Pax Americana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of U.S. expansion and influence
Foreign policy
Military history
List of military actions
List of bases
Manifest Destiny
Non-interventionism
Overseas expansion
Overseas interventions
Pax Americana
Territorial changes
view • talk • edit

Pax Americana^[1][2][3] (Latin: "American Peace") is an appellation applied to the historical concept of relative liberal peace in the Western hemisphere and, later, the Western world, resulting from the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States of America starting around the turn of the 20th century. Although the term finds its primary utility in the latter half of the 20th Century, it has been used in various places and eras, such as the post United States Civil War Era in North America^[4] and globally during the time between the Great World Wars.^[2]

Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations concerning the peace established after the end of World War II in 1945. In this modern sense, the term has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. The term derives from and is inspired by the Pax Romana of the Roman empire and the Pax Britannica of the British Empire.^[5]

Contents 1 Early period 2 Interwar period 3 Modern period 3.1 Pax Britannica heritage 3.2 Late 20th century 3.3 Contemporary power 4 American imperialism 5 Democratic peace theory 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links 9 See also

[edit] Early period

The first articulation of a Pax Americana occurred after the end of the American Civil War, with reference to the peaceful nature of the North American geographical region, and was abeyant at the the commencement of the First World War. Its emergence was concurrent with the development of a view of the United States as a nation distinguished from others by an American exceptionalism. This view holds that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations^[6] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins. The roots of the term are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville,^[7] who noted that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. From the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution until the Spanish-American War, the Foreign policy of the United States reflected the country's regional, as compared to global, focus. The Pax Americana, which the Union enforced upon the states of central North America, was a factor in the United States' national prosperity. The larger states were surrounded by smaller states, but these had no anxieties: no standing armies to require taxes and hinder labor; no wars or rumors of wars that would interrupt trade; there is not only peace, but security, for the Pax Americana of the Union covered all the states within the federal constitutional republic.^[4]

With the rise of the New Imperialism in the western hemisphere, debates between imperialist and isolationist factions occurred at the end of the 19th century. Here Pax Americana was used to connote the peace across the United States and, more widely, as a Pan-American peace under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine. Those who favored traditional policies of avoiding foreign entanglements included Samuel Gompers and Andrew Carnegie. American politicians, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt, advocated an aggressive foreign policy, but the Cleveland Administration was unwilling to pursue such actions. The imperialist faction favored control of Hawaii and the Philippines. On January 16, 1893, United States diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, under a treaty of annexation submitted to the US Senate, on February 15, 1893.

After the victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the subsequent acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, the United States had gained a colonial empire. By ejecting Spain from the Americas, the United States shifted its position to an uncontested regional power, and extended her influence in the spheres of South East Asia and Oceania. Although U.S. capital investments within the Philippines and Puerto Rico were relatively small, these colonies were strategic outposts for expanding trade with Latin America and Asia, particularly China. In the Caribbean area, the United States established a Sphere of Influence in line with the Monroe Doctrine, not indeed explicitly defined as such, but recognised in effect by other governments and accepted by some at least of the republics occupying that region.^[8] The events around the turn of the century demonstrated that the United States undertook an obligation, usual in such cases, of imposing a "Pax Americana".^[8] As in similar instances elsewhere, this Pax Americana was not quite clearly marked in its geographical limit, nor was it guided by any theoretical consistency, but rather by the merits of the case and the test of immediate expediency in each instance.^[8] Thus, whereas the United States enforced a peace in much of the lands southward from the Nation and undertook measures to maintain internal tranquility in such areas, the United States on the other hand withdrew from interposition in Mexico.^[8]

European powers largely regarded these matters as the concern of the United States. Indeed, the nascent Pax American was, in essence, abetted by the policy of the United Kingdom, and the preponderance of global sea power which the British Empire enjoyed by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy^[9]. Preserving the freedom of the seas and ensuring naval dominance was, since victory in the Napoleonic wars, the policy United Kingdom. As it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom to permit any European power to interfere in Americas, the Monroe Doctrine was indirectly aided by the Royal Navy. British commercial interests in South America, which comprised a valuable component of the Informal Empire that accompanied Britain's imperial possessions, and the economic importance of the United States as a trading partner, ensured that intervention by England's rival European powers could not engage with the Americas.

The United States lost its Pacific and regionally-bounded nature towards the end of the 19th Century. The government adopted protectionism after Spanish-American War and built up a powerful navy, the "Great White Fleet", to expand the reach of her power. When Theodore Roosevelt became President in 1901, he accelerated a foreign policy shift away from isolationism towards foreign intervention which had begun under his predecessor, William McKinley. The Philippine-American War arose from the on-going Philippine Revolution against imperialism.^[10] Interventionism found its formal articulation in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming a right for the United States to intervene to stabilize weak states in the Americas, a moment that underlined the emergent U.S. regional hegemony.

[edit] Interwar period

The United States had been criticized for not taking up the hegemonic mantle following the disintegration of Pax Britannica before the First World War and during the interwar period due to the absence of established political structures, such as the World Bank or United Nations, and various internal policies, such as protectionism.^{[11][12][13][2]} Though, the United States participate in the Great War, according to Woodrow Wilson, to:

[...] to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles.
[...] for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.^[2]

The United States entry into the Great War marked the abandonment of the traditional American policy of isolation and independence of world politics. Not at the close of the Civil War, not as the result of the Spanish War, but in the Interwar period did the United States become a part of the international system.^[2] With this global reorganization from the Great War, there were those in the American populace that advocated an activist role in international politics and international affairs by the United States.^[2] Activities that were initiated did not fall into political-military traps and, instead, focused on economic-ideological approaches that would increase the American Empire and general worldwide stability.^[14] Following the prior path, a precursor to the United Nations and a league to enforce peace, the League of Nations, was proposed by Woodrow Wilson.^[2] This was rejected by the American Government in favor of more economic-ideological approaches and the United States did not join the League. Additionally, there were even proposals of extending the Monroe Doctrine to Great Britain put forth to prevent a second conflagration on the European theater.^[15] Ultimately, the United States' proposals and actions did not stop the factors of European nationalism spawned by the previous war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the failures of the Treaty of Versailles from plunging the globe into a Second World War.^[16]

Between the World War I and World War II, America also sought to continue to preserve Pax America as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.^[15] Some sought the peaceful and orderly evolution of existing conditions in the western hemisphere and nothing by immediate changes.^[15] Before 1917, the position of the United States government and the feelings of the nation in respect to the "Great War" initially had properly been one of neutrality.^[15] Its interests remained untouched, and nothing occurred of a nature to affect those interest.^[15]

The average American's sympathies, on the other hand, if the feelings of the vast majority of the nation had been correctly interpreted, was with the Allied (Entente) Powers.^[15] The population of the United States was revolted at the ruthlessness of the Prussian doctrine of war, and German designs to shift the burden of aggression encountered skeptical derision.^[15] The American populace saw themselves safegarding liberal peace in the Western World. To this end, the American writer Roland Hugins stated:^[17]

The truth is that the United States is the only high-minded Power left in the world. It is the only strong nation that has not entered on a career of imperial conquest, and does not want to enter on it. [...] There is in America little of that spirit of selfish aggression which lies at the heart of militarism. Here alone exists a broad basis for "a new passionate sense of brotherhood, and a new scale of human values." We have a deep abhorrence of war for war's sake; we are not enamored of glamour or glory. We have a strong faith in the principle of self-government. We do not care to dominate alien peoples, white or colored; we do not aspire to be the Romans of tomorrow or the "masters of the world." The idealism of Americans centers in the future of America, wherein we hope to work out those principles of liberty and democracy to which we are committed This political idealism, this strain of pacifism, this abstinence from aggression and desire to be left alone to work out our own destiny, has been manifest from the birth of the republic. We have not always followed our light, but we have never been utterly faithless to it.^[2]

It was observed during this time that the the initial defeat of Germany opened a moral recasting of the world.^[15] The battles between Germans and Allies were seen as far less battles between different nations than they represent the contrast between Liberalism and reaction, between the aspirations of democracy and the gospel of iron.^[18][15]

[edit] Modern period

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,^[19] 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. From about the mid-40s until 1991, the U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the Cold War, and characterized by its significant international military presence and greater diplomatic involvement. Seeking an alternative to the isolationist policies pursued after World War I, the United States defined a new policy called containment to oppose the spread of communism.

The modern Pax Americana may beseen 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.

[edit] Pax Britannica heritage

From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until World War I in 1914, the United Kingdom played the role of hegemon, where the balance of power was the main aim. It is also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time.^[20] 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 Royal Navy was superior to any two navies combined in the world. It provided services such as suppression of piracy and slavery. In this era of peace, though, there were several wars between the major powers: the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Japanese War, as well as numerous other wars.

During the 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 and history) drew them together as allies. Under the managed transition of the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, members of the British government, such as Harold Macmillan, liked to think of Britain's relationship with America as similar to that of a progenitor Greece to America's Rome.^[21] Throughout the years, both have been active in North American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries.

[edit] Late 20th century

After the Second World War, no armed conflict has emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons have been used in open conflict. The United Nations was also soon developed after World War II to help keep peaceful relations between nations and establishing the veto power for the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which included the United States.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the USSR and USA superpowers were engaged in the Cold War, which can be seen as a struggle between hegemonies for global dominance. After 1945, the United States enjoyed an advantageous position 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. The catastrophic destruction of life, infrastructure, and capital during the Second World War had exhausted the imperialism of the Old World, victor and vanquished alike. The largest economy in the world at the time, the United States recognized that it had came out of the war with its domestic infrastructure virtually unscathed and its military forces at unprecedented strength. Military officials recognized the fact that Pax Americana had been reliant on the effective United States air power, just as the instrument of Pax Britannica a century was its sea power.^[22] In addition, a unipolar moment was seen to have occurred following the collapse of the Soviet Union.^[23]

The term Pax Americana was explicitly used by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, who advocated against the idea, arguing that the Soviet bloc was composed of human beings with the same individual goals as Americans and that such a peace based on "American weapons of war" was undesirable:

I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children -- not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.^[24]

Beginning around the Vietnam War, the 'Pax Americana' term had started to be used by the critics of American Imperialism. Here in the late 20th century conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the charge of Neocolonialism was often aimed at Western involvement in the affairs of the Third World and other developing nations.^{[25][26][27][28][29]}

[edit] Contemporary power

The modern 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. The United States invested heavily in programs such as the Marshall Plan and in the reconstruction of Japan, economically cementing defense ties that owed increasingly to the establishment of the Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc and the widening of the Cold War. The protection of American support 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 non-interventionist U.S. also took a keen interest in developing multilateral institutions which would maintain a favorable world order among them. The International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), part of the Bretton Woods system of international financial management was developed and, until the early 1970s, the existence of a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was developed and consists of a protocol for normalization and reduction of trade tariffs.

Other programs and organizations also helped further American power or state policy. 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, the demise of the notion of a Pax Sovietica, and the end of the Cold War, the U.S. maintained significant contingents of armed forces in Europe and East Asia.

The institutions behind the Pax Americana and the rise of the United States unipolar power have persisted into the early 21st century. The ability of the United States to act as "the world's policeman" has been constrained by its own citizens' historic aversion to foreign wars.^[30] Though there has been calls for the continuation of military leadership, as stated in "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself. [... What is required is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.^[31]

This is reflected in the research of American exceptionalism, which shows that "there is some indication for [being a leader of an "American peace"] among the [U.S.] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes".^[32] It should be noted that resentments have arisen at a country's' dependence on American military protection, due to disagreements with United States foreign policy or the presence of American military forces. In the post–Cold War world of the twenty-first century, the French Socialist politician Hubert Védrine describes the USA as a hegemonic hyperpower, while the U.S. political scientists John Mearsheimer and Joseph Nye counter that the USA is not a “true” hegemony, because does not have the resources to impose a proper, formal, global rule; despite its political and military strength, the USA is economically equal to Europe, thus, cannot rule the international stage. ^[33] Several other countries are either emerging or re-emerging as powers, such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union.

[edit] American imperialism

American Imperialism is a controversial term referring to the influence of the United States. American imperialism concepts were initially a product of capitalism critiques and, later, of theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive United States policies and doctrines. Although there are various views of the imperialist nature of the United States, and thus describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of imperialism, explanations for imperialism vary widely. In spite of such literature, the historians Archibald Paton Thorton and Stuart Creighton Miller argue against the very coherence of the concept. Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.^[34]

Regardless, it is acknowledged that the United States isolationism subsided only after major shocks associated with the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. 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.

As to the "isolationist" history of the United States, it mainly applies to the global stage; the United States has not been isolationist with respect to the Western Hemisphere, which fell within its sphere of influence, and pursued military interventions within this region of the world. Though relative peace existed in the Western World, the United States and its allies have been involved in various regional wars, such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Yugoslav wars, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. The United States also maintained espionage and covert operations in various other areas, such as Latin America in the 1980s.

[edit] Democratic peace theory

The increasing peacefulness during the various incarnations of Pax Americana has been attributed to the the ongoing spread of democracy. Democratic peace theory hold that democracies rarely, or never, make war on one another and results in a Pax Universalis.

[edit] References

General Information

• Parchami, Ali, Hegemonic Peace and Empire: The Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana. Taylor & Francis, 2009. The Pax Americana Debate, Page 167 - 196.

Footnotes

[edit] Further reading

English

• Louis, William Roger. Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez and Decolonization : Collected Essays. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. "The Pax Americana: Sir Keith Hancock, The Britich Empire, and American Expansion". Page 999+.
• Kiernan, V. G. America, the New Imperialism: From White Settlement to World Hegemony. London: Verso, 2005.
• Kupchan, Charles. The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century. New York: A. Knopf, 2002.
• Brown, Michael E. America's Strategic Choices. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2000.
• Ankerl, Guy. Global communication without universal civilization. INU societal research. Vol.1: Coexisting contemporary civilizations : Arafo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INU Press, 2000. pp. 256–332. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
• LaFeber, Walter. The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860-1898. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998.
• Gottlieb, Gidon. Nation against State: A New Approach to Ethnic Conflicts and the Decline of Sovereignty. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993.
• Nye, Joseph S. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990.
• Hull, William I. The Monroe Doctrine: National or International. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915.
• Francis Haffkine Snow, "American as a World Tyrant: A German Historian's Attempt to Prove That Europe is Becoming a Serf of the United States". Current History, v. 13. New York Times Co., 1921.

German

• Kahrstedt, Ulrich. Pax Americana; ein historische Betrachtung am Wendepunkte der europäischen Geschichte. München: Drei Masken Verlag, 1920. (Tr., "Pax Americana, a historical look at the turning points in European history")

[edit] External links

• Steve Fine, Pax Americana. neighborsforpeaceandjustice.com, October 2002
• Richard M. Ebeling, "The Dangers and Costs of Pax Americana. December 2002.
• Graham Barrett, "Imagining the Pax Americana", The Age, April 17, 2003
• Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Eagle Has Crash Landed". The Magazine of Global Issues, Economics, and Ideas, July-August 2002.
• John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, The American Empire: Pax Americana or Pox Americana? Monthly Review, September 2004.
• Richard B. Du Boff, "U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger"
• Gail Russell Chaddock, "A Bush vision of Pax Americana". Christian Science Monitor.

[edit] See also

General

Overseas interventions of the United States, Timeline of United States military operations

Doctrines

Truman Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine, Clinton Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, Powell Doctrine, Wolfowitz Doctrine

Early Concepts

Civilizing mission, Platt Amendment, Holy Alliance, Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907)

Modern concepts

Bretton Woods system, Cold War (1985–1991), Neoconservatism, Anti-communism

Global concepts 

Global citizenship, World government, World domination

Other

Messianic democracy, Peace and Truce of God, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pan Sahel Initiative, American Dream, Global Nightmare, United States withdrawal from the United Nations

---

v • d • e Periods of relative peace Contemporary Pax Americana · Pax Europeana · Pax Praetoriana Historical Pax Syriana · Pax Britannica · Pax Sinica · Pax Ottomana · Pax Germanica · Pax Hispanica · Pax Mongolica · Pax Dei · Pax Khazarica · Pax Nicephori · Pax Islamica · Pax Romana · Pax Assyriaca · Pax Minoica · Pax Sumerica