Editing Pax Americana (section)

=== Comparison with Pax Romana ===
Writing in 1945, [[Ludwig Dehio]] remembered that the Germans used the term ''Pax Anglosaxonica'' in a sense of Pax Americana since 1918 and discussed the possibility of a Pax Anglosaxonica as a world-wide counterpart to the Pax Romana.<ref>Ludwig Dehio, ''The Precarious Balance: Four Centuries of the European Power Struggle'', 1945 (tr. Fullman, Charles, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 244.</ref> The United States, Dehio associates on the same page, withdrew to isolation on that occasion. "Rome, too, had taken a long time to understand the significance of her world role." 

With the outbreak of World War II, British Prime Minister, [[Neville Chamberlain]], resolved that England would win the Second World War too as Rome had won the Second Punic War. Hitler disagreed: history has not yet determined who shall play Rome and who shall play Carthage in this case.<ref>Hitler, Adolf (September 3, 1939). ''The Complete Hitler Speeches and Proclamations 1932 1945''. (tr. Domarus, Max, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1997), p 1787, 1872, https://archive.org/details/the-complete-hitler-speeches-and-proclamations-1932-1945_202409/page/1787/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> The War fast took a clear turn towards what the contemporary Germans feared as the fatal ''Pax Anglosaxonica''. In 1943, Hitler tried to encourage his team: “They will never become Rome. America will never be the Rome of the future.”<ref>Hitler, Adolf (1942-45). ''Hitler and His Generals: Military Conferences, 1942-1945''. (tr. Heiber, Helmut & Glantz, David. New York: Enigma Books, 2002), p 92, https://archive.org/details/hitler-and-his-generals-1942-1945/page/92/mode/2up</ref> The same year, however, Hitler's compatriot and the founder of the [[Paneuropean Union]], [[Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi]], whom Hitler called "cosmopolitan bastard,"<ref>Hitler, Adolf (1928). ''[[Secret Book]]''. (ed. Taylor, Telford, tr. Attanasio, Salvator, New York: Grove Press, 1962), p 107.</ref> projected a new "Pax Romana" based on the preponderant US air power:

{{quote|During the third century BC the Mediterranean world was divided on five great powers—Roma and Carthage, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. The balance of power led to a series of wars until Rome emerged the queen of the Mediterranean and established an incomparable era of two centuries of peace and progress, the 'Pax Romana'&nbsp;... It may be that America's air power could again assure our world, now much smaller than the Mediterranean at that period, two hundred years of peace&nbsp;... This is the only realistic hope for a lasting peace.<ref>''Crusade for Pan-Europe'' (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), pp. 299–304.</ref>}}

Soon many scholars found that what Coudenhove-Kalergi called the "only realistic hope for peace" is coming true. In the mid-1960s, some scholars concluded that the United States had outstripped the Soviet Union beyond the bipolar model and instead looked to the model of Rome.<ref>Bull, Hedley (1977). ''The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics''. (London: Macmillan), p 201.</ref> One of those scholars, George Liska, argued that historical superstates in general and the Roman Empire in particular rather than the recent colonial empires have relevance for the contemporary US foreign policy.<ref>Liska, George (1967). ''Imperial American: The International Politics of Primacy''. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,), p 9-10, 23.</ref> Prefacing his ''Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire'' in 1976,<ref>(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press), p XII, https://archive.org/details/grandstrategyofr0000lutt/page/n13/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> Pentagon employee [[Edward Luttwak]] stressed that the United States pursues similar to Rome goals, faces a similar kind of resistance, and hence must apply a similar strategy. In the late 1990s,<ref>Elliot, Justin (4 April 2008). “Don’t know much about history: The Pentagon looks back to four great empires for tip on how to rule the world,”  ‘’Global Policy Forum’’, https://archive.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/26017.html</ref> Pentagon initiated new research on “military advantage in history” and how to keep it. Of four empires they selected, Rome was emphasized as the most relevant model for the contemporary United States.<ref>Herman, Mark et al (2002). “Military advantage in history,” [[Information Assurance Technology Analysis Center]]. (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense), chapter 6, p 81-82, https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/legacy/news/featurex/2008/07/military-advantage-in-history.pdf</ref> The "whole bunch" of copies went out to the government.<ref>Elliot, Justin (4 April 2008). “Don’t know much about history: The Pentagon looks back to four great empires for tip on how to rule the world,”  ‘’Global Policy Forum’’, https://archive.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/26017.html</ref> A decade later, former [[United States National Security Council|NSC]] employee, Carnes Lord, compared US combatant commanders, Roman proconsuls, British colonial officials, Persian [[Satrap|satraps]] and Spanish [[Viceroy|viceroys]]. He found the American version most similar to the Roman proconsular model.<ref>Lord, Cranes (2012). ''Proconsuls: Delegated Political-Military Leadership from Rome to America Today''. (New York: Cambridge University Press), p 2, 6.</ref>

[[Joseph Nye]] titled his 2002 article "The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians".<ref>{{Cite magazine |title=The new Rome meets the new barbarians |url=https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2002/03/21/the-new-rome-meets-the-new-barbarians |magazine=The Economist |issn=0013-0613|last=Nye|first= Joseph|date= March 21, 2002|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190915234602/https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2002/03/21/the-new-rome-meets-the-new-barbarians|archive-date=September 15, 2019 }}</ref> His book of the same year he opens: "Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others."<ref>''The Paradox of American Power'', (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002).</ref> And his 1991 book he titled ''Bound to Lead''.<ref>''Bound To Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power'' (Basic Books, 1991).</ref> ''Leadership'', translated into Greek, renders ''[[hegemony]]''; an alternative translation is ''archia'' – Greek common word for ''empire''. Decline, he writes, is not necessarily imminent. "Rome remained dominant for more than three centuries after the peak of its power&nbsp;...<ref>"[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-11-01/future-american-power The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220122032/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-11-01/future-american-power |date=December 20, 2016 }}", ''Foreign Affairs'' (November–December 2010).</ref>

The ‘’''Pax Americana''’’ motif and its Roman parallel reached their peak in the context of the 2003 [[Iraq War]]. Comparing the United States to the Roman Empire has become somewhat of a cliché.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 9.</ref> [[Jonathan Freedland]] observed:

{{Quote|Of course, enemies of the United States have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades&nbsp;... What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of an American empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the United States&nbsp; Accelerated by the post-9/11 debate on America's role in the world, the idea of the United States as a 21st-century Rome is gaining a foothold in the country's consciousness.<ref>"[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment Rome, AD&nbsp;... Rome, DC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161022165503/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment |date=2016-10-22 }}", ''The Guardian'' (September 18, 2002)</ref>}}

<!-- [[WP:NFCC]] violation: [[File:Ave Bush.gif|thumbnail|left|Ave Bush! The article in the culture section of the Italian newspaper ''La Stampa'' featured the banner headline "Ave Bush" ("Hail Bush") in large type and depicted George W. Bush behind his presidential podium, index finger pointing, next to a photo of the ''prima porta'' statue of the emperor Augustus.]] -->

''[[The New York Review of Books]]'' illustrated a 2002 piece on US might with a drawing of George Bush togged up as a [[Roman centurion]], complete with shield and spears.<ref>[[Ronald Dworkin]], "[http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0891/0192/products/d561dcf238a6043d82261585af83865b_2048x2048.gif?v=1448134567 The Threat to Patriotism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161224164357/http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0891/0192/products/d561dcf238a6043d82261585af83865b_2048x2048.gif?v=1448134567 |date=2016-12-24 }}", ''The New York Review of Books'' (February 28, 2002)</ref> Bush's visits to Germany in 2002 and 2006 resulted in further Bush-as-Roman-emperor invective appearing in the German press. In 2006, freelance writer, political satirist, and correspondent for the left-leaning ''[[Die Tageszeitung]]'', Arno Frank, compared the spectacle of the visit by ''[[Imperator]]'' Bush to "elaborate inspection tours of Roman emperors in important but not completely pacified provinces—such as [[Germania]]".<ref>Cited in {{Cite journal | doi=10.1007/s12138-013-0320-0|title = Pax Romana/Pax Americana: Views of the "New Rome" from "Old Europe", 2000–2010|year = 2013|last1 = Burton|first1 = Paul J.|journal = International Journal of the Classical Tradition|volume = 20|issue = 1–2|pages = 15–40|s2cid = 162321437}}</ref> In September 2002, Boston's [[WBUR-FM]] radio station titled a special on US imperial power with the tag "''Pax Americana''".<ref>Jonathan Freedland, "[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment Rome, AD&nbsp;... Rome, DC] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161022165503/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment |date=2016-10-22 }}", ''The Guardian'' (September 18, 2002)</ref> "The Roman parallel", wrote [[Niall Ferguson]] in 2005,<ref>''Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire'' (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), p. 14.</ref> "is in danger of becoming something of a cliché." The phrase "American Empire" appeared in one thousand news stories over a single six-month period in 2003.<ref>Julian Go, ''Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present'' (New York: Cambridge University Press,  2011), p. 2.</ref> A 2009 [[Google search]] yielded policy analyst [[Vaclav Smil]] 22 million hits for "America as a new Rome", and 23 million for "American Empire." Intrigued, Smil titled his 2010 book by what he intended to explain: ''Why America Is Not a New Rome''.<ref>{{Cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=jkhTtZbdc4sC|title = Why America is Not a New Rome|isbn = 9780262288293|last1 = Smil|first1 = Vaclav|date = 2010|publisher = The MIT Press|location = Massachusetts|page = XI-XII}}</ref> The very phenomenon of the Roman-American association became the subject of research for Classicist Paul J. Burton.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1007/s12138-013-0320-0|title = Pax Romana/Pax Americana: Views of the "New Rome" from "Old Europe", 2000–2010|year = 2013|last1 = Burton|first1 = Paul J.|journal = International Journal of the Classical Tradition|volume = 20|issue = 1–2|pages = 15–40|s2cid = 162321437}}</ref>

In fact, there are striking parallels with the early ''Pax Romana'' (especially between 189 BC when the supremacy over the Mediterranean was won and the first annexation in 168 BC). By contrast to other empires, the early ''Pax Romana'' did not impose regular taxation on other states.<ref>Sands, Perry Cooper (1975). ''The Client Princes unde the Republic''. (New York: Amo Press), p 127-128, 152-155.</ref><ref>[[John North (historian)|North, John A]]. (1981). "The development of Roman imperialism," ''Journal of Roman Studies'', vol 71: p 2.</ref> The first good evidence of such a taxation comes from Judea as late as 64 BC.<ref>[[Andrew Lintott|Lintott, Andrew]] (1993). ''Imperium Romanum''. (London: Routeledge), p 35.</ref> Client states made irregular military or economic contributions in case of the hegemonic campaigns, as is the case under the ''Pax Americana''.<ref>Ostrovsky, Max (2006). ''The Hyperbola of the World Order''. (Lanham: University Press of America), p 225.</ref>

Formally, client states remained independent and very seldom were called "clients". The latter term became widely used only in the late medieval period. Usually, other states were called "friends and allies"—a popular expression under the ''Pax Americana''. [[Arnold J. Toynbee]] stressed the similarity of the US alliances with the [[Client kingdoms in ancient Rome|Roman client system]]<ref>Toynbee, Arnold (1962). ''America and the World Revolution''. (New York: Oxford University Press), p 105-106, https://archive.org/details/americaworldrevo0000toyn/page/104/mode/2up?view=theater&q=annexation</ref> and [[Ronald Steel]] cited Toynbee’s parallel at length in his book, titled ''Pax Americana''.<ref>Steel, Ronald (1967). ''Pax Americana''. (New York: Viking Press), p 17, https://archive.org/details/paxamericana0000stee/page/16/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> Peter Bender, in his 2003 article "America: The New Roman Empire",<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1016/S0030-4387(02)00180-1|title = America: The New Roman Empire?|year = 2003|last1 = Bender|first1 = Peter|journal = Orbis|volume = 47|pages = 145–159}}</ref> summarized: "When politicians or professors are in need of a historical comparison in order to illustrate the United States' incredible might, they almost always think of the Roman Empire."<ref>"America: The New Roman Empire", p. 145.</ref> The article abounds with analogies:

{{ordered list|"When they later extended their power to overseas territories, they shied away from assuming direct control wherever possible." In the Hellenistic world, Rome withdrew its legions after three wars and instead settled for a role of all-powerful patron and arbitrator.<ref>"America: The New Roman Empire", p. 147.</ref>
|The factor for the overseas engagement is the same in both cases: the seas or oceans ceased to offer protection, or so it seemed.
{{quote|Rome and America both expanded in order to achieve security. Like concentric circles, each circle in need of security demanded the occupation of the next larger circle. The Romans made their way around the Mediterranean, driven from one challenger to their security to the next. The struggles&nbsp;... brought the Americans to Europe and East Asia; the Americans soon wound up all over the globe, driven from one attempt at containment to the next. The boundaries between security and power politics gradually blurred. The Romans and Americans both eventually found themselves in a geographical and political position that they had not originally desired, but which they then gladly accepted and firmly maintained.<ref>"America: The New Roman Empire", pp. 148, 151.</ref>}}
|"Both claimed the unlimited right to render their enemies permanently harmless." Postwar treatments of Carthage, Macedon, Germany and Japan are similar.<ref name="America p 152">"America: The New Roman Empire", p. 152.</ref>
|"They became protective lords after each act of assistance provided to other states; in effect, they offered protection and gained control. The protected were mistaken when they assumed that they could use Rome or America to their own ends without suffering a partial loss of their sovereignty."<ref name="America p 152" />
|"World powers without rivals are a class unto themselves. They&nbsp;... are quick to call loyal followers friends, or amicus populi Romani. They no longer know any foes, just rebels, terrorists, and rogue states. They no longer fight, merely punish. They no longer wage wars but merely create peace. They are honestly outraged when vassals fail to act as vassals."<ref>"America: The New Roman Empire", p. 155.</ref> [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]] comments on the latter analogy: "One is tempted to add, they do not invade other countries, they only liberate."<ref>''The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership'' (New York: Basic Books, 2004), p. 216.</ref>}}

Another book completely devoted to the comparison between Rome and the United States is ''The Empires of Trust'' by Roman Historian [[Thomas F. Madden]].<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult).</ref> Madden outlines numerous parallels, such as beginning of both Empires as frontier societies and following isolationist policy, their later pattern of defensive imperialism, or allying other states rather than conquering them. Besides causes and patterns, he devotes much attention to the analogous results of Pax Romana and Pax Americana. The elimination of external threat leads to decline in internal social harmony. 

Civil strife erupted in Rome and led to the fall of the Republic. The new and bitter disputes that erupted among the Romans were a by-product of Pax which paradoxically bears fierce internal divisions. The Romans remained a closely knit group so long as they continued to have powerful outside enemies — so long as the collective focus of their lives was the defense and preservation of their society.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 234, 237, 239.</ref>

The powerful outside enemies were eliminated by 146 BC. And in 133 BC, violence broke on the [[Capitoline Hill]] in Rome. For the first time, the people did not defer to the Senate. And perhaps not anymore. Law was dispensed with and blood began to flow. Romans were killing Romans.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 230, 233-234, 238-239.</ref>

Both classics<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 239-245.</ref> and modern historians stressed the absent external threat as the factor of civil wars in the 1st century BC followed by the fall of the Republic. But Madden seems to be the first scholar to apply the thesis to the United States: “Do the same dangers await America?”<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 250.</ref> Writing before the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|2021 Capitol attack]], he reflects: 
{{quote|
[[Capitoline Hill|Capitol Hill]] was the city's highest and most revered of the seven hills that made up Rome. Of course, [[Washington, D.C.|Washington]] has a [[Capitol Hill]] too, named after the Roman one, and which has seen its own share of political fights. But not like this… No blood has yet flowed on America's Capitol Hill, but the Pax Americana is still young.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 230, 234.</ref>}}
In 146 BC, thirteen years before the first outbreak of civil violence, Rome had eliminated two more external threats (from Carthage and Greece). The United States lost its last grave (Soviet) external threat in 1991. Supposing that we might be in the Roman sequence, where 146 BC corresponds to AD 1991, Madden asks whether the United States has reached the level of Pax that Rome had achieved by 146 BC.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 201.</ref> His estimation is either yes or very close,<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 210.</ref> but either way external threats will remain too small to wield the pre-1991 national unity.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 250.</ref>

Thus, America is likely to repeat the Roman sequence and, though writing before 2020, he finds that indeed since 1991 the Americans, like the Romans since 146 BC, have been losing their internal harmony. Without external threats, he says, it is not surprising that we can detect the same turn inward in the United States as well. The dynamics that had bound Americans so closely together gave way to those that bound them together into smaller groups, such as red states and blue states.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 238, 250.</ref>

Political rivalries under the Pax Romana became fierce — so fierce that they undermined the fabric of the Republic. The Roman experience suggests that a republic cannot survive such a turmoil. But it was neither the Empire that was at stake, nor the Pax Romana that it brought. Those would remain secure for centuries. It was, instead, the republican form of government that fell. Hence, in worst case, Pax Americana would continue under imperial government.<ref>Madden, Thomas F. (2008). ''Empires of Trust: How Rome Built—and America Is Building—a New World''. (Dutton Adult), p 250.</ref>