The decline of Pax Americana and the new world order
The world order based on US dominance is gradually coming to an end. Aggressive foreign policy and subjective interpretation of international law have seriously damaged the American idea, which together have led to the formation of a demand for a multipolar world. In such a world, the US can retain its status as one of the most influential powers, but it will have to reckon with the interests of new centres of influence, such as the BRICS.
Pax Americana characteristics and the emergence of American world domination
Pax Americana, the American Empire, or the American world, is primarily a theory according to which the United States is the guarantor of stability and order in world politics. At the centre of the American world, like any empire, there is a metropolis - the United States, provinces (the most developed countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, the Gulf monarchies, Japan and South Korea), and colonies. The latter are represented by unstable regimes in South America and the Caribbean, Africa and South-East Asia. They are distinguished from provinces by their low level of economic development and shaky power.
Unlike provinces and colonies, which are more exposed to military threats and crises, the metropolis, i.e. the USA, is characterised by an extremely favourable geographical location. The US is protected from land invasions by the ocean, while neighbouring countries are either militarily and economically underdeveloped (Mexico) or an integral part of the American world (Canada). As befits a maritime empire, the US has total control over key sea lanes. This control is not least facilitated by US military bases located at the crossroads of the most important trade routes.
The exact timing of the emergence of the Pax Americana is a matter of debate, but according to a combination of military, economic, and socio-cultural characteristics, the emergence of the US as a global player began during the First World War. The United States finally established itself as a superpower after World War II, from which Great Britain and France, the great powers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerged weakened and unable to maintain their colonial empires.
American domination over Europe began shortly after the end of World War II, with the introduction of the Marshall Plan in the devastated European countries that became part of the American zone of influence. Under the plan, countries were given generous subsidies to develop production in return for following US policies. Japan and South Korea also became part of the American empire in the 1950s, and their subordinate position was emphasised by the presence of American troops on their territories. In the 1970s the monarchies of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, etc.) became dependent on the U.S., which with the help of U.S. weapons to this day ensure the stability of their regimes in exchange for oil and the use of the U.S. dollar as their principal reserve currency.
With the collapse of the USSR and the discrediting of the socialist way of development, the US neoliberal empire now remains the only functioning system of the world order. However, after the so-called ‘unipolar moment’ in the 1990s and early 2000s, evidence of the Pax Americana's gradual decline, if not its imminent collapse, began to emerge.
Pax Americana is losing credibility among other states: expansionist foreign policy
Analysing the reasons why the American world order is no longer so attractive, the main reason is the aggressive foreign policy of the US. Military interventions around the world, coups and threats to solve any problem with weapons have contributed to the transformation of the US from a world policeman to a world dictator. In addition, none of the wars launched by the US in the last 20 years has led to peace and stability - an argument that the US authorities used in the mid-1990s to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia.
One of the most eloquent examples is the military campaigns of the US and its allies, i.e. dependencies, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria from 2003 to the late 2010s. Instead of establishing democracy in these countries and creating conditions for economic development, these countries turned into a source of instability across the continent. U.S. interventions initiated long civil wars in the Middle Eastern countries, created a favourable environment for all kinds of terrorist groups, and turned once prosperous countries into failed states - failed states on the verge of survival.
These results of engagement with Pax Americana have sown seeds of doubt in countries that had previously sought to follow exclusively the American path of development. Such countries in the late 2010s were Turkey, Saudi Arabia and China. While not rejecting modernisation and market economy principles, they began to express dissatisfaction with the continuing expansion of Pax Americana into areas of influence that they considered their own.Turkey sought to consolidate its position in Azerbaijan and the Middle East; and China challenged U.S. dominance in Southeast Asia.
The imposition of neoliberal values
Like the Roman Empire, the Pax Americana relies on its own system of values and ideals, which it spreads through a combination of soft and hard power. While the sources of hard power are represented by the US army and military-industrial complex, the key institutions of soft power are seemingly innocuous organisations standing up for humanitarian values and human rights. In fact, it is these NGOs that are the agents of the US agenda, facilitating regime change in ‘authoritarian’ and ‘despotic’ countries.
In the last 10-15 years, there has been growing dissatisfaction in the world with the value-oriented policy of Pax Americana, especially since the US itself resorts to these values when it deems it necessary. For example, while condemning the killing of journalists in ‘authoritarian’ countries, the US turned a blind eye in 2018 to the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi embassy in Turkey, refusing to take any action against Saudi Arabia. US interests and the supply of cheap oil were expectedly more important to US elites than the defence of free speech.
The declaration of high ideals has not prevented the US government from close ties with non-governmental armed groups in the Middle East, Southeast Asia (Indonesia), and Africa. The rhetoric of human rights and defence of democracy, as history has shown, is used as a weapon when it comes to Russia, Iran, China, Brazil and other countries that do not copy the American model of development. Therefore, in the last 10 years, many countries in Asia and Latin America have developed an understandable interest in co-operation with China. Chinese economic initiatives - the Belt and Road and the Digital Silk Road - offered joint solutions to economic problems without tying economic assistance to ‘democratic’ reforms in the interests of the United States.
The growing interest in co-operation with China happens largely due to the reluctance of developing countries to change their domestic policies to please Washington. Unlike the US, China uses a pragmatic approach to building relations with other countries, based solely on economic interests. China is becoming an alternative centre of attraction for countries wishing to develop but not seeking to Americanise their political systems.
Emergence of alternative centres of influence
Since the 1990s, during the emergence of a unipolar world, entering the zone of influence of the Pax Americana seemed, in fact, the only way for a state to secure an acceptable development path and become a ‘civilised’ country. It was during that period that Francis Fukuyama and other neoliberal international historians proclaimed the ‘end of history’, namely the triumph of the neoliberal path of development according to the American model.
Nevertheless, the exclusive dominance of the Pax Americana could not but give rise to attempts to form a more just world order that would not involve the overthrow of regimes undesirable to the US. The most successful attempt in this regard was the creation of BRICS, an association that advocates a multipolar world, mutual assistance and rejection of the dominance of Western economic and liberal agendas. BRICS unites states with different political regimes, ways of life and traditions. At the same time, BRICS opposes neo-colonial practices, which are currently epitomised by Pax Americana. If the BRICS countries manage to deepen integration and introduce a payment system that excludes the dollar, it could cause significant damage to the U.S. world order.
BRICS is also favoured by its anti-colonial status and the proclamation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries. BRICS is in favour of expanding the representation of the Global South in the international arena and limiting the hegemony of the US and Western countries. The BRICS countries have proclaimed these principles before, but it is only relatively recently that they have gained economic power and influence, which the US has to take into account. The world order that has emerged since the 2020s can no longer be called a unipolar world orientated exclusively towards the US.
Prospects for Western countries in case of abandoning the Pax Americana model
Nowadays, Pax Americana is facing various crisis manifestations in the metropolis, in addition to difficulties in the external direction. An incomplete list of these manifestations includes polarisation of ordinary citizens to the point of hatred; rising social inequality, uncontrolled migration and deteriorating governance at the top. Collectively, this forces the U.S. to close in on itself, reducing spending on its overseas territories, including Europe.
If the U.S. finally withdraws from Europe, content with downgrading its status and luring key industrial companies from the Old World, Europe will have to fundamentally revise its development strategy. This would involve developing a new foreign policy that is less confrontational towards Russia (Germany, Austria and Italy support this), revitalising its own industry, and revising the entire EU structure that limits the sovereignty of its members. The greatest resistance to US withdrawal from the region will come from the UK, Poland and the Baltic states – the most loyal countries to Pax Americana.
The emergence of a multipolar world order would help European countries to restore their subjectivity. As a result, Europe would be able to solve the problems it faces: economic stagnation, bureaucratisation of governance and sacrificing its industry to US economic interests.
In the 2020s, Pax Americana will face growing external and internal crises.Foreign policy crises are the result of continuous expansion, while domestic crises are the result of growing ideological and social contradictions among US citizens. In such circumstances, countries or associations like BRICS now have an opportunity to change the state of affairs in their favour.Although the US will continue to destabilise the international situation, its capabilities may be limited by the joint efforts of the BRICS countries and the Global South. In the bastion of the American world, Europe, there is also a growing awareness of the detrimental impact of Pax Americana on politics and economics.
