Is This the End of Pax Americana?

In the 1990s, a common refrain was against what Hubert Vedrine, a former French foreign minister, termed the American 'hyperpower.' Vedrine, a progressive thinker, argued that the major issue for the world's powers was the U.S.'s considerable influence over cultures and ideologies. He called for a 'balanced multipolarism' to challenge the U.S.'s one-sided dominance and reduce its overarching influence.

Vedrine's vision seems to have been partially realized under President Trump, though likely not in the manner or to the degree he envisioned.

The Trump administration's foreign policy, characterized by dramatic declarations and little evidence, has been challenging to decipher. Is there a cohesive strategy beyond a penchant for spectacle and baseless claims of unfair treatment by other nations?

Historian Jennifer Mittelstadt from Rutgers University argues that Trump's approach is rooted in 'sovereigntism,' a stance hailing from 1919 when Henry Cabot Lodge and his fellow Republicans opposed U.S. involvement in the League of Nations. This perspective has historically shown skepticism towards American commitments, ranging from NATO to trade agreements, and significant decisions like the Carter administration's handing over the Panama Canal.

'Sovereigntism' allows a nation to act freely, constrained only by its capabilities. It marks the abandonment of mutual self-restraint, fostering a disregard for international conduct unless it directly affects the nation. This philosophy echoes the infamous Athenian declaration during the Peloponnesian War, proclaiming that 'the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.'

Such a stance potentially spells the end of another concept: Pax Americana.

Drawing its title from the Roman and British periods of peace, Pax Americana extends beyond mere U.S. interests, representing American power wielded not only for itself but for broader global benefits.