From Wikipedia:
The modern Pax Americana era is cited by both supporters and critics of the United States foreign policy after the Second World War. Many commentators and critics focus on American policies from 1992 to the present, 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, by the Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance and hyperpower as imperialist in function and basis…
The modern Pax Americana may be seen as similar to the period of peace in Rome, Pax Romana. In both situations, the period of peace was ‘relative peace’. During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for both Western and Roman civilizations. It is important to note that during these periods, and most other times of relative tranquility, the peace that is referred to does not mean complete peace. Rather, it simply means that the civilization prospered in their military, agriculture, trade, and manufacturing.
Farewell to all that?
Financially, the U.S. has been responsible for managing the global economy by acting as the market and lender of last resort. But as President Obama acknowledged at the London G-20 meeting in April, the U.S. is no longer able to play this role, and the world increasingly is looking to China (and India and other emerging market states) to be the locomotives of global recovery. Going forward, the fiscal crisis will mean that Washington cannot discharge its military functions as a hegemon either, because it can no longer maintain the power edge that has allowed it to keep the ambitions of the emerging great powers in check. The entire fabric of world order that the United States established after 1945 — the Pax Americana — rested on the foundation of U.S. military and economic preponderance. Remove the foundation and the structure crumbles. The decline of American power means the end of U.S. dominance in world politics and the beginning of the transition to a new constellation of world powers…
The coming era of de-globalization will be defined by rising nationalism and mercantilism, geopolitical instability and great power competition. In other words, having enjoyed a long holiday from history under the Pax Americana, international politics will be headed back to the future.
CDR Salamander wonders whether that was always the point. Interesting times.
Both left and right ridicule Pat Buchanan as an isolationist (the left, of course adds a few other things). Yet here the left is, trying to take us in an “isolationist” direction, but simply so they can destroy defense and take the money it normally gets. That’s all it really boils down to. ‘Mander is right about that.
This is a most distressing occurance. It would appear that the forces of chaos have won. Edmund Burke was right, and the left have won, because too few people are willing to stop the evil. I wish I could just retire to by Badger Burrow, and slam the blast door, but alas, as a Badger, I have to at least try and slow the end down.
When the world is without a clearly acknowledged hegemon, a very destructive war results.
WWI was a war where Germany challenged England for the role but both countries were too damaged to live up to it in the 20′s. The US should have stepped up to the role but Wilson and an isolationist Congress refused.
The result was that Germany was sold on the notion that it could make another stab at it under Hitler. Japan had visions of a regional hegemony based on fantasy. WWII was the result with the US finally taking on the role but with Russia playing the new challenger.
Most time “world hegemon” is a great role but if you play too much the nice guy, freeloaders sap your strength while exploiting the world peace that the hegemon pays for.
My prediction? Obama is serious about stepping back but with tragic results of historic proportions. China and India neither seem prepared for additional responsibilities. At least France is making noises about Obama’s plans.
If we make it to 2010 and make reasonable efforts to re-establish our hegemony, we will have to create institutions that spread the burdens more equably amongst those that reap the rewards of global free trade and safety from predators.
Good points, but I think the most likely outcome is that the Russians, Chinese, and several Middle Eastern countries try to expand their power. And come into conflict with the United States. Either directly or indirectly. It’s a recipe for war.
And I don’t see us in a position to really respond until 2015. The Republicans can take the House in 2010 (I think the Senate is untakeable due to the distribution of the seats up for election), but that is merely a measure to keep things from getting worse. We don’t start to get better until after the 2012 election…and by then, things are likely to take three years to turn around. Even Reagan needed three years before things started to get much better.
Financing it? I think the most equitable method would be a global tarriff, but it’s unlikely. But the next time we go overseas, we need to stop nation-building and just plain hit hard militarily – and then follow up with a stiff indemnity.
Mike M, Whitehall/
“Nature abhors a vacuum” is true not only in the scientific world but in the political one as well. Anyone that thinks things are going to remain status quo (whatever THAT is) let alone improve upon our withdrawal from current commitments or reduction/shrinkage in our forward “footprint” around the world–military or otherwise–is in for the proverbial rude awakening. The only question in my mind is whether or not Obama will put us too far behind the power curve to recover before we rid ourselves of this maleovent fool.
Ah yes, if it were only so simple as that ‘O-5 Amphibian’ blogger believes:
‘Leftists” want a smaller US military.
Our President is a ‘Leftist’.
Ergo, our Leftist President creates an untenable economic situation so he can downsize the US military. (Machiavellian, ain’t it? Too bad it’s specious.)
Never mind that our current economic malaise has been building steadily for decades, and certainly not within the past eight months of Obama.
Indeed President Obama inherited the weak dollar, the massive trade deficits, the huge costs and spiraling debt of two on-going wars, budget deficits, burgeoning national debt, loss of World respect and relative world economic strength.
Already in a recession and staring into the abyss of a depression to rival the Great Depression, the only option the new Administration had was to pump massive amounts of money into the system. The immediate risk was massive deflation, not inflation, and the action thankfully avoided a severe depression. Yes the risk of future inflation is real, but a risk far better than certain depression. And more easily manageable. (So no, I don’t think he did it so he could reduce the military. Shesh!)
So is this the end of Pax Americana and US World hegemony (aka Empire)? Possibly, but not immediately. And not by Obama’s hands. To blame him ignores half a century of prelude.
To maintain our status quo does not depend upon our military as much as it does rehabilitating our nation’s economy. Even with the necessary reductions in defense spending it will be decades even for China to come anywhere near our military might, and we still have enough nukes to prevent them from direct military action against us. No, our glaring vulnerability is not a reduced military; it is a reduced economy.
Thanks Flit, always nice to have a BHO and Democratic/Socialist/Marxist Party apologist handy.
It was leftists like Obama that have given us the weak dollar and the welfare state that is choking us to death. The Reps have some responsibility here as they have also voted to tax, spend,and elect, but FDR pioneered it. Both parties have ignored the constitution since, with some notable exceptions. Obama is just finishing the job started by FDR and his associated Dem Congresscritters.
Obama could back off and try to rebuild, but that involves a type of sacrifice overgrown children like him have no understanding of. Just like you Flit.
By the by, I do agree with your position on Iraq, but for very different reasons. I also know that we are in a situation that we can’t simply cut and run from as the Idiots on the left managed in 1975 with Vietnam when they violated a treaty and refused air support to the Vietnamese. The consequences for us as a country will be far more grave this time around. Because Obama won’t fight, and the world now realizes it, the consequences are already beginning to take shape.
Flit:
Re, “(aka Empire):”
My only question is, what empire? Do I see American centurions walking about, forcing the local barbarians to carry their armor one mile? Do I see the columns of footsoldiers, all marching along behind the guidon carrying the “SPQR,” demanding allegiance to the Caesar? Do I see the citizens of the conquered being forced to pay tribute to the “people and senate of Washington, DC?”
NO.
I grow so incredibly weary of the leftists throwing around the “American imperialist pig” epithet (yes, I realize you didn’t say that–you only said “empire”), it makes my head want to explode. Please listen carefully:
THE.
UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
IS
NOT–repeat NOT.
an EMPIRE.
We never were. And we aren’t now.
What is so difficult about that concept? Why cannot the left comprehend simple definitions, and obvious examples?
Don’t bother answering. I already know the tripe that is routinely spilled out, claiming to be academic in nature. It’s just a bunch of leftist BS.
Sigh.
While not exactly synonymous, hegemony and empire are very close in meaning. And US imperialism is recognized, accepted and praised by many on the Right as well as the neoconservatives.
Max Boot – hardly a lefty – willingly uses the term “imperialism” to describe US policy.
Link
Even Charles Krautenhamer tells us, “People are now coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire.’” Mark Styen quoted above also accepts the US as an empire, albeit a benevolent one. (Sort of like Kipling’s The White Man’s Burden I suppose.)
And Rome was hardly the only empire. There have been very many, but are no longer. They are difficult if not impossible to sustain indefinitely.
Most here admire the British and their former empire. Noted British historian, Niall Ferguson believes our US Empire to be much more closely related to the former British Empire than the Roman.
Of course having military bases in over 40 countries worldwide certainly gives one indication of “empire.”
All for now.
Nero ruled from AD54 to AD68, 14 years in total, yet he is the Caesar that we most remember. Such is the mark some men leave on their countries and on history.
Rome’s empire actually started with the Roman Republic for about 500 years, followed by the Empire years from the rise of Augustus until about 400AD, when the Western Empire fell. The remaining Eastern empire, aka the Byzantine Empire, stuck around for another thousand years until they were overrun by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
So that, let’s see, 1453 + 500, call that almost 2000 years worth of Empire.
We’ve been at it, what, 70? Folks are getting pretty uptight given we’re just getting *started*!
– Max
MaxD,
I submit the most famous Caesar would not be Nero (interesting choice though, given current politics) but rather Julius Caesar. Or perhaps Caesar Augustus (Octavian).
Also you would likely agree that there is a difference between the “fall” of an empire, and its “decline.”
Regarding your math on the Roman Empire, c’mon. You can’t fool an old fool.
The early Republic was hardly an empire. And when Diocletian and later Constantine split the old and failing empire, although it retained the name, it was hardly the same empire. The Byzantine Empire may indeed have lasted a thousand years, but the old Roman Empire of the west suffered the Dark ages and ravages of invaders for most of those thousand years.
Empires come and go. There is no timetable. Some last longer, some don’t. But they all have eventually failed. They usually fail mostly from within, rather than from an outside enemy. It would be better for us if our current empire continued. But circumstances are building against that. Thankfully, there are many countries that are exceptionally successful, without being imperial. May we be one.
Here is a quickie link on “empires” and their longevity:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25992.html
Cheers
I’d counter your thoughts on Nero vs Augustus or Julius by pointing out that the latter two are mentioned in the Bible and in a couple of rather popular plays by some Scottish guy who liked Iambic Pentameter. Nero, on the other hand, has gone down in history only with the epitaph that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Now please, the Bible, Christmas specials on TV, Shakespeare in the Park, and yet how many still know of Nero to this day for fiddling while Rome burned? I’d opine that given a wash on other outside references Nero is the one we think of.
And yes, the early republic wasn’t an empire. Rome actually spent most of its early years marching up the road to another city, making war, getting beat, and heading back home. But they kept at it. They were not after more ground for crops or a few barbarians for the circus, they honestly believed (I think) in the days of the early republic that expansion and empire were their manifest destiny.
Still, in spite of a few setbacks, 2000 years is a pretty good record. Heck, even the 1000 years of the Byzantine empire is nothing to sneeze at. I don’t think it takes anything away from either the USA or the Romans when I note we’ve been a world power for only 70 years. Anybody who calls us an empire might do well to look up what an actual empire was capable of and how long it lasted.
– Max
Max, the Republic actually became an empire before Julius Caesar. The abbreviation SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus – The Senate and Roman People) had deep meaning even during the reign of Augustus (who ruled when Christ was born), and is generally recognized as the first Roman Emperor. The forms of the Republic lasted until Alaric deposed the last Emperor, and the Emperor had to defer to the Senate on many things even in Hadrian’s rule. By the time of Diocletian, the Republic was a distant memory and the Senate almost a museum piece.
The US does have some forms of Empire, but it’s economic. The US was an imperial power for s very short period, beginning with the Spanish-American war, and ending in 1946 when the Philippines being granted independence. While we have some overseas possessions, they are voluntary on the part of their populations.
Spare me the drag of debunking the Puerto Rico nonsense. When we talk of setting them on their own the population protests. They are quite happy with sitting down there drawing their welfare checks. There is a very small number who want to be independent, and a very small number who want to be a state. The deal they have as a commonwealth is what they want.