So how’s American hegemonic power doing today?

Some disturbing signs regarding the decline of American hegemony.  On the one hand, it appears that George W. Bush is actually listening to European suggestions for holding a Big Conference.  The FT's Demetri Sevastopulo explains: President George W. Bush on Saturday announced his intention to host a summit of world leaders to deal with the financial crisis that has surged across the globe this year. While the US has not been as convinced as European leaders for the need for a global summit, Mr Bush said he looked forward to convening a meeting in the “near future”. Speaking at Camp David, where he was hosting Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, Mr Bush stressed that while regulatory and institutional changes were necessary, it was “essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism”. “We must resist the dangerous temptation of economic isolationism and continue the policies of open markets that have lifted standards of living and helped millions of people escape poverty around the world.” The White House did not announce any details about when or where the summit would be held. One senior official said Mr Bush “wants participation and ideas from both developed and developing nations”. Mr Sarkozy and Mr Barroso have been pushing for a global summit to tackle the financial crisis, and the French president has also called for a complete overhaul of the international financial system.... Before arriving in the US, the European leaders won backing from Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations’ secretary general. Mr Ban suggested the UN headquarters in New York as a possible venue for the summit, but the White House was also considering other locations. Knowing what I know about the administration, my guess is that if the other locations being considered at the same level as the U.N. headquarters would be here, here, and here.  Seriously, as I blogged last week, in the good ol' days the U.S. would have completely stiff-armed this kind of suggesion from the French.  The fact that the administration is entertaining the idea means one of three things: The U.S. is in a considerably weaker position than it was a decade ago; The Bush administration is desperately trying to maintain its relevance; The Bush administration is genuinely concerned that the financial slowdown will lead to a replay of beggar-thy-neighbor policies on trade and finance.  I think it's about 65% of (a), 25% of (b), and 10% of (c).  Meanwhile, following up on last week's canary, it appears that China has rebuffed Pakistan's request fo a few billion:  The thin results from the China trip were of little surprise to Western donors. Asked about the likelihood of Pakistan winning the direct cash infusion it was seeking, a senior Chinese diplomat was reported by Western officials to have said, “We have done our due diligence, and it isn’t happening.” So it looks like Pakistan will have to go to the IMF after all.  Now you might think this is a sign that China is not as strong as people think.  I see it as a disturbing sign that China really seems to want to play the role of the United States during the early 1930's.  I don't think China's is incapable of pitching in -- I think they're unwilling to do so.  A declining hegemon with the willingness but not the capability to act as the global leader, combined with a rising power with the capability but not the willingness to act as a global leader, is a very scary combination.  I suspect that the situation is not quite as dire as the 1930's power transition, but it bothers me that I even have to go there. Developing....