On Monday, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan (Singapore’s minister for foreign affairs) was interviewed by Reuters about the impact of the Iran war on Singapore and economics. Within that interview, he offered the following historical perspective framed around the concept of a “Pax Americana”:
“For 80 years, the US was the underwriter for a system of globalisation based on UN Charter principles, multilateralism, territorial integrity, sovereign equality. It actually heralded an unprecedented and unique period of global prosperity and peace. Of course there were exceptions. And of course, the Cold War was still in effect for at least half of the last 80 years. But generally, for those of us who were non-communists, who ran open economies, who provided first world infrastructure, together with a hardworking disciplined people, we had unprecedented opportunities.
The story of Singapore, with a per capita GDP of 500 US dollars in 1965. Now, [it is] somewhere between 80,000 to 90,000 US dollars. It would not have happened if it had not been for this unprecedented period, basically Pax Americana and then turbocharged by the reform and opening of China for decades. It has been unprecedented. It has been great for many of us. In fact, I will say, for all of us, if you look back 80 years.
But now, whether you like it or not, objectively, this period has ended. There is no point trying to assign blame or pejorative adjectives. That is not helpful. Basically, the underwriter of this world order has now become a revisionist power, and some people would even say a disruptor. But the larger point is that the erosion of norms, processes, and institutions that underpinned a remarkable period of peace and prosperity; that foundation has gone.”
That term “Pax Americana” is a reappropriation of the ancient term “Pax Romana,” translated “Roman peace.” The ancient term was first used by Seneca the Younger in 55 CE to describe the period in which he lived and which was initiated by the ascent of Augustus in 27 BCE. Later historians describe this period of “Roman peace” to end with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 CE.
For anyone studying this period of history, the term “peace” may seem jarring. Indeed, these years are littered with wars and conflicts and political conniving. The Romans ruled with an iron fist, and had a brutal sense of justice for those who resisted or opposed them. But in the Roman worldview, peace was not as an absence of war, but rather that rare situation which existed when all opponents had been beaten down and lost the ability to mount a viable resistance. This was the Roman peace, the Pax Romana.
Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan has me wondering about the Pax Americana of the past eight decades. While he spoke of it in positive terms for his nation and its economy, I am wondering whether our nation’s long ideology of its own Pax Americana might too imagine peace as that situation in which all potential opponents are sufficiently neutered of their ability to offer resistance. Might those efforts over 80 years to subvert the strength and growth of other nations have been part of seeding the animosity towards the USA that has emerged more recently? And now, as our administration weakens the nation and dismantles any ability to enforce such a “peace,” might we be seeing the dangerous fruits of our diligent cultivation come to harvest — just as did the Romans in the period after 180 CE?
And moreover:
How might true peace be distinguished from the oppressive “peace” we were taught to value?
What might those who follow the Prince of Peace be called to embody in a time such as this?
As we follow the journey of Jesus this week to the cross and the grave, his commitments to nonviolence and simple speech are striking. What do they say to us in our present day of the world going sideways?
Remember, we’re all in this together,
Pastor Michael