Pax Americana vs. Pax Britannica

In the nineteenth century British prime ministers used their influence to create a series of nation states in the Middle East and elsewhere. The designated tribal leaders became heads of state through guile, extortion, favoritism and British planning. In most instances the British governments asked who was most capable of ushering in stability in areas congenitally chaotic and secondly, who was best prepared to act in behalf of British interests.

In retrospect some of these decisions seem arbitrary, even foolhardy. These states often ignored tribal differences having been carved out of a geography only partially comprehended by British colonialists. The historian David Fromkin called this phenomenon “a line drawn on an empty map by a British civil servant.” In time these nation states took on a life of their own unified by history and experience. But their fragile nature didn’t evanesce.

Pax Britannica meant finding and supporting local magistrates and political leaders, even tyrants , who would do the bidding of British governments. This wasn’t a bad deal for indigenous populations since the British rule of law introduced stability these areas rarely enjoyed. British realpolitik didn’t rule out democratic impulses; this condition was simply irrelevant in the search for control. Once the British dismantled their empire the fragility, kept in abeyance with their rule, came to the fore.

While there are many who have compared British dominance in the 19th century to the role of the United States in international affairs today, the comparison is in many ways invalid. Pax Americana is a reluctant expression of national power based on an anti-terrorist campaign after 9/11. If there is an American imperium (A somewhat inaccurate proposition), it is based on voluntary acceptance of American principles, what I have called imperium by invitation.

Those analysts who contend U.S. imperialism is like British imperialism, except that Americans are self-conscious about their global role, contend Americans should simply accept the role history has imposed on it. Yet is should be clear – even though it isn’t – that the U.S. hasn’t any desire to maintain a far flung empire. Rather than support tyrants who could stabilize states in transition, President Bush has argued for democratic institutions and independence.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq the American policy is designed to transfer authority to local governments representing the consent of the governed. The president has even expressed some impatience with the pace of transfer. One might contend that U.S. governmental impatience could have an adverse effect on local conditions; yet that is a trade-off the Bush administration is willing to accept.

Moreover, rather than organize institutions in order to promote stability which, of course, remains a goal, the U.S. authority wants to promote elements of democracy, which can be messy and unsettling, particularly in nations without any experience in this form of government.

The Bush strategic position is predicated on the belief that the establishment of democracies will have a spillover effect on the tyrannies that surround them. Bush strategists argue that democracy could serve as a model to be emulated, a domino effect that works in favor of American interests.

Notwithstanding pockets of cynicism here and abroad over this strategic stance, it does not resemble Pax Britannica. Some detractors suggest democracy cannot be introduced in nation states without a democratic tradition, but the United States did introduce democracy in Japan immediately after World War II and many believe it is part of our national mission to cultivate this form of government is as many nations as possible.

Historians wedded to realpolitik invariably regard the present stance of the Bush team as naïve. However, the U.S. is a nation of optimists. It was an optimist who told the Soviets to “tear down that Wall” and it was an optimist who said, “Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead.” Now we have a president who has expressed faith in the power of people’s will.

This isn’t a British view. Whatever success Pax Britannica had, it doesn’t resemble the American ethos. Many Europeans don’t comprehend our outlook. And even some Americans are perplexed; but in reality Pax Americana is consistent with United States history.

What we don’t know is how successful this strategy will prove to be. Time will tell, but I, for one, think the president has engaged the future in a gamble of historic majesty that might be the most telling strategic development of the new century.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and John M. Olin professor of humanities of the New York University, publisher of American Outlook and author of "Decade of Denial," recently published by Lexington Books. He's reachable through www.benadorassociates.com.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
40	Alaska	120.00	3	40.00	79	1.52	150.00	3

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

Actually we are in an extended Pax Romana. This is almost a duplication of the Roman Empire, where first the city of Rome dominated world affairs (The UK) then Constantinople (The US). We are in the dying period where Western history is again on the brink and we must decide the path. Europe has chose appeasement. We are also, sadly.

I hate to sound unduly pessimistic, so perhaps all of the following is wrong, still:

1. I think it is a mistake to say we are in a "Pax" (peace) anything. We (the US) do not have an empire, do not wish to acquire one and would not have the will or economic resources to do so if we did, not and still maintain (temporarily) our system of entitlements to over half the population. We are in fact no longer a united nation politically. The part of the electorate that will vote for the Democratic candidate (whoever he is) will do so confident he will treat the "war on terror" as a police matter, if that. Bluntly put, a substantial minority, perhaps in time a voting majority, of the American people do not wish to fight Islamic fascism despite 9/11. Certainly they had and have no desire to replace any tyrannies with democracies, partly because they do not consider Western civilization worth defending.

2. While Bush's efforts to bring democracy to the Islamic world is well intentioned and certainly noble, it assumes that democracy will first, result in peaceful states and second, that it can be successfully transplanted onto societies and cultures with no history of the enlightenment, rule with consent of the governed, and the rest of the historical and cultural heritage that makes the West what it is. Both of these assumptions are, to put it mildly, questionable. The Islamic world has been either autocratic or theocratic since Islamic civilization began, it seems perhaps unduly optimistic that Muslims will now embrace Thomas Paine and the bill of rights en masse simply because we think it good for them. Only one Islamic country, Turkey is democratic and it took a generation of autocratic rule (and the constant watchfulness of the Turkish military) for that to happen. The Turkish experiment has not been repeated to date. Suppose instead the people of Iraq freely elect an Ayatollah, what is to be done then? Annul the elections? Allow a civil war? Put some hapless 3 star general in as Pasha of Iraq and tell him to be the Kemal Attaturk of the 21st century?

3. I do not pretend to have all or even many, answers. I certainly have no alternative to what the President is doing, since it seems to me the only way to avoid a truly bloody clash of civilizations. I simply wish someone in the administration or out would explain why and how they think this will work.

The Bush strategic position is predicated on the belief that the establishment of democracies will have a spillover effect on the tyrannies that surround them. Bush strategists argue that democracy could serve as a model to be emulated, a domino effect that works in favor of American interests.

Maybe it would work, but it was not tried yet. The real "establishment of democracy" means making/letting people vote etc ... Talking about democracy is something everyone does in our times. And the window of opportunity is closing.

While Bush's efforts to bring democracy to the Islamic world is well intentioned and certainly noble

I did not see any "efforts to bring democracy" over there. Only thing I have seen was half-hearted debate on how to secure the desired results of future imagined democratic process.

I think it is a mistake to say we are in a "Pax" (peace) anything. We (the US) do not have an empire, do not wish to acquire one and would not have the will or economic resources to do so if we did

I beg to differ. The economic resources are already spread through our sphere of influence by foreign aid. The nations receiving the most aid will, for the most part, follow Washington's lead at request. This nation of states may not have become an empire in the same way as in ages past however the final result is the same

"Bush strategists argue that democracy could serve as a model to be emulated, a domino effect that works in favor of American interests. "

I would imagine the last thing we would want is a democracy. Maybe a Republic with leaders ala the British selection method.

But others in the Bush [and Clinton] administration view the world as the end of the nation state - borderless, free trade, free immigration. There is no future 'American interest'. Rather an international multi-national corporate trade interest to dominate an era of capital and labor mobility.

National identity vs one world. Right now guess which one is winning.