The United States may have backed down after using its veto power to kill a Security Council resolution extending peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, but the fallouts of that decision will continue to arouse debates as well as suspicions. The world has now become aware, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the U.S. attaches sometimes impossible conditions on its international roles, and is ready to jeopardize efforts to maintain peace if these conditions are questioned or refused.

The international community still waivers in its position in the face of Washington’s insistence on being excused from its international obligations. The world is required to take a principled stand and ask Washington to decide on one of two alternatives: to go into isolation or work within the international framework and abide by its norms.

As the deadline for a renewal of the mandate for the international peace-keeping force in Bosnia approached, it became clear that the U.S. had put itself in a difficult position with regards to another related development: the coming into force of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on July 1. Washington has been working against the ICC ever since the Rome Statute regulating its work was declared four years ago. The Court is empowered to try perpetrators of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, something the U.S. loathes without reservation. Although the initial protocols were produced with the participation of the U.S., President Clinton started to waiver in his position, paving the way for President Bush to withdraw formally from the ICC this year. Washington continues to argue that it cannot allow its soldiers to be prosecuted by groups or individuals who may be politically motivated.

Over the past few years, the U.S. has seen its policing role provoke worldwide fears that American personnel could be made to pay a heavy price for what they do. Advocates of the ICC have attempted in vain to calm American fears by pointing out that the ICC would only swing into action in extreme cases and after local courts fail to act. In that regard, the U.S. was dealt a blow last week when one of its AC-130 military aircraft opened fire on a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing more than forty people and injuring over a hundred. It has so far failed to provide a satisfactory justification for this “tragic error,” while it remains embattled on both the ICC and the Bosnian fronts.

This, however, is not the only area of contention between the U.S. and its European allies. The E.U. countries are likely to impose sanctions against the U.S. if it fails to rescind its earlier decision to levy heavy taxes on steel imports. A feeling of outrage among European steel exporters is feeding the anti-U.S. lobbies as a way out of this dilemma is sought. The decision by the U.S. government to subsidize the farming industry with more than $30 billion over the next decade has also led to sharp exchanges between the two sides of the Atlantic. A third area of conflict is the American decision to heavily tax foreign companies with subsidiaries in the U.S. The E.U., in line with other countries, has expressed outrage over the U.S. decision last year to withdraw from the Kyoto anti-pollution agreement. Washington argued that the agreement would harm its economic interests, and took a unilateral decision to withdraw. Environmentalists see this as evidence of guilt on the part of the United States. On the political front, American pro-Israeli policies continue to create a wedge between the U.S. and the E.U. The Europeans openly defied Washington when it called on the Palestinians to replace Yasser Arafat by declaring their readiness to deal with him as long as the Palestinians consider him their leader. It was, they argued, not for the U.S. to decide who should lead other people. They had earlier expressed their unease at the Missile Defense System proposed last year by President Bush. The annulment of the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty caused an international uproar, especially among the anti-nuclear lobbies.

These difference, however, do not at the moment represent a serious rift between the U.S. and the E.U. The NATO allies are working together on new policies to expand the organization eastward, much to Russia’s displeasure. But Moscow’s opposition has been softened by its admission as a full member into the G8, and President Putin was welcomed to last week’s Madrid summit as an equal partner. The European Union itself is considering a new expansion of its membership. In a few years, it is likely to be comprised of almost all other European countries, except for Russia and Turkey. Washington is uneasy about these plans, but can do little to influence them. It is being accused of unilateralism, especially in its declared war on terrorism. Many people are calling for a United Nations role in this war, but the U.S. has consistently rejected these proposals. The continued detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in inhumane conditions and outside the remit of the United Nations is likely to cause friction between the U.S. and the E.U. The British government is now under judicial pressure to protect its citizens who are being held by the U.S. under the emergency laws it introduced in the wake of the Afghanistan crisis. It is not clear what form of a showdown between the two sides of the Atlantic will take place, but what is certain is that the U.S. will increasingly come under international pressure to respect international laws and conventions regulating the conduct of war and the treatment of prisoners of war.

The U.S. is now acting in its capacity as an unchallengeable world power, but it will gradually come to see how the sensitivities of its own allies will make such an approach impossible to continue. The persistence of the Bush administration in exploiting the veto power in the Security Council is likely to cause more problems for Washington. In a world that is becoming more complex and dangerous, the U.S. cannot act in isolation from the world community. Military power has its limits, and the unfinished business in Afghanistan is testimony to this. Bin Laden and many of his supporters have survived the U.S. onslaught, and are likely to threaten its interests worldwide. The recent incident at Los Angeles airport, in which a gunman killed two Israelis before being shot by Israeli security guards, has ensured the heightened state of alert in the United States will continue. The U.S. is well advised to come to terms with the world, abandon its anti-Muslim policies, revise its pro-Israeli stands and listen to the international community around them. Without so doing, Washington is likely to become more isolated and much reviled.