Main Edition
US
FR
May 27, 2023 - 6:45pm
Fiona Hill has declared that the war in Ukraine marks the passing of Pax Americana. In an explosive speech delivered two weeks ago in Estonia, the foreign affairs specialist warned that there had been a “mutiny” against US dominance that would force a reset in global relations. “In 2023, we hear a resounding no to US domination,” Hill said, “and see a marked appetite for a world without a hegemon”.
The former presidential advisor to Donald Trump stated that Russia had “cleverly exploited deep-seated international resistance” to American leadership, using the war in Ukraine as a means to drive a wedge between the West and “the Rest”. Hill went on to deny that there was a proxy war between Russia and the West but, rather, the “reverse — a proxy for a rebellion by Russia and the ‘Rest against the United States’”.
The Russia specialist noted that the Ukraine war was the latest in a “long series of dramatic events since 2001” that undermined support for the US as a global hegemon. Citing the War on Terror, inaction in Yemen, “selective interventions in Libya and Syria” as well as the 2008 financial crisis and the election of Donald Trump, Hill said that these events had “cast further doubt on the US capacity for global leadership”. “Unfortunately, just as Osama bin Laden intended, the US’s own reactions and actions have eroded its position since the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11,” she said. “‘America fatigue’ and disillusionment with its role as the global hegemon is widespread.”
By consequence, Ukraine has suffered “guilt through association for having direct US support”, because other states view the conflict through the prism of a proxy rebellion. “Defending Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity gets lost in a morass of scepticism and suspicions about the United States,” Hill said.
In an interview earlier this year, Hill told UnHerd that the West “should have handled things better” with regard to Russia, a theme she expanded on in this Lennart Meri Lecture. Chiding the West for not consulting global partners on their response to the invasion, the former UN official said that non-Western elites questioned why sanctions were implemented when “no one” sanctioned the US over its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. “Why should they step up now?” questioned Hill.
Despite working for three American presidents, the former advisor pulled no punches in her criticism of the US and West more generally. It was wrong, she argued, to refer to 6.5 billion people as the “Global South” or “the Rest” when “they are the world […] our terminology reeks of colonialism.” In these countries, there is “no sense of the US as a virtuous state,” Hill added, “perceptions of American hubris and hypocrisy are widespread.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI have seen Fiona Hill do this before. All balance and common sense in identification of the problem, then in the last paragraph, she rips off the mask to bare her Neocon message. The US should not give up its perpetual tyranny by any means. Nope. It just should do a better job, maybe distribute sweets to the children of nations that they sanction willy nilly.
I have seen Fiona Hill do this before. All balance and common sense in identification of the problem, then in the last paragraph, she rips off the mask to bare her Neocon message. The US should not give up its perpetual tyranny by any means. Nope. It just should do a better job, maybe distribute sweets to the children of nations that they sanction willy nilly.
India is the future. the largest country in the world today is a rising industrial republic with a stable cultural and religious core. China may own the 2030’s; India will own the rest of the century.
Fiona Hill is echoing ideas journalists on the right have been reporting for a while: US cultural imperialism (specifically abortion and gender ideology) is harming US interests. You hear this particularly from African diplomats whose countries have turned to China. When you ask them why, they cite the strings that come with aid: “China expects us to not get in their way on the international stage. The US expects us to change our internal laws and political structures to conform to their wishes.” They turn to China because they resent our cultural imperialism.
I find it hard to believe anyone cares about the US policy on abortion. And what is that policy? It’s different in every state. Same thing with gender. It may make the US look unserious on the world stage, but I really doubt it impacts foreign relations, outside its existing allies.
If the US is losing Africa, it’s because of neglect. China is forging ties through its belt and roads program, and resource investment. No one wants moralizing lectures from the US on cultural issues, but money talks.
The one exception may be climate change and net zero. I doubt African nations care at all if the US is going off the rails when it comes to energy policy. What they care about are the IMF and World Bank imposing restrictive lending policies.
You keep cooking on a dung fire because we won’t allow you natural gas – because of global warming. Not exactly a great hearts and minds strategy.
You keep cooking on a dung fire because we won’t allow you natural gas – because of global warming. Not exactly a great hearts and minds strategy.
India does not have a stable cultural and religious core. Christian churches get burned down there all the time. It’s got plenty of corruption and violence problems and has for a long time. You are right however about the reason these nations turn to China. I think the long term will be multipolarism.
That is that China or the US won’t be the ones guaranteeing security for trade routes and resolving regional disputes, but there will be regional partners that might band together currency wise, or security wise, with commodities rich global South nations having more weight on the worlds stage. So, long-term there won’t be as much power in a unipolar or bipolarism (US and China), but the hope is that these two giants will not dictate their own sort of rules hegemony.
This is the sort of promise the BRICS holds out. Whether it actually all works out that way in the end, who knows? We do know that the US and European globalists hate the idea. Which, I’d say they have not and are not doing themselves any favors on the worlds stage right now.
I’m actually rooting for multipolarity, since I consider is preferable to a US-led empire.
The “End of History” thesis was wrong and Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” was correct. The only question is whether it will take a strategic defeat for US elites to accept that reality.
The sooner we accept a multipolar world, the better it will be for everyone, including us.
I’m actually rooting for multipolarity, since I consider is preferable to a US-led empire.
The “End of History” thesis was wrong and Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” was correct. The only question is whether it will take a strategic defeat for US elites to accept that reality.
The sooner we accept a multipolar world, the better it will be for everyone, including us.
Can India shed her caste system? I feel like the internal divisions created by the castes will impede India’s ability to be a global leader.
Well that’s the beauty of the whole multipolar world, it’s all their problem, because it’s their civilization. It’s none of our Anglosphere business to put our nosey noses into. We’re to all be much more focused on getting the logs out of our own eyes so our civilization states are blessed, happy, safe and prosperous places for us, and our children after us. In my mind that doesn’t mean starving our nation of energy, jobs, or food for some people across the globe, or who will live 100 years from now.
Well that’s the beauty of the whole multipolar world, it’s all their problem, because it’s their civilization. It’s none of our Anglosphere business to put our nosey noses into. We’re to all be much more focused on getting the logs out of our own eyes so our civilization states are blessed, happy, safe and prosperous places for us, and our children after us. In my mind that doesn’t mean starving our nation of energy, jobs, or food for some people across the globe, or who will live 100 years from now.
I find it hard to believe anyone cares about the US policy on abortion. And what is that policy? It’s different in every state. Same thing with gender. It may make the US look unserious on the world stage, but I really doubt it impacts foreign relations, outside its existing allies.
If the US is losing Africa, it’s because of neglect. China is forging ties through its belt and roads program, and resource investment. No one wants moralizing lectures from the US on cultural issues, but money talks.
The one exception may be climate change and net zero. I doubt African nations care at all if the US is going off the rails when it comes to energy policy. What they care about are the IMF and World Bank imposing restrictive lending policies.
India does not have a stable cultural and religious core. Christian churches get burned down there all the time. It’s got plenty of corruption and violence problems and has for a long time. You are right however about the reason these nations turn to China. I think the long term will be multipolarism.
That is that China or the US won’t be the ones guaranteeing security for trade routes and resolving regional disputes, but there will be regional partners that might band together currency wise, or security wise, with commodities rich global South nations having more weight on the worlds stage. So, long-term there won’t be as much power in a unipolar or bipolarism (US and China), but the hope is that these two giants will not dictate their own sort of rules hegemony.
This is the sort of promise the BRICS holds out. Whether it actually all works out that way in the end, who knows? We do know that the US and European globalists hate the idea. Which, I’d say they have not and are not doing themselves any favors on the worlds stage right now.
Can India shed her caste system? I feel like the internal divisions created by the castes will impede India’s ability to be a global leader.
India is the future. the largest country in the world today is a rising industrial republic with a stable cultural and religious core. China may own the 2030’s; India will own the rest of the century.
Fiona Hill is echoing ideas journalists on the right have been reporting for a while: US cultural imperialism (specifically abortion and gender ideology) is harming US interests. You hear this particularly from African diplomats whose countries have turned to China. When you ask them why, they cite the strings that come with aid: “China expects us to not get in their way on the international stage. The US expects us to change our internal laws and political structures to conform to their wishes.” They turn to China because they resent our cultural imperialism.
The US has indeed become a harmless enemy, and a treacherous friend.
What a great comment. Germany’s Nordstream pipelines come to mind.
Harmless to the enemy, indeed. But lots of collateral.
What a great comment. Germany’s Nordstream pipelines come to mind.
Harmless to the enemy, indeed. But lots of collateral.
The US has indeed become a harmless enemy, and a treacherous friend.
In the Cold War, the USA was justly regarded a force for good. But that war has been won. Since then, incompetent, ignorant military interventions have eroded that regard, and financial dominance is all that is now left. That will be quickly eroded as the East as a whole recognises that it is, together, stronger than the USA.
In the Cold War, the USA was justly regarded a force for good. But that war has been won. Since then, incompetent, ignorant military interventions have eroded that regard, and financial dominance is all that is now left. That will be quickly eroded as the East as a whole recognises that it is, together, stronger than the USA.
I subscribe to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Telegram channel.
Lavrov meets 10 different African Foreign Ministers a month, and sometimes more.
No wonder he’s a rock star when he attends the UN.
I subscribe to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Telegram channel.
Lavrov meets 10 different African Foreign Ministers a month, and sometimes more.
No wonder he’s a rock star when he attends the UN.
Have you ever noticed that some people are so good at describing the water that we’re all drowning in. Everyone goes “wow, how wise, and understanding she is”, yet, all of the true things she describes are as Bruce here noted in the context of her being a Neocon, meddler. It’s that itself that brought all these things she describes as the attitudes of the world towards America.
It’s like an abusive husband saying “my wife is tired of the bruises I put all over her face, so I will have to be more diplomatic and skillful in the way I punch her moving forward”.
One of the reasons she says the world is tired of America is our election of Donald Trump, yet he was the most non-interventionist president in recent history. It’s the corrupt globalist hedgemon supporters themselves who will not tolorate any populist nationalist politician in any nation. They’re slandered as racist because they don’t like invading migrations, and against Democracy because they don’t support the radical transhuman sexual agenda of the leftists and Biden administration.
Have you ever noticed that some people are so good at describing the water that we’re all drowning in. Everyone goes “wow, how wise, and understanding she is”, yet, all of the true things she describes are as Bruce here noted in the context of her being a Neocon, meddler. It’s that itself that brought all these things she describes as the attitudes of the world towards America.
It’s like an abusive husband saying “my wife is tired of the bruises I put all over her face, so I will have to be more diplomatic and skillful in the way I punch her moving forward”.
One of the reasons she says the world is tired of America is our election of Donald Trump, yet he was the most non-interventionist president in recent history. It’s the corrupt globalist hedgemon supporters themselves who will not tolorate any populist nationalist politician in any nation. They’re slandered as racist because they don’t like invading migrations, and against Democracy because they don’t support the radical transhuman sexual agenda of the leftists and Biden administration.
I don’ttrust Fiona Hill’s analysis. She talks a lot, very fast and fluently, so she sounds persuasive, but when one reflects on what she says it is less convincing. Here she talks about an appetite for a world without a hegemon. I don’t see that. I see a realisation that the world order is splintering into a number of hegemons, and the smaller or less powerful countries making choices about who to line up with for their own advantage. It is the world before 1990, but with China and India added into the mix.
“A world without hegemons.” Indeed. And, while we’re at it, the Age of Aquarius. If nature abhors a vacuum, even more does global geopolitics demand the presence of hegemons. We are, after all, talking about the consequences of power on human nature, not some globalist fantasy of European elites.
Elites (such as Fiona Hill) will never use the term itself, but the misguided ideals of the Age of Aquarius drive their every waking hour.
Elites (such as Fiona Hill) will never use the term itself, but the misguided ideals of the Age of Aquarius drive their every waking hour.
“A world without hegemons.” Indeed. And, while we’re at it, the Age of Aquarius. If nature abhors a vacuum, even more does global geopolitics demand the presence of hegemons. We are, after all, talking about the consequences of power on human nature, not some globalist fantasy of European elites.
I don’ttrust Fiona Hill’s analysis. She talks a lot, very fast and fluently, so she sounds persuasive, but when one reflects on what she says it is less convincing. Here she talks about an appetite for a world without a hegemon. I don’t see that. I see a realisation that the world order is splintering into a number of hegemons, and the smaller or less powerful countries making choices about who to line up with for their own advantage. It is the world before 1990, but with China and India added into the mix.
But The Pax America couldn’t last. It was the consequence of the outcome of WW2. In 1945 the US was the only player still standing. The UK had a similar period of predominace following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Make hay while the sun shines, but don’t expect it to shine on you forever. It has been a source of endless fascination to me that the UK, and now the US, beleved that its power was based on some mysterious national virtue that other countries lacked, rather than circumstance. Time teaches otherwise. The US, having lost an Empire, must find a role. Perhaps it could apply for membership of the EU.( Just my little joke.)
But The Pax America couldn’t last. It was the consequence of the outcome of WW2. In 1945 the US was the only player still standing. The UK had a similar period of predominace following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Make hay while the sun shines, but don’t expect it to shine on you forever. It has been a source of endless fascination to me that the UK, and now the US, beleved that its power was based on some mysterious national virtue that other countries lacked, rather than circumstance. Time teaches otherwise. The US, having lost an Empire, must find a role. Perhaps it could apply for membership of the EU.( Just my little joke.)
I’m not sure if Hill is right of wrong on this, but this quote was puzzling;
“…the former UN official said that non-Western elites questioned why sanctions were implemented when “no one” sanctioned the US over its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. “Why should they step up now?” questioned Hill.”
Who exactly would be sanctioning the US on anything? Like it or not, the US is still by far the most dominant economic power. No one would dream of sanctioning them. Maybe the author simply used awkward wording here.
I’m not sure if Hill is right of wrong on this, but this quote was puzzling;
“…the former UN official said that non-Western elites questioned why sanctions were implemented when “no one” sanctioned the US over its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. “Why should they step up now?” questioned Hill.”
Who exactly would be sanctioning the US on anything? Like it or not, the US is still by far the most dominant economic power. No one would dream of sanctioning them. Maybe the author simply used awkward wording here.
I thought Pax Americana began its decline with the US invasion of Iraq – for no good reason.
I thought Pax Americana began its decline with the US invasion of Iraq – for no good reason.
I love it when the bomb makers make a speech decrying the use of the bomb they spent 40 years making. It would be refreshing if, for one time in my life a politician or bureaucrat that had a major hand in making horrible decisions would just stand up and say, I’m sorry, we got that so wrong.
I love it when the bomb makers make a speech decrying the use of the bomb they spent 40 years making. It would be refreshing if, for one time in my life a politician or bureaucrat that had a major hand in making horrible decisions would just stand up and say, I’m sorry, we got that so wrong.
Another day, another UnHerd article talking down the USA.
Another day, another decline in American power and stability.
In any case, why kill the messenger ?
UnHerd is merely reporting a speech by a US insider.
…and and English born one at that.
County Durham to be precise.
County Durham to be precise.
…and and English born one at that.
Another day, another decline in American power and stability.
In any case, why kill the messenger ?
UnHerd is merely reporting a speech by a US insider.
Another day, another UnHerd article talking down the USA.