particularly European) with respect to the flip-flopping the USA conducted on key policies and long agreements. It can be seen through these examples that the international sentiment that America held in high regard has been decreasing, but it is still not entirely accurate to say that America is fully on the down curve, as it still holds a significant hold over the international stage, and still will do so for a long time.

America and Venezuela 

The Venezuelan crisis, which from protests led to the controversial election of Nicolas Maduro to his second term. The election, which was said to have undemocratic roots and poor credibility led to the USA and other countries recognizing Juan Guaido as an interim president. However, Maduro did not acknowledge this, and still, to this day there is a genuine question in the minds of Venezuelans on who is actually their president, as they don’t like either candidate, and Maduro seems to have still retained a decent amount of power in the country. Guaido also came under fire due to many scandals and accusations of mismanaged funds and poor distribution of humanitarian aid across the continent. This endeavor that the USA embarked on, reminiscent of its past decades as a sort of champion of democracy and freedom, then failed, as the situation in Venezuela is still poor.

Venezuela is a petrostate, which means the government is heavily dependent on income from fossil fuels, leaving potential problems to arise due to unsustainable reliance on volatile natural resource exports (Dutch Disease). States like this also frequently have corrupt governments and extreme power concentration within weak political institutions. Due to the large amount of resources, the country’s economy attracts great amounts of foreign inflows which appreciates the local currency. This increased the demand for cheaper imports, and pulls economic resources like labor away from other key sectors, like agriculture, which was the case in Venezuela. The political climate is also harmed, as bureaucracy is poor and accountability of politicians is nonexistent. America has tried to take advantage of this by intervening in the situation.

The Trump Administration left any hope of coming to a peaceful, sustainable solution behind when it imposed economic sanctions on the already struggling country, but a key reason why it failed was due to its abandonment of multilateralism. While the US government did take a backseat to negotiations, galvanizing Latin American countries to come together and take charge of the issue on their territory, a change to Secretary of State leadership led to them to try to “take ownership” of the issue themselves. He and his team changed directions from the low-profile emphasis on Latin American autonomy the USA was attempting to US predominance and its battle against “poisonous ideologies”. 

Venezuela may have some help with the news that oil sanctions will be eased, but the country struggles with high debt and hyperinflation. They have not only made an economic crisis, but a humanitarian and political one too. 

America and Policy

What is a shame is that before this change in policy and approach, the USA had managed to garner some of the “most successful coalition building” in the international response, and had the support of the EU as well. However, over time, the EU distances itself from the changing approach and saw that “lack of emphasis on negotiation” to be concerning. It created and implemented the International Contact Group on Venezuela (ICG). Over time, it has gained many members of Latin American countries and has been received better than the USA, and has managed to maintain still, “significant engagement” in the region.

This does depict a sort of decline in America’s credibility, as it notes a distrust on the EU’s part in America and its ability to carry out diplomatic relations. This is especially necessary for such a region that has colonial ties and sensitive history. The EU was initially on board with the American approach, but quickly switched gears after it no longer agreed with its methods. This incongruity does not inspire confidence in international onlookers, especially since a whole other organization was created in response to the USA in order to salvage what had been negotiated before. Additionally, the notice of America’s quick policy change after a position change does not allow for consistency, which begs additional questions of if the government has a cohesive policy or was following the whims and fancies of individuals flush with rhetoric. The latter would not bode well for further international diplomatic relations.

This issue with inconsistency in American policies is also seen in the withdrawal from and then rejoining into the Paris Agreement over two presidencies. Donald Trump pulled the USA out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2020, claiming that remaining in the 2015 agreement would harm the US economy and its future goals and that the USA had no obligation to continue providing help for an endeavor it did not support. This was also untrue at the time, as many in the country were against this move and supported climate legislation. Pulling out of the agreement, while the USA was the biggest economy in the world and accounted for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and after it was one of the main proponents and drivers of the agreement in 2015, truly gutted trust across Europe and further internationally. It was described as “wrong”, a “problem’, and a “failure”, and the sentiment was further solidified after President Biden rejoined the agreement quickly after he came into office in 2021. Current rhetoric about the climate seems to be positive, with Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act carrying the largest investment into clean energy, but during the election time it is likely that it will slowly start to shift to gather a larger base.

Again, this sort of inconsistency in policy stances which are so drastic and seem to be up to the individual, rather than the whole US government, significantly harms confidence and makes it harder for countries to work with America without reservations. Multiple countries have talked of the need to become more self-sufficient after negotiating with the US, particularly during the Trump Era, and so there has been a power decline over time.

However, this is not to say that the USA remains powerless. It is still one of the most powerful nations in the world and has both hard and soft power in spades. While there is a small decline in its legitimacy in policymaking and which stances it chooses to take, as seen in Venezuela and the Paris Agreement, countries still rely on the USA heavily and will continue to do so in the future, both politically and economically. The USA remains a key player in the world for management and movement.

Author’s Bio

Shria Pallati is a post-grad student studying economics and political science. Her interests lie in inflation/recessions, public choice theory, and economic and political institutions. 

Image Source: https://unsplash.com/@sbranch