Twenty-five years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the world is living with a paradox that would have been difficult to imagine in the aftermath of that terrible day.
The United States emerged determined to defend international security and preserve an order of which it saw itself as the principal guarantor. Today, however, many countries increasingly view Washington’s policies as a source of uncertainty and disruption.
The change has been gradual, shaped by decisions taken by successive administrations. The immediate response to 9/11 was understandable: Washington sought to dismantle terrorist networks and prevent another attack.
Yet the campaign soon expanded beyond counterterrorism. Afghanistan became a prolonged military undertaking, while the 2003 invasion of Iraq opened another chapter of intervention with consequences extended far beyond its original objectives.
The deeper issue
was the expanding definition of security threats and the readiness to employ
military power where international consensus was contested. The post-9/11 period
consequently altered expectations about preventive action and the use of force.
It also exposed the difficulty of translating overwhelming military superiority
into lasting political stability.
Iraq remains a defining illustration. The arguments used to justify the invasion generated intense international disagreement, while the aftermath produced years of instability.
The experience demonstrated that removing a government is
considerably easier than constructing a durable political settlement. It also weakened
confidence in Washington’s judgement and stewardship of the international
system.
Afghanistan offered another powerful lesson. After two decades of military engagement, the American withdrawal in 2021 revealed the limitations of pursuing political outcomes principally through military means. It reinforced a broader question: can global stability depend so heavily on the choices of one dominant power?
That question has become more relevant because American influence now extends beyond the battlefield. Economic policy has increasingly become an instrument of strategic competition.
Sanctions, financial restrictions, export controls and technology measures provide Washington with substantial leverage, but their expanding use has encouraged other countries to diversify their economic relationships and consider alternatives.
For the Global South, this evolution carries particular significance. Developing countries have long operated within institutions, markets and financial arrangements shaped largely by Western powers. Increasingly, governments across Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are seeking greater strategic flexibility.
Their objective is not necessarily to abandon established partnerships, but to expand their choices and avoid excessive dependence on any single centre of power.
The changing approach to international trade has reinforced this trend. The United States was once among the strongest advocates of trade liberalisation and economic integration.
Today, tariffs, industrial policy, supply chain security and restrictions on strategic goods occupy a much larger place in its economic agenda. Protecting critical industries is legitimate, but abrupt policy shifts by the world’s largest economy can have consequences far beyond American borders.
For smaller economies, decisions made in Washington can influence investment, commodity prices, currencies, employment and development planning.
This creates uncertainty when many developing countries are already dealing with debt pressures, climate challenges, food insecurity and uneven recovery.
The larger concern is the credibility of the international system itself. Global rules derive legitimacy from consistency. When powerful countries appear to apply principles selectively, confidence in multilateral institutions suffers. International law, trade arrangements and diplomatic mechanisms become less persuasive when national interests repeatedly override common standards.
At the same time, other centres of influence are becoming more prominent. New partnerships, regional organisations and emerging groupings are giving countries additional avenues for diplomacy, trade and development.
The appeal of a multipolar system does not necessarily represent rejection of the West. It reflects a wider desire for representation, choice and a stronger voice in decisions affecting the international community.
For Africa, this landscape presents both possibilities and challenges. African states are primarily concerned with development, infrastructure, industrialisation, technology, energy, trade and peace.
A more competitive international environment can provide greater bargaining space and access to diverse partners. Yet geopolitical fragmentation can also expose vulnerable economies to pressure from competing powers.
None of this means American power has disappeared. The United States remains a formidable military, economic, technological and diplomatic force. The more consequential question is whether it can convert that power into durable influence through confidence rather than uncertainty.
Twenty-five years after 9/11, the debate therefore is no longer simply about whether America remains powerful. It is about what kind of leadership the world expects from a superpower.
Influence is sustained not only by military capacity or economic
weight, but also by credibility, consistency, consultation and respect for
institutions.
American leadership will not be measured by its ability to disrupt the system, but its capacity to build an order in which nations participate with confidence. Leadership will make cooperation more attractive than confrontation.
