Pax Americana

The term Pax Americana (Latin: "American Peace") denotes the period of relative peace in the Western world since the end of World War II in 1945, coinciding with the dominant military and economic position of the United States. It places the U.S. in the military and diplomatic role of a modern-day Roman Empire (Pax Romana). During this period, no armed conflict has emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons have been used, although the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars (such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq) and have maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas.

The term Pax Americana is used by both supporters and critics of U.S. foreign policy, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context. For example, it appears repeatedly in a September 2000 document, Rebuilding America's Defenses,pdf by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance (hyperpower) as imperialist in function and basis.

Heritage of Pax Britannica

Up until World War I, the United Kingdom had played the role of hegemon, where the balance of power was the main aim. The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. In 1905, the British Royal Navy was superior to any two navies combined in the world. It provided services such as suppression of piracy and slavery. Britain also went beyond the seas and developed and funded a universal mail system. During the managed transition of the Empire to the Commonwealth, members of the British government, such as Harold Macmillan, liked to think of Britain's relationship with America as similar to that of a pregenitor Greece to America's Rome .

During British hegemony, America developed close ties with Britain, evolving into what has become known as a "special relationship" between the two. The many commonalities shared with the two nations (such as language, or history) drew them together as allies. Many observers feel that Pax Americana was built, in part, from the pieces of the failed Pax Britannica. Throughout the years, both nations came to aid North American, Middle Eastern, and Asian powers.

Origins of the peace

The Pax Americana derives partly from the direct influence of the United States, but as significantly or more so from international institutions backed by American financing and diplomacy.

Even the so-called unipolar moment following the collapse of the Soviet Union does not compare with the advantageous position of the United States in 1945 with respect to the rest of the industrialized world. It was then responsible for half of global industrial output, held 80 percent of the world's gold reserves, and was the world's sole nuclear power. Already the largest economy in the world, the United States ended World War II with its domestic infrastructure virtually unscathed and its military forces at unprecedented strength. The catastrophic destruction of life, infrastructure, and capital during the Second World War had exhausted the imperialism of the Old World, however, victor and vanquished alike.

The U.S. invested heavily in programs such as the Marshall Plan and in the reconstruction of Japan, economically cementing defense ties that owed increasingly to the fall of the Iron Curtain and widening of the Cold War. The aegis of American backing enabled not only the rapid reindustrialization of Europe and Japan, but allowed nations to experiment with new structures such as the European Coal and Steel Community, further enhancing international cooperation.

But in the best position to take advantage of free trade, culturally indisposed to traditional empires (though not without its own colonial interests), and alarmed by the rise of communism in China and the detonation of the first Soviet atom bomb, the historically isolationist U.S. also took a keen interest in developing multilateral institutions which would maintain a favorable world order among them.

• International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), part of the Bretton Woods system of international financial management, including until the early 1970s a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a collective security agreement of Atlantic powers, the mutual defense treaties with Japan and South Korea, and to a far lesser extent the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). With the fall of the Iron Curtain and outbreak of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained significant contingents of armed forces in Europe and East Asia.
• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a protocol for normalization and reduction of trade tariffs.
• United Nations, but most particularly the veto power of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Some critics maintain that these programs and organizations are in effect instruments of American power or state policy, or are mismanaged and have deleterious effects on certain nations. Others express resentment at their countries' dependence on U.S. military protection, due to disagreements with U.S. policy or the presence of U.S. forces themselves. The ability of the U.S. to act as "the world's policeman" is constrained further by its own citizens' historic aversion to foreign wars. Nevertheless, the institutions behind the Pax Americana have persisted into the early 21st century.

Pax Americana as imperialism

The long history of U.S. isolationism subsided only after major shocks associated with the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II, the Cold War, and various post-Cold War conflicts with non-state actors. Critics such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky argue that the United States has sought, or has found itself forced into, a quasi-imperialist role by its status as one of the world's superpowers. However, the term "isolationist" in this context applies to the global stage; the United States has never been isolationist with respect to the Western Hemisphere, which it has considered to fall within its sphere of influence, and has a long history of military intervention within this region of the world, in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.

The fiercest debates between imperialist and isolationist factions occurred at the end of the 19th century. At that time, the imperialist faction favored U.S. control of Hawaii and the Philippines. Those who favored traditional American policies of avoiding foreign entanglements included Samuel Gompers and Andrew Carnegie. At that time, "imperial" was used as a positive term by supporters and as a negative term by opponents. When Theodore Roosevelt became President following the assassination of William McKinley in 1900, Roosevelt accelerated McKinley's U.S. foreign policy first major shift away from isolationism towards a policy of global foreign intervention.

See also

• Pax Britannica
• Pax Europeana
• Pax Sinica
• Pax Romana
• Pax Mongolica
• Pax Ottomania
• Bretton Woods system
• Bush Doctrine
• Monroe Doctrine
• Project for the New American Century
• Truman Doctrine

External links

• "Pax Americana vs. Pax Britannica", Herbert London January 8, 2004
• "The Dangers and Costs of Pax Americana (by Richard M. Ebeling), December 2002
• "Imagining the Pax Americana", (by Graham Barrett), The Age, April 17, 2003
• "Pax Americana" - article from SourceWatch
• "Pax Americana is over" (by Immanuel Wallerstein)
• The American Empire: Pax Americana or Pox Americana? (a September 2004 Monthly Review article by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney)
• "U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger" by Richard B. Du Boff
• "A Bush vision of Pax Americana" By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor