Tumultuous?

This phrase in a New York Times article struck me: "At its core, the fight about whether Wolfowitz should stay at the bank is a debate about Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world."  In particular the word tumultuous.

Setting aside the fact that it's a perfectly stereotypical New York Times color commentary word, I'd say it's reasonably accurate to describe the relationship as tumultuous ("marked by unrest or disturbance," "violently disturbed or agitated," "confused," etc).  And why is that?

The power relationships that exist in the world dictate a particular mode of behavior from international diplomats toward the United States and its governing establishment, no matter what the latter might do.  There's a simple calculus involved: the United States is the world's sole superpower, so no matter what outrage it's currently inflicting on the world it must ultimately receive the deference that power accords it.  Iraq, Iran, Kyoto, Bolton at the United Nations, Wolfowitz at the World Bank...every affront to rationality and common decency must eventually be accepted and even embraced, despite whatever short-term opposition it may generate.  International diplomats and bureaucrats may bridle, but they know that ultimately they have no choice but to come back for the next round of abuse.

So the tumult results because the rest of the world knows that it has little choice but to kiss George Bush's ass fulsomely and repeatedly--but every time they do it, he responds with yet another blast of explosive diarrhea.