Pax on your houses

Is peace the conceit of the powerful?

First came the Pax Romana, or Roman peace. For two centuries at the beginning of the common era of calendar-keeping, Rome was the dominant power of the western world. It gave peace to the region, on Rome's terms. 

Later appeared the Pax Britannica. For a century after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, Britain was the rule-giver to much of the world. The sun never set on the British empire, or on Britain's efforts to maintain the pro-British status quo.

Since 1945 it's been the Pax Americana. Atop the ruins of World War II, the United States established a system of alliances, institutions and practices that have been largely responsible for preventing World War III. This era has been good for the world, and it has been really good for the United States.

In each of these periods, the dominant power viewed its privileged position as part of the moral order of the universe. This is a human trait. We treat our views and values as normal, and relegate dissenters to the region beyond the pale of respectability. In our personal lives, this conceit affects others only tangentially. But in world affairs, it shapes the fate of nations.

When you're the country at the top of the heap, you reflexively favor the status quo. Peace is the preserver of the status quo. Therefore, you champion peace. You like peace and peace likes you.

On the other hand, if you're in the middle of the heap, feeling the oppressive or simply annoying weight of the dominant power, you're not a fan of the status quo. As you seek to change it, to improve your standing, the dominant power will interpret your challenge as a threat to peace. You’ll be branded an outlaw and a rogue.

When the nations on the periphery of the Roman empire tired of paying tribute and bowing to Rome, the Romans called them barbarians. One group, the Vandals, had their name applied to wanton destruction. To be sure, they weren't nice people, but their tactics weren't noticeably more violent than the tactics Rome had employed to build the empire. Rome's attitude still colors interpretations of the history of Europe and the Middle East. Though the label dark ages has fallen out of favor, we often look on the decline and fall of Rome with wistfulness.

The proximate cause of the end of the Pax Britannica was the unification of Germany. Britain had been able to maintain a balance of power in Europe with an occasional thumb on the continental scale, while Britannia ruled the waves with her navy. But there was no balancing Germany without a revolution in diplomacy that brought France and Russia into alliance with Britain. In an example of what has been called the Thucydides trap, actions considered defensive by the power taking them were seen as offensive by the rival power, which felt obliged to respond in kind. The cycle repeated until World War I put paid to the Pax Britannica.

Retrospectively World War I is viewed as the conflict the diplomats of Europe blundered into. Blunders certainly happened. But it's hard to imagine how the newly powerful Germany could have been accommodated into the existing pro-Britain status quo. Britain was so convinced of the righteousness of the international order it had created that it couldn't help seeing Germany as an evil empire bent on destroying peace for the sake of destruction. 

The Pax Americana won't last forever. It's under strain in Europe, with the Ukraine war; in the Middle East, with the Gaza war; and in Asia, with the rise of China.

The European strain should have been the easiest to manage, given that the challenger, Russia, is not a rising power but a declining one. But American leaders expanded the realm of the Pax Americana after the end of the Cold War, pushing its eastern frontier much closer to Moscow. American leaders blame Vladimir Putin for aggression against Ukraine. Well they might. The Ukrainians have even more cause for complaint.

But American leaders shouldn't have been surprised at Putin's actions. The eastward expansion of NATO, which has always been an anti-Russian alliance, was guaranteed to provoke a Russian response. For America to treat the problem as simply Putin would be a mistake. Russia had its own Pax Sovietica in eastern Europe. Putin isn't the only Russian unhappy with its collapse.

America has been damaged by the Gaza war. Justified though Israel was in retaliating against the Hamas assault of October 7, in the perception of many countries it has gone too far. This perception encompasses the United States, as Israel's chief sponsor, and makes it difficult for those countries to cooperate with the United States on other issues. Israel's supporters in America are willing for America to bear this cost on Israel’s behalf, but they shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. And they should ask themselves if there's a point at which the cost becomes prohibitive.

China is the most serious threat to the Pax Americana, not least because it's the one the American political system takes most seriously. Donald Trump and the Republicans are treating Russia as a minor problem if a problem at all. Some days Trump sounds as though he'd be happy for NATO to disband. A growing minority of Americans think the United States is on the wrong side of the Israel-Palestine issue and would welcome a reduction or even a severing of ties with Israel.

But the two parties are competing with each other to be the most hawkish in branding China as a grave threat to American security. Taking the Pax Americana baseline in East Asia—which originally hedged China about with American allies Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, South Vietnam and the Philippines—as the status quo that mustn't be violated, the China hawks have treated China's efforts to gain more elbow room in its neighborhood as an intolerable assault on the structure of peace. China's success in producing goods Americans want to buy has been ascribed to unfair practices, and, combined with allegations of espionage against America, it has prompted the last two presidential administrations—one Republican and one Democratic—to prosecute an economic war against China. Tariffs play the central role, but outright bans, against Huawei and now TikTok, figure too.

The Pax Americana in Asia was established when China was poor and weak. It will be impossible to maintain much longer now that China is rich and strong. The only question is which part gives way first: the pax or the Americana. On current trends a war seems not unlikely. China won't be content being contained by the United States forever.

The alternative is an adjustment that accommodates China's larger abilities and ambitions—a regional Pax Sino-Americana.

That might be too much to ask.

But between the Pax Britannica and the Pax Americana there was a Pax Anglo-Americana. Its avatar was the great Anglo-American, Winston Churchill. He said, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.” The statement was mangled to “Better jaw, jaw than war, war.” Either way, it’s worth considering.