For most of its existence as the leading global civilisation, the West has been strong in peace as well as in war. It had the power and the leadership to win wars and to restore and keep the peace.
But this is no longer the case, leaving the prospects of an orderly and stable international relations system in great doubt.
The ridiculous situation today is that world peace and prosperity are held hostage by a bunch of tin-pot dictators; self-appointed, misguided radicals; terrorists; and feeble political clowns.
In Eastern Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin lays down his rules like a medieval potentate, outwitting and humiliating the West strategically and tactically. In the Middle East, Syria and Iran, with the help of Russia, ignore Western "red lines"; North Korea has been allowed to bring the world to the brink of nuclear disaster; international terrorism routinely disrupts normal life in Europe and the US; andunder Washington's nose, Venezuela has becomea ruthless dictatorship.In most of these cases the US must bear the brunt, but falls far short of expectations.
Its main problem is that, while its military might is unassailable, its power of deterrence is lagging far behind.
It lacks the credibility expected from the world's primary power. Even Barack Obama's idealist pacifism could not turn around the US's loss of global clout and respect.
Ideally, military power could be described as "a show of force in order not to use it". However, in the US's case, this truism has been turned on its head. Putin, North Korea's Kim Jong-un, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro would probably describe the US as a toothless bulldog. Putin proved this by using military force, defying the West with impunity.
Not even "mighty" America would dare to do the same these days, even if the stakes were high - as in the case of North Korea and Venezuela. Or so it seemed until Donald Trump came on the scene, but it is far from sure that he can turn the tide.
The irony is that the US is the creator of its own fate. The rot set in before and after the Cold War.
Its war efforts in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were catastrophic failures. After the Cold War, in spite of the implosion of its main adversary, the Soviet Union, it fell short of political leadership, and the diplomatic and strategic nous to build a global system based on universal liberal values.
A notable failure was "losing" Russia, and failing to prevent it returning to authoritarianism and anti-Western policies.
The decline of US primacy and exceptionalism left a wide gap for Trump, a loose cannon and rabble-rouser. Boasting of his nuclear arsenal in juvenile fashion is unpresidential, and so is threatening North Korea - as in "best not make not any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen".His words, bordering on a declaration of war, terrified the world. A nuclear confrontation seemed inevitable as Kim dismissed Trump's threats, warning that North Korea would "pre-emptively annihilate" any threat by "mobilising all kinds of strike means, including nuclear ones".
The consensus among security experts, including US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, is thatalthough the threat of nuclear engagement is serious, it would not get to that point. However, with two unpredictable and irrational leaders like Trump and Kim, anything is possible. Kimcontinuing to launch missiles across South Korea and Japan into the Pacific is testing the limits of diplomatic prudence.
Short of armed confrontation, it is impossible for the US to solve the problem on its own.
The best way forward for Trump is to find allies, multilateralise the issue and work with them to "normalise" the situation. The UN Security Council, with all five permanent members acquiescing, imposed stringent sanctions on Pyongyang, albeit by a long way not tough enough.
While Trump must assume the lion's share of handling the crisis, it must be remembered that the North Korean-Stalinist dynasty is not a US creation. Since the start of the Cold War, this evil regime has been aided, abetted and nurtured by China and Russia: without Chinese and Russian help, North Korea could never have become what it is, never mind becoming nuclear. They should share the blame for allowing this to happen, and bear the responsibility for getting rid of it.
Trump's mistake was to become isolated and portrayed as the villain of the piece. He is now desperate to find an honorable outcome.
If he is rational, Kim should realise this is a conflict he can never win. In real political terms, North Korea is puny. Blackmailing the world with a nuclear threat defies all logic. As noted in Der Spiegel: "It is ironic that a country with a tiny economy and a gross domestic product equivalent to only about half the amount Americans spend on their pets is capable of developing nuclear-bomb-equipped long-range missiles."
It is hard to believe Kim would give up his only card in the confrontation: his nuclear arsenal. This would mean the end of his leadership, but would also ignite a nuclear war. For Trump, too, the stakes are extremely high. And as things stand, a win-win outcome seems impossible without he or Kim losing face. Patient diplomacy is the only way to buy time and hope for the best.
Looking at the bigger picture, the US should use the crisis to engage in serious introspection about the quality of its leadership, diplomacy and aspirations. Presently it lacks what it takes to play the role of a major global power.
The wide discrepancy between its awesome military power and its international goal achievements could develop into a recipe for disaster. Desperate leaders might be tempted to exploit this discrepancy to advance their own agendas.
Olivier is a former South African ambassador. He is now with the department of political sciences at the University of Pretoria...