I am loathe to start a new thread since this topic is currently under discussion in same form and shape in other threads. Nevertheless since this is an issue which is inspired by but is not necessarily contained within the context of the war in Iraq, it deserves its own thread, IMHO. And in that respect, this thread IS NOT meant to be a war thread dealing with the Iraqi War in and of itself as there are other threads for that. The point is that this is NOT primarily or even mostly meant to be a thread about the current war in Iraq so do not treat it as such and assume that all my arguments and points are related to the war in Iraq per se. One of the fundamental arguments going around is whether or not the US is trustworthy enough, noble enough, wise enough, impartial enough to be embraced as the world hegemon in imposing Pax Americana. Many seem to say YES (mostly Americans) while others say a resounding NO (mostly non-Americans). Surely Pax Americana is far better than Pax USSR or Pax Hitler if they were ever achieved. And US hegemony is arguably more benign than past hegemonies. Nevertheless, assuming (debatable but let's assume arguenndo) these things as true is not tantamount to saying the US is still "good enough" to have the "moral right" to impose Pax Americana throughout the world. First of all, the US is not and can never be impartial as it has its own interests which will conflict with the interests of other nations and will understandly have to abandon principles and operate under "realpolitik". Secondly, the US is obviously far from being wise enough to impose its will and policies because the US is not omnipotent and will make mistakes even if its intentions are good (which isn't even always the case). Only in that the US has the "might" does it give it the "right" to do many of the (some questionable) things it has done. It is NOT (IMHO) because of any convincing arguments that the US has exceeded some threshold of moral supremacy, nevermind not reaching the pinnacle of moral superiority. Because of these and many other reasons, I and many non-Americans will always oppose US hegemony and any kind of Pax Americana no matter how benign it might seem or is in comparison to some other hegemony. One of the things Americans don't understand (why US hegemony and Pax Americana is resented and opposed) is because the Americans have never had to be under another's hegemony. Before it achieved this status after WWII and certainly after the end of the Cold War, the level of technology, the vastness of the land, the weakness of its neighbors and the huge oceans isolating it made it immune. Imagine, if you will, is during the 1950s to 1970s, if Nation X with an imperfect but better moral record than the US and with more power and might than the US, imposed boycotts and sanctions and threatened intervention and military action and all sorts of punishments if the US didn't clean up its appaling record of lynchings of blacks, Jim Crow crap, shams of justice, denial of voting and other civil rights, segregation (i.e. APARTHEID), non-equal access education, jobs, etc. etc. Nation X came up with all sorts of policies and ideas that the US should follow to alleviate these problems or else face consequences. But this Nation X was also not above reproach itself and conducted policy that wasn't always principled. And Nation X in the past has given aid and comfort to the KKK because at one point the KKK supported Nation X's struggles against Nation Y even though the KKK was one of the causes of said injustices now decried by Nation X. Would the Americans embrace Pax Nation X, or would Americans resist such an imposition even if Nation X threw its weight around and made all sorts of rhetoric about what it was doing was moral and right and is good for the US and the American people? If Nation X decides to impose sanctions, embargoes, even bomb the US because it didn't achieve the necessarily level of compliance (in the eyes of Nation X who has the power and claims itself to be sole arbiter of all that is right and wrong) and as a result of this causes suffering, perhaps deaths, of the American people, if Nation X then says these are regrettable but necessary sacrifices that must be made, that these results are unintentional but worth the price, that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action, etc. etc, would Americans be expected under such circumstances to wholeheartedly embrace the hegemony of Nation X or would Americans seethe in anger and resentment at Nation X's arrogance in deciding what sacrifices are acceptable for ordinary Americans to bear? (Note that the above is NOT meant to be a commentary or analogy or comparison of US actions in Iraq (or Cuba or whatever) so I don't want to hear about how my example is so off based, so I don't want to hear it.) I don't know if my Nation X example demonstrates my point or is the best example I can come up with but somehow I think that Americans, even if they thought that Nation X made many valid points would still resent and resist Nation X's self proclaimed right to impose its own viewpoints, policies, solutions, punishments, in short oppose Nation X as the global arbiter of what's right and what actions individual nations should take and who should do what and what kind of sacrifices are acceptable. For these reasons, I and others will and must oppose US hegemony and Pax Americana in all its forms, however benign it might be compared to any other alternative hegemonies are available instead. If nothing else, I hope, with this thread, I can make Americans understand why many non-Americans, have not, do not, and never will embrace Pax Americana.
I think that Pax anybody is fundamentally undemocratic and fundamentally wrong. BTW, you mention that you’re not an American. Where are you from, if you don't mind me asking?
Pax Americana is a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. Any foreign policy change of this magnitude really needs to be debated in Congress and across America. The onus is on the President to do this. I am not holding my breath.
Also, Pax America is not a real plan, I do think we want our ways to spread, but only to the point of stability not to the point of emulation. We are already spreading our society around the world....McDonalds and Coke..etc..etc.. DD
Why is the onus on the President to do this? Anyone can bring it up to debate. I don't think Bush is really establishing a Pax Americana yet, he is attacking Iraq based on the fact that it is a real threat, to our people and allies.
Too bad South Korea and Japan don't have more oil. I guess they aren't in any danger from an enemy that has been preparing for war for close to 50 years now and who has missiles that can actually reach American targets as well as having confirmed nuclear weapons. Sometimes the shortbus just isn't long enough to fit everyone I suppose.
In a way, I think your question isn't really answerable. If it were possible for a "Nation X" to be in a position to impose its will on America, then America would be a vastly different country than it is today....and likewise, Americans in your scenario would be something completely different than Americans of today. Nevertheless, I'll try to answer your question anyway. I think that the majority of the citizens of ANY free nation--which I assume that is what you meant in the case of your fictitious America--would seethe in anger and resentment at Nation X's arrogance in deciding what sacrifices are acceptable for ordinary citizens to bear.
I agree that Pax Americana, at least as I understand it, is still a pretty vague concept. The idea of the US acting to “stabilize” the world does tend to give non-Americans the willies though. In the past this has included the support of the Saddam in the war against Iran, support of the Taliban in the war against the Russians, Iran Contra, etc. Stability is usually a good thing, but you guys have a track record of being somewhat reckless in it’s application. (Admittedly, the rest of us have not been in the position to have to consider such action.) Culturally, American influence is spreading, but so is everybody’s, it seems to me. I think that diversity and choice are expanding globally. There’s now a theatre in Calgary that always has an East Indian move playing. If I’m hungry I can now chose between Nepalese, Ethiopian, Taiwanese, Tex-Mex, Turkish, regional Canadian … Politically, no offence but I don’t really think the US is a leader. Your democracy isn’t very healthy, in fact. I think things go in cycles, and we’ve been through a conservative phase (Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney in Canada) and are now into kind of a neo-Democratic Socialism phase (Tony Blair, the Liberals in Canada even though they aren’t really democratic socialists. From the far left I think the Chinese are moving this way too).
Well why doesn't the other side explain their alternative. Apparently they believe that the UN should have a bigger role in what the US decides to do, right?
What is Pax Americana? I posted this in another thread. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069119 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nigh...nac_030310.html Heck we can disappear our own people as well as any dictatorship can. What's habeas corpus? Nothing we can't ignore if we so choose. http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58326,00.html This guy could be guilty or innocent. But this is no different than any other two bit dictatorship without due process.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana Here’s one definition. I guess what bothers me most about what I hear from people who support this perspective are the references to “moral” justification. As a Christian I have a problem with that. I believe we should try to do good and be moral, but we are not to put ourselves in a position to be moral judges. To do so is to put ourselves in the position of being God. This is not to say that it is wrong to make and enforce laws, only that this enforcement is to be done with humility and diligence, and with the understanding that it won’t be perfect because we are not perfect. This changes the nature of the action, IMO, and makes it enforcement rather than judgement. Subtle points, perhaps, but for me this is a powerful and significant difference. If a person or a nation comes to believe they are morally superior their humility tends to diminish, their diligence in pursuing truth and wisdom in a situation tends to wane, and generally they tend to set themselves up for a fall. These are the images that come to my mind when I hear someone making the claim of moral superiority.
Slate has a pretty good section called today's papers where they summarize the days headlines and non-headlines from papers across the country and they cover international papers as well on some days. http://slate.msn.com/id/2081152/
I think it is necessary to differentiate between world governments and world peoples (individuals, especially the opressed ones) when we consider this issue.
i tell you one country that sure as hell appreciates it... TAIWAN! without Pax Americana, we'd be oppressed like the Tibetans right now.
TAIWAN!!! What if the PRC adopted the Bush Doctrine/Pax Americana and called it Pax PRC. They then proclaimed that Taiwan sometime in the unspecified future might do somthing bad to PRC. Since it was in the future and all, they did not really have to show any concrete evidence or such. Then they invade Taiwan, shouting Pax PRC as they go. Nuts to getting world opinion/consensus/understanding on their side, this is their way of life that they have to protect. Good times.
The PRC can't even cross two hundred miles of water. So no. Be grateful that America is hte only country now that can lay claim to hegemony.
