The United States has failed to persuade the world to support its quest for global hegemony. The belief that America is the "indispensable nation" that needs to continually expand its sphere of influence has been met with resistance from many, both inside and outside its borders.

This failure of persuasion means that the US will find it difficult to secure control around the world and instead will be met with challenges from other states claiming different ideologies, hoping to surmount the US in global attractiveness and influence.

Instead of continuing this failed attempt to remain a global hegemon, the US should instead recognise the likelihood of its weakened future position and work to create empowered global institutions that could prevent o­ne state from ever achieving too much power.

The battles fought between the great European states in the two world wars exemplified the need to restrain individual states from becoming rogue superpowers.

After World War I, the League of Nations was created. This organisation was not given enough power and it became obsolete with the bloodshed of the Second World War.

After Adolf Hitler's and Emperor Hirohito's armies fell, the need for a restraining organisation was felt o­nce again. The United Nations was created in order to provide an effective tool for tempering the power of individual states.

While achieving many great humanitarian successes, the UN has largely failed in its other mission to check the power of dominant states. It was able to effectively restrain weak states, but due to its lack of a strong military or economic capability, powerful states simply ignored the decrees of the UN when they didn't suit their interests.

Instead of the UN preserving world order after the fall of Germany and Japan, a fragile power balance developed from the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States.

True impotence

With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, it was finally time to see if the UN could fulfill its mandate to control world order.

During its trial decade, the UN had a few notable successes, such as its prevention of Saddam Hussein from remaining in control of Kuwait; however, weak states felt that the UN was merely a handmaiden of the US, a country whose economic and military power was so strong that it could manipulate individual member states to vote in its favor.

But the UN's major failures were most evident in its powerlessness to intercede in military disputes. Not intervening in the Rwandan genocide was o­ne of the greatest tragedies of the 1990s and directly tarnished the reputation of the world body as an effective military force. Rwanda proved that in order for an organisation like the UN to exist, it needed an independent military free from the restraints and policies of member states.

But it was not until the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that the UN's true impotence was revealed. The inability of the UN to restrain the US from attacking Iraq proves that the UN is completely incapable of enforcing resolutions that bind powerful states to international law.

This inability, though already well known, is most evident in the UN's decades-long failure to restrain Israel from its occupation of foreign lands. But the UN's restraining inability in 2003 was magnified by the fact that the country the UN could not restrain was the all-powerful United States, ironically also a country that publicly cherishes the very ideals that the UN stands for.

The US has almost always been an outspoken proponent of the UN, often citing its resolutions as justifications for punishing a vile government.

Subservient body

Yet in 2003, the US showed that it now considers the UN to be o­nly a servant of US policy and that it is willing to openly defy the rulings of this international body that it itself helped to create.

In doing so, the US has weakened the UN and will indirectly cause less international cooperation and a higher potential for regional conflict.

The effects of this public disavowal have not yet begun to be seen. It will take time for states to reassess their interests and decide o­n how they will alter their national policies.

But if the UN continues to be ignored by the US, these states will be forced to alter their national policies, focusing less o­n international cooperation and more o­n strict national objectives; these states will no longer be able to achieve national objectives through the UN and will now have to take unilateral actions to secure their interests, as was done by the US in Iraq.

The US, however, still has the possibility to mend the damage done to the UN. If the Bush administration were to affirm unequivocally that the UN was needed to rebuild Iraq and was imperative for the creation of a future Iraqi government, it would restore the UN's credibility.

The US would have to take a less hands o­n approach in Iraq's political, economic and military future; moreover, the US could push for an international peacekeeping force to be deployed throughout all of Iraq, giving a real possibility that the Iraqi people would see the US action as liberation rather than occupation.

These actions would reassert the traditional US belief in the importance of the UN as an effective force in world order.

US interests

The buttressing of the UN by the United States would work to protect US interests in the future. It is true that the US will be better able to achieve more narrow national Objectives by circumventing the UN, but this will o­nly be possible in the short-term.

Lacking the attraction necessary to be a global hegemon and weakening the power of other states through its rejection of the UN, other states will work to rival the US in economic and military power.

Like all great powers, the superiority of the US will most likely become diminished in the future. Therefore, in order to secure long-term US interests, the US should work to reinforce the UN, or to create a new global body that will be able to effectively restrain individual states.

While such an institution may damage some US short-term interests, in the end it could help to protect the US and other countries from major military conflicts.

As of now, however, there are no real signs that the Bush administration is interested in falling back o­n the traditional US stance toward the UN.

It is true that internationalists amongst the administration, such as Colin Powell ( right ), have sought to soften the anti-UN rhetoric coming from Pentagon officials like Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld ( left ).

But even the internationalists seem to be falling in line with the Bush Doctrine that calls for a more internationally proactive US, not necessarily working within the guidelines put forth by the United Nations.

Definite reactions

If this waning influence of the UN continues along with a proactive US o­n the international scene, there will be definite reactions throughout the world.

Because states are not convinced of the American economic, political and societal models, they will react negatively toward hegemonic US assertions and will work to limit the power of the US.

If these states cannot use the UN to limit the power of the US they will use other means such as building alliances and increasing their economic independence from Washington.

Finally, in order to protect their interests, they will pump more money into their militaries. Such a future does not bode well for an improved sense of world order that all humanity so desperately desires.

Erich Marquardt is an analyst with the Power and Interest News Report. He is also the publisher of alternative news website YellowTimes.org. He can be reached at emarquardt@pinr.com .