The US is desperately trying to retain its global hegemony.
The American empire’s economic and political overstretching is adding significant pressure on peripheral countries designated to serve US imperialist interests.
Examining developments in the foreign policies of Australia, Canada, Britain and Sweden, it appears that these peripheral states have miscalculated the durability of US hegemony and its longevity.
Take the case of Australia and Papua New Guinea.
On January 12, leaders of the two neighbouring countries announced that they are negotiating a security treaty that will be signed in June.
This is aimed supposedly at countering China’s growing regional influence.
Last September, Australia, the US and Britain announced a new trilateral security alliance with emphasis on the fact that Australia will be sold submarines which would carry nuclear weapons.
Australia is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that prohibits the spread of nuclear weapons, but it seems when US empire’s interests are involved, any law or treaty can be discarded to suit Washington’s ambitions.
Even if one were to accept Australia’s security concerns at face value, how will Papua New Guinea’s three-thousand-man army bolster Australia’s stance against China from a “security” angle is hard to see.
Australia has been involved in Papua New Guinea since the tiny South Pacific Island gained independence in 1975.
If Australian investment, through which Canberra camouflages its meddling in the country were directed at actual development, more than half of Papua New Guinea’s population would not still be living in poverty.
Recently Canada has also been making announcements which hint at Ottawa’s meddling beyond its borders, namely in Haiti.
Ottawa’s disruptive meddling in Haiti is not going unnoticed among Canadians.
Considering the rising level of poverty in Canada, people have expressed deep concern and want to see Canadian resources utilized at home.
While experiencing colossal internal problems from healthcare to the economy, Britain has also intensified its hostile rhetoric against Islamic Iran by meddling in its internal affairs.
Sweden’s enthusiastic drive to join NATO is meant to appeal to the Washington-crafted stance on Russia rather than internal Swedish dynamics.
Often seen as a benchmark of how to manage a country properly, Sweden has witnessed a significant increase in bankruptcies recently.
The above developments hint at circumstances where peripheral western states are becoming too invested in schemes aimed at securing the US-centric global order rather than improving the condition of their own peoples.
Some years ago, these peripheral states could justify the economic costs of their foreign policy adventurism.
Today, their economies neither have the stamina nor the status to sell such adventurism to their populations as justified state policy.
Even though the economic strength of western peripheral states will continue to decline, Washington’s pressure on them to push forward with the US-centric agenda is unlikely decrease.
Empires in decline become particularly vicious.
This situation will likely create bigger rifts between the US and its traditional allies.
This can already be observed to a certain degree in the relationship between France and the US on how to proceed with the war in Ukraine.
Cracks with Germany are also beginning to appear.
The sooner the western countries recalibrate their policies and attitudes in accordance with the realities of a multipolar order, the sooner global tensions will abate.
This will benefit everyone and not serve merely the whims of a dying empire.