On US media, these days, a study is being made about a possible international position or world part going to be reserved for the US in the new 21st century.

On January 10, "Christian Science Monitor" in the US carried an article by Secretary-general of International Democratic Organizations Strauss. With his article titled as "Another 'American Century'?" the author holds that "The term 'American Century' is by itself misleading even though the 20th century might not be 'American' but an 'Atlantic' century". In his article, Strauss also said that with the rise of China and coming into being of a unified Europe the US has even all the more found its strength unequal to its will to have an ambitious international role to be assigned in the new century.

Carried on "Los Angeles Times" on January 9 there was also an article by Kissinger titled "How Has the US Abused Its Control Role Over the World?" In Kissinger's words, the US hasn't still set upon a time old Rome Empire and Great Britain had ever had in their golden years. This is because the US has reacted to world eventualities in an impromptu way and has always succumbed to various pressure forces instead of actual governance of rule on its own at home, he said.

But from a study of major world events in the second half of the 20th century inquiries will naturally be made into some aspects about the so-called "American Century" and the international role and doings of such a world power as the US.

Known to the intervening years from 1945 to 1990 was a period torn by "Cold War". The US should be regarded as a country militarily badly trounced in this period. Following its failure in the Korean War, it further met a crushing defeat in Vietnam. There was also the debacle it had met on the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Following a fundamental change of things in East European countries the erstwhile powerful Soviet Union had also undergone a process of complete disintegration in its "Cold War" confrontation with the US. The US may lay claim to these as its "success" in international politics. But these had nothing to do with the US but institutional defects or drawbacks innate in ruling regimes of those countries at the time.

Since the 90s on, the US has all been out for two regional wars far away from its territory. One is in Iraqi and the other in the Union of Yugoslavia. Militarily speaking, the US must be an apparent winner. But in terms of politics, no solutions to problems have been found but a whole series of ill effects or aftermath created This can by no means be said a complete "success" on the part of the US.

Moreover, nothing is praiseworthy of US "success" from a moral sense and its creditability as a world power when talking about its "stand" and many assurances for an orderly and righteous world for the world people. A thing undeniable in this regard is the magalomania and opinionatedness on the part of the US in bringing disaster and sowing wide seeds of ill feeling and hatred among the peoples throughout the world. Another accursed aspect is a double standard that has long been practiced by the US in handling international affairs, thereby a great loss to the creditability of "American values".

With the opinionatedness there is also the narrow mindedness as a synonym of US diplomacy in protecting its much vaunted "American interest" incomparable to its international status as a world power. This inevitably leads to a lot of hateful nasty deeds as "encirclement", "containment", "fire fighting" and what not as its last resort in handling international affairs, hence a "bruised and battered physique" of the US, without doubt.

When speaking about alignment of international forces, though a world power, it still finds itself in a position unable to cope with a major international event single-handedly on its own. It has likewise to bring in some other accomplices or quisling forces for some ambitious schemes or plans it has mapped.

Summarily speaking, "American Century" may be likened to a "fine" epithet for the US, outwardly agreeable at least. But by this is simply meant a backbreaking load under which the US has to belabor. It goes saying the US is not a country to resign itself easily to such a role. It still wants to support such an unbearable weight irrespective of a limp physique it has got. This is because of its innate hegemonic nature, it must follow its course head on to have its "American Century" epithet on and off, in a Hemlet way.