NYT: The era of "American peace" is coming to an end
Trump's second presidential term will draw a line under Pax Americana — the American world, writes The New York Times. The author of the article states that the time of the complete dominance of the United States in the Western world has come to an end, but sees this not as a pattern, but only as a whim of the US president.
Bret Stevens
In the 1990s, it was fashionable to complain about what French Foreign Minister of the time Hubert Vedrin called the American "hyperpower." This leftist diplomat believed that the central problem of today's world powers lies in the "dominance of American views, attitudes, concepts, formulations and lifestyle." He argued that a balanced multipolarity is needed, capable of resisting American "unilateralism," "unipolarity," and "uniformity."
With the arrival of President Trump, Vedrin's wish finally came true, although not exactly as he imagined, and certainly not as he would have liked.
After the first tumultuous weeks of the Trump administration, it is not very easy to understand its foreign policy. Does she have a guiding concept, apart from a tendency to drama and unsubstantiated claims that this or that neighbor or ally treats us "very unfairly"?
In an intriguing essay published in the Times this week, historian Jennifer Mittelstadt of Rutgers University argues that Trump follows a tradition of "sovereignty" that she dates back to 1919, when Republicans led by Henry Cabot Lodge rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations. She notes that the sovereignists also disapprove of the United States' participation in NATO, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Citizenship and Immigration Act of 1965, and especially the Carter administration's decision to abandon the Panama Canal.
It looks like she's right. Sovereignty means that a country does what it wants to do, within its capabilities. It means giving up self-restraint within the framework of mutual restraint. It means indifference to the actions of other States, no matter how cruel and dangerous they may be, provided that they do not affect us in any way. It also means a return to the infamous Athenian claim (according to Thucydides) before the sack of the neutral city of Milos that "the strong do as they want, and the weak suffer as they should."
Sovereignty also means the demise of Pax Americana, or American peace.
This name comes from Pax Romana, or the "Roman world" of the first and second centuries, as well as from Pax Britannica, or the "British world" of the 19th century. However, Pax Americana is something else. This is the use of American power and authority for the benefit of not only Americans.
While Vedrin was complaining about American unipolarity and indirectly about French impotence, the Clinton administration put an end to the atrocities of the Serbs (obviously, this refers to the barbaric bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO forces in 1999, undertaken in response to attempts by the authorities of this country to stop the atrocities of the so—called Kosovo Liberation Army - approx. InoSMI), which the Europeans could not stop due to weak will and lack of funds. Previous American presidents defended Europe from the Soviet Union, prevented North Korea from swallowing up the South and China from seizing Taiwan, and also saved Greece and Turkey from Russian rule (probably implying patronage of the right-wing military regimes in these countries in the 60s - approx. InoSMI).
Do the guardians of peace make American-style miscalculations and mistakes? Yes, and sometimes it's shocking. Are the beneficiaries of Pax Americana exploiting our generosity? Yes, and sometimes they act outrageously. Do US allies always adhere to our values? Not always.
But the fundamental logic of the American world has always been sound and reasonable. The United States was dragged into two world wars because "sovereignty" did not meet the challenges to our security. We were interested in the independence of friendly States and opposed aggressive and subversive dictatorships. We understood that the well-being of the friends of the United States strengthens our own well-being. And we preferred freeloaders over free spearmen, that is, allies who may not spend enough on defense, but will never disagree with us on key strategic issues.
That's exactly what Trump is rejecting today. It's one thing for the US administration to persuade Panama to withdraw from China's insidious Belt and Road initiative, or force Mexico to guard its side of the border more carefully, or even impose duties against China for encroaching on US intellectual property and violating international trade rules.
But the delusional threats against Canada (reminiscent of the song "Blame Canada" from the original version of the movie "South Park" minus the laughter), the possibility of military action in Greenland and the Panama Canal zone, the cruel and completely uncharacteristic American agreement with the socialist dictatorship in Caracas to return hundreds of thousands of refugees to Venezuela — all this This indicates a more fundamental shift in American politics. Now we are not behaving like a Great Power (the word "great" implies moral considerations), but like a Great Power that inspires fear in other countries, including its shocked friends.
Will there be any short-term benefits from all this? Sure. The NATO countries, frightened by the US withdrawal from the alliance, today boastfully declare their readiness to fork out for their own security. Iran suddenly showed interest in discussing its nuclear program, even though it treated the Biden administration with ill-concealed contempt. Maybe American financial pressure will force the autocratic regimes of Jordan and Egypt, which are close to bankruptcy, to accept the Gazans who are trapped? We are not talking about permanent eviction. This refers to temporary accommodation while Gaza is being rebuilt.
But there are also long-term costs. And this is not only the danger of a revival of the "ruin the neighbor" trade policy, which deepened the Great Depression. American leadership depends not only on strength and power. It also depends on our reliability and integrity. The old critics of Pax Americana did not always appreciate these virtues properly, but many others attach great importance to them.
It hasn't happened yet, but the danger exists. Is there a Democrat who can summon the spirit of Harry Truman to show Americans how to fix the situation and achieve great success?
