Thus saith Vice President Joe Biden in his big speech this weekend at the Munich Security Conference, which was taken as the latest preview of Obama Administration foreign policy.

If we take Biden's words literally and universally -- which might be a mistake -- it would be a dramatic, revolutionary statement for a U.S. administration to renounce and reject spheres of influence.

Since at least the 1823 announcement of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States has always, so far as I know, insisted that the world respect its sphere of influence, first in the Americas, then, during the Cold War, in nearly the whole non-communist world and most recently in many of the oil-rich areas of the Middle East.

There is something fundamentally arrogant about any nation declaring that any territory outside of its own borders, is part of its "sphere of influence." And it is no longer fashionable to make the claim explicit. But major powers have always operated on the basis of spheres of influence. I suspect the arrogance of it is most clearly perceived within those nations lacking the power to claim of a sphere of influence.

Anyway, as I hinted above, I'm probably taking VP Biden too literally. On its face, his statement really is quite universal. "We will not — will not — recognize any nation having a sphere of influence" plainly means we're against the things anywhere by anyone. But surely we're supposed to be kind enough (or cynical enough, or sufficiently blinded by American exceptionalism) to read it as a rejection of other nations -- most specifically Russia -- having spheres of influence, and to understand that the one superpower in a one-superpower world is an exception to an otherwise fine universal principle.

In fact, although my jaw dropped for a moment when I read the Biden "no spheres" statement, most of the early commentary took it the way it was likely intended. A Google search of the blogosphere for pieces that emphasized the statement were impressive in their unanimity that what Biden was "no sphere of influence for Russia."

To be sure, Biden's statement occurred in the Russia sectioni of his speech, and was really a statement that the United States would not recognize the independence of Abkhazia or Southern Ossetia, two regions of the former Soviet republic of Georgia that have broken away with Russian support.

If you want to see it in full context, it went like this:

Biden: "We will not agree with Russia on everything.  For example, the United States will not -- will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.  We will not -- will not -- recognize any nation having a sphere of influence.  It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances."

The speech in general was taken, and well received as an announcement of a kinder, gentler new direction in  U.S. foreign policy, a break from Bushism. Actually, although there were sentences in it that former Pres. Bush would not have said (we are willing to talk to Iran), most of the general principles (we need the world's cooperation, we'll use force only as a last resort, our foreign policy will be the embodiment of America's deepest values, etc) are sentiments that Bush would have, and often did express on such occasions. It's just that Bush didn't really mean them in any way that was limiting on the unstated right of the United States to do whatever its leader believes to be in its "interests" within its sphere of influence, which turns out to be most of the world.

So do the Obamians actually mean these things? We'll see, but won't know for a while.

Here's a full text of the Biden speech, as prepared. You may note that Biden added the extra emphasis via repetition "we will not -- will not -- " only as he delivered the text.

What think?