Is the Pax Americana Over?

It occurred to me in light of recent headlines that the name I chose for my Substack and YouTube channel, Pax Americana, might require revision. The Pax Americana might now be history. Or perhaps I should embrace irony? I could claim I’m being ironic.

Except I am not. Or I was not. I believed in the American Empire, which I regard as pretty much the best thing to happen, ever. And I have zero doubt it will be missed. But is it gone?

One thing I loved about the American Empire is that it set its “conquests” free, by that I mean Europe and Japan. America mostly allowed them to do what they want, and it was satisfied with alliances based on shared Western values, most notably liberal democracy. They were friends, not vassals. Post-War American also invested in Europe and Japan and encouraged them to be trading partners, rather than exploit them economically, under the conviction that more or less free trade lifted everyone’s boats.

Now what I see is America turning its back on those values. Now, with its recent UN vote against Ukraine and insistence on imposing surrender terms on Ukraine that might as well have been dictated by Putin, Trump is siding openly with Russia while bullying long-time friends, all in the name, I guess, of a crass and narrow understanding of how alliances should serve American interests. Hence Trump’s insistence that Canada somehow has been damaging the U.S. economy, as if our warm relations with Canada has not been profoundly beneficial to the United States for more than two centuries. And then there is the shameful attempt by Trump to shake down Ukraine ostensibly to pay for all the aid the U.S. has given it…

While it is true that the U.S. loaned Britain and France billions of dollars to pay for the First World War, it never insisted on repayment as a condition for supporting them in their wars. Once the U.S. joined the war, it made common cause with its allies. Wilson on at least one occasion communicated with Germany about peace talks, but Wilson never broke ranks, switched sides, or sought a separate peace. When, in the Spring of 1918, it was proposed that the American Expeditionary Force be placed under the command of French Marshal Foch, Wilson agreed. When peace talks started in earnest in November 1918, no Americans were involved. Foch chaired the talks; it was Foch’s show. Wilson and Pershing deferred entirely to Foch’s judgement.

Foch visiting Washington, DC, after the war. Yes, France owed the U.S. billions of dollars, but America embraced France not as a debtor but an ally, and Foch as a hero.

As it happened, France never fully paid back its World War I debt to the United States, and the U.S. after World War II elected to forgive the WW I loans as part of its aid package to France. Washington understood that aid rather than debt repayment was in both countries’ best interest. As for Great Britain, it defaulted on its World War I loans. However, it did, slowly, pay off the World War II loans (I read somewhere that the interest rate was set at 2 percent), with the final payment made to the U.S. Treasury in 2006. Did the U.S. ever use that debt to influence UK policy? I don’t know. Either way, I think it safe to say that the return on America’s investment in the UK as well as France and the rest of its allies was far greater than any financial sum. America got stable, prosperous, friends and allies. That’s worth a lot.

(Canada, by the way, never borrowed money from the U.S. to finance the wars, and Canada, like the U.S., lent billions to the UK, which the UK paid off, also in 2006. Italy never did pay off its World War I debts to the U.S., and as far as I know, they technically remain outstanding. Has the U.S. ever held this debt over Italy’s head to push Italy around? I do not know.)

So, to the original question: Is the Pax America over?

I suspect the “America First” ideologues reason that the answer is no, because the U.S. remains the world’s pre-eminent military power and its largest economy. The U.S. has profound influence, however it treats its friends. They might also argue that the U.S. will emerge more powerful as a result of playing hard-ball with everyone. But I don’t see it. The strength of the Pax Americana derived from more than just U.S. military and economic might: It derived in large measure from the willing cooperation of countries that shared America’s values and core interests. Thus France, which often has irritated the U.S. by insisting on acting independently, nonetheless never really strayed far from the American camp. Why? Because at the end of the day, core American and French interests almost entirely overlapped. Today, with Trump abandoning European security and betraying Ukraine, it’s hard to say if that’s true, and the distance may well increase. Poles, Czechs, and others no doubt are not amused.

The mood in Europe right now is to try to break free of dependency on America. Partisans of America First might reckon that that’s for the best. In some ways, it is in fact to America’s advantage if the Europeans finally took their own security seriously. But it also is true that in the long term, Europeans and other friends and allies might decide they’ve had enough. And then before one knows it, America First will equal America alone. I fail to see how that serves American interests. Moreover, there can be no doubt that others will benefit from America’s retreat, and by others I don’t mean Europe.

I also worry about the Britain-France-U.S. triumvirate, which I see as the steel core at the center of the “West” and the Pax Americana. We weaken that core at our peril.

American strength will enable Trump to get away with quite a bit. He’ll be able to bully, threaten, and shake down. But the clock now is ticking, and America with such a strategy will get weaker, fast. The Pax Americana may yet persist, but it won’t be characterized by much of what made it a force for good, and I believe it was its goodness that made it strong, and encouraged our friends and allies to support it.