In this 61st year since JFK’s oft-cited American University “peace speech,” it’s helpful to reflect on his expressed opposition to a “Pax Americana”— “peace” enforced by blunt U.S. power—in light of what a leading foreign policy professor and lecturer told the American Enterprise Institute Sept. 4.
The Hudson Institute’s Walter Russell Mead told the neo-conservative group that the phrase “rules-based world order,” widely used to describe the world-policing system the West has been upholding since World War II’s conclusion, is off base, and what really has been in operation all along is the very “Pax Americana” that JFK decried, although Mead did not mention JFK.
Mead, a former Henry Kissinger Senior Fellow at the ultra-plutocratic Council on Foreign Relations, added that the Pax Americana (PA) is in serious decline and could be terminal, even while he professed to be at a loss for what to replace it with.
“The [American] uni-polar moment is over, and there’s no agreed upon consensus on what should replace it,” Mead stated, suggesting there’s been a major paradigm shift, which our nightly news likely won’t clearly reveal to the American people.
A Hudson Institute paper, meanwhile, written by Hudson staffer Arthur Herman, showed that while Mead offered several insights to the AEI that appeared to be based on original thinking, he actually partly recited the Hudson Institute’s own “boilerplate” policy recommendations as expressed by the in-house wonk, Mr. Herman.
Herman alleged that the PA is literally deceased:
“The Pax Americana that has prevailed over world affairs since the end of World War II is dead, if not actually buried. It must now be replaced. The two remaining questions are: with what and how? The term ‘Pax Americana’ (American Peace) refers to the international order the United States constructed after World War II and the decades of relative peace and prosperity that followed under the U.S. economic and military leadership of the free world, notwithstanding the … Cold War.”
Herman added: “Since 1948, that order has proved remarkably resilient … in the face of multiple challenges. These included … America’s … large-scale wars in Asia (Korea, Vietnam) and the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan)—not to mention the collapse of [the USSR], and the rise of … China.”
Mead cited Iran cited as a growing regional menace, possibly rivaling the threat posed by China or Russia. An unrelenting foe of Israel, Iran is seeking to become a dominant regional power; meanwhile, Israel’s other enemies, such as Hezbollah, also won’t relent, Mead explained, while alleging Iran’s “proxy” influence is especially strong in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
The next U.S. president likely will face a nuclear Iran, yet Mead lamented that the core supporters of both Harris and Trump “are inward-looking,” meaning that a sizable cross section of Americans may be growing tired of policing the world and want to focus on domestic betterment (a welcome trend).
Mead feels “Team Harris” generally wants to restore the PA yet may fail to act, but “Team Trump” probably never fully supported the PA concept in the first place.
Additionally, Mead believes Americans will tire of supporting Ukraine, thereby enabling Russia, China and Iran to further weaken and displace the seemingly fragile PA.
“China understands the stakes and what the seizure of Taiwan would mean [and goods from that greater region’s nations may stop flowing],” Mead continued, predicting a major economic crisis should a U.S.-China showdown take place over Taiwan.
“[I see] geopolitical competition … driving a wave of [conflict and] wars,” Mead stated.
Concurrently, a new global economic landscape has taken shape, evidently challenging American dominance more than at any time since 1945.
“Unlike during the Cold War, when the USSR posed a military but not economic threat to America and its allies, China has emerged as both,” Herman wrote, adding that India has remained an “ambiguous partner” in “re-stabilizing the global order.” And America’s military seems “less ready to assume its remaining global responsibilities …”
But has America really kept actual peace since the latter 1940s? Or has it simply fostered an age of undeclared, and therefore unlawful, “perpetual wars for perpetual peace” via heavy-handed, deadly, largely fruitless ventures in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (our longest war) etc?
And if policing the world is indeed becoming less popular and less sustainable, perhaps that’s because it was simply a bad idea in the first place—just as JFK warned.
Mark Anderson is a veteran journalist who divides his time between Texas and Michigan. Email him at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
From The Progressive Populist, October 15, 2024
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us