The Day After Pax Americana

Can the free world survive US disengagement from the world?

Can free countries survive the disengagement of the United States from the world?  Ever since WWII free countries (and many non-free ones) have depended on the Pax Americana for defense and prosperity.   The willingness and ability of the United States to extend its nuclear umbrella to and place troops in Europe, South Korea and Japan has allowed those countries to prosper. It could be argued that there would be no European style welfare states without the immense contribution of the US military in freeing many of these countries from the worries of self-Defense. 

Other countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Philippines (and others) have depended upon US military assistance and in many cases active US armed force personnel to maintain their independence and prosperity.    The ability of the Gulf states to ship oil around the world would be compromised without the US Navy’s permanent presence in the Persian Gulf.   Recently, the Iranians and their proxies have been challenging the US presence which just goes to show how fragile freedom of the seas is. In the Western hemisphere, the US has had its ups and downs but currently faces an ever more confident Cuba and Venezuela supported by China, Iran and Russia.   All three Axis countries have increased their presence in Central and South America and are important parts of the drug trade that is poisoning the US and the immigration follies that we are seeing on the US-Mexican border.

Are we reaching a new era in global politics?  Is the United States still willing and able to be guarantor of freedom around the world?   The historian Niall Ferguson has stated on numerous occasions that countries can’t survive as global leaders when their debt service is greater than their defense budget.  The United States is now there.  The cost of servicing US debt is now $879 billion per year or about 18% of the US Federal budget.   The US Defense budget is around $705 billion – closer to 12% of the US Federal budget. 

Politically the US seems to have an increase in isolationism on both sides of the aisle.  While no one knows that a Trump foreign policy will look like and who will be running it, the withdrawal from the world is certainly a main talking point of the campaign (although Trump’s comment on the importance of the USD as a reserve currency is a bit encouraging).  On the Democratic side there is certainly a move away from its traditional allies and towards either isolationism or a support of “anti-colonialist” and revolutionary movements wherever they are.  The support for Hamas and Iran, and for that matter nearly everyone anti-Western including at times Russia, by a vocal part of the Democratic party has free countries around the world re-assessing their future security concerns.

When we say free countries though, we are limiting the group of countries that oppose the new Axis and are therefore American allies.   Using a Kissingerian term we can say that the current battle is the “status-quo” countries vs. the “revolutionary” countries and movements.   The status quo this group supports is the current global order – the Pax Americana.   The revolutionary countries include countries and movements that are looking to overturn this global order.  These countries run from Communist China and North Korea to Shiite-Islamist theocrats in Iran to the modern Mafia state kleptocracy that Russia has become.  Each train and use proxies to create chaos in the world, engage in money laundering and the drug trade to finance the chaos and look to create a new order based on their power and terror. 

The disengagement of the US from this battle – or at least the reduction of US involvement is not something inevitable.  There is no historical law that dictates that all civilizations must come to an end of that all major powers must fall.  True enough, the world has seen empires and powers come and go and it could be that the US will follow that pattern -but it is a positive choice by the American people and leadership to do so.   There has never been a democratic-liberal-capitalist great power before the United States – so to put it in the category of ancient Egypt or Rome or Babylonia or even 19^th century UK is a mistake.

This may not happen.   The world war on the horizon may trigger the end of isolationism much as Pearl Harbor did in the last century but it is certainly reasonable to prepare for a world in which the United States vastly reduces its global footprint.   That doesn’t mean that the United States disappears or stops being a large, powerful country.  It does mean that the US will no longer be a guarantor of freedom in general and freedom of the seas in particular.   We are already seeing more than hints that this is happening so lets examine a world where the Axis is still with us, but the US is a country that stops concerning itself too much with the world around it.

Our goal here is to examine a way for the free or status quo powers to survive and even thrive in a world where US involvement is reduced.   I think that if the US decided to withdraw totally from the world and try to use its oceans as a defense from everyone else there is no future for the status quo since that in itself would be a revolutionary event – one that destroys the global order.  Free countries like Australia, Israel, Japan, UK, Germany and others would be on their own.   It would be a more violent more chaotic and more autocratic world.  Honestly, I don’t think the US could escape the chaos as revolutionary countries and movements don’t value stability – they value extending the revolution until total victory – and then of course, some other revolution will extend that.

But what if the US just reduced its involvement (and influence) in the world – could the status quo powers adapt and survive and thrive?  Before we even discuss the possible alliances that would be required to defend themselves let us predicate this on assumption that the political class of these countries will have come to realize that they have to put on their big boy pants and start spending money on their own defense.   This could mean a doubling or more of their defense expenditures for some countries and a universal draft for others.  It would mean taking the threats from potential enemies seriously.   It will also mean that they take their futures more seriously and actually start having children.  You can’t really take demography out of geo-politics.

Let’s start from the “top of world”, so to speak and the main threat there.  In northern, eastern and central Europe, Russia is without a doubt the main threat to freedom.   Russia and its ally Belarus border six NATO countries – Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.   Ukraine of course shares a long border with Russia and is the main current European victim of Russian aggression.   Sweden, Germany, Czech, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary are all close enough to be considered threats. 

The frontline countries with direct borders have a combined population of around 100 million and the other countries listed total approximately 110 million people.  Russia and Belarus total about 160 million.  With priorities in place an alliance of these countries should have a large enough army and industrial base to deter further Russian expansion, even if they continue to hold onto parts of Ukraine.  The Swedish, Finnish and Polish navies should be able to maintain superiority in the Baltic Sea and a ground army focusing on Ukraine, Sweden, Poland and Germany should be able to protect the borders of the front line states.  The only thing missing would be nuclear deterrence - but there is certainly enough knowledge and knowhow for Sweden or Germany to handle that. 

Moving to the Atlantic Ocean we have a true “Atlantic Alliance” with the US in the lead and including Canada, the UK, France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco – with other West African countries brought in.   In the South Atlantic  and the western Hemisphere in general the US will have to revitalize the Monroe Doctrine and if it can maintain or even grow its defense budget it will have enough firepower to be invincible here – if it has the will.  If Argentina really does reform itself and the other major South American countries realize that the US is back as the only major power in the hemisphere, alliances can grow.  This could include Brazil on the Atlantic coast.  These countries will have to realize that China is not here to aid the prosperity of these countries and that China’s building many ports in the western hemisphere is only for the advantage it gives China vs. the US.   

Moving to the Eastern Mediterranean we have a greater challenge as Iran and Russia have a presence there and Turkey, the largest and maybe the most powerful country in the region is at a point of belligerence with its Mediterranean neighbors – Israel, Greece, Cyprus and even Syria.  Turkey seems stuck in various worlds and is never sure where it wants to be – Europe, the Moslem world or a bridge between the two.  Is it a friend of foe of Russia?  From Israel and Greece’s point of view it is not a trustworthy partner although if NATO were to dissolve (as would happen with an American withdrawal) there is no knowing which direction Turkey would face.  It supports many Moslem causes but not all (see the Uighurs in China).  It is not very welcome in the Arab world but tries its best to be on their side against Israel.  It hates Iran but cooperates with them when fighting the Kurds. 

Leaving Turkey to the side for a moment we can envision an alliance of Israel, Greece, Cyprus and Italy to control and defend the Eastern Mediterranean against Iranian and Russian encroachment.   Israel, Cyprus and Greece already have joint military exercises and have joint interests in the natural gas industry.  Italy now has a right of center government and, if left without the US to lean on could be eager to join this alliance.  The navies of these countries would be able to guarantee free shipping and protect the gas fields of Israel and Cyprus.   The other wild card in the region besides Turkey is Egypt.  While certainly a status quo state, it seems always to be looking over its shoulder at the Muslim Brotherhood which is the Islamic revolutionary movement par excellence.

If Egypt could be convinced to join due to Russia’s alignment with Iran this would be a very powerful alliance that  would be able to check Russian and Iranian power in the Mediterranean. The safety and success of the Suez Canal might convince them that this is the right way to work.

Israel would probably still have to face the Iranian backed world on its own but besides re-supply of arms, this is already being done.   An increase in its own armaments production as well as diversification of its supply chain by purchasing weapons systems from South Korea, India, Japan and a revitalized Europe will reduce its total reliance on the US and thereby make it less fragile (see our Is Israel a Fragile Country?).

Moving southeast we have a greater challenge but one that can be met with India taking the lead.    India is the largest country in the world, a working democracy with many problems and more potential.   It can certainly pick up economically and major investments there could turn it into the greatest manufacturing hub in the world.   It already has a blue water navy of over 130 ships as well as 143 aircraft and 130 helicopters.  It operates as far as the South China Sea and the Mediterranean.   It plans to reach 175 warships by 2035. In a global realignment of free countries India could be given responsibility for the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the coastal areas of the Indian Ocean near Africa.  Although a great challenge, with help it could even take responsibility for the Persian Gulf if Isarel were to increase its naval power to be able to control the Red Sea along with the Saudis and Egyptians. African countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia might be interested in joining such a pro-Western alliance.   Other sub-Saharan countries might be interested as well as they already see the damage that Iran and Russia do to them. If Egypt as part of the Eastern Mediterranean alliance there is no reason it won’t be interested in joining India.

This alliance, the Indo-Arabian-African-Israeli alliance, with India in the lead would mean that Iran would be outmatched.  Pakistan would have to decide if they hate the Iranian Shiites or Indian Hindus more.   Their relationship with China could also be an issue. They could be a dangerous threat but, besides their border issues with India seem to leave most of their brutality in house.   They are historic supporters of Al-Qaeda but rarely export terror on their own.

Moving eastward we have India holding up the left flank and would be joined by Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia to control the eastern Indian Ocean and of course the Bay of Bengal.  There are currently no major conflicts here, but this area controls a large amount of trade. 

India of course has a history of friendliness to Russia and hostility to the US but a change in US policy could force it to understand that it needs to stand with the status quo powers.  And of course, the US would have to stop trying to interfere in internal Indian politics.

Moving up to the South China Sea and the vast Pacific Ocean the United States here will have to have a major presence.   We are not talking about junior partners in the Axis here but THE major power.  The Pacific Ocean has to be America’s lake.  Japan, South Korea and Australia – along with Taiwan if it still exists – will together have to contain China and not permit it to bully Philippines and Vietnam.  This is a natural alliance and unless China takes control of Taiwan without any punishment from the US it should hold together and be stronger than the other potential alliances we have mentioned.   With the US Navy now responsible “only” for the Atlantic and Pacific China will have to think twice before initiating a confrontation.

I admit there are a lot of moving parts and as I said at the start the reduction of the US presence in the world and the end of a true Pax Americana is not inevitable – but that seems to be the direction towards which we are moving.   If the other status quo and free countries of the world don’t start thinking about the “day after”  - it will be a regret they can’t take back.  These  countries have to start acting like adults and taking responsibility for their own defense.   It means that the leaders who have brought us here must go and make way for a new generation.   Will that generation understand?  Has Ukraine and Gaza gotten through to them?  Do they understand that the dream of Perpetual Peace that Kant had centuries ago is not possible by reading his tract – but only by assuming there will be perpetual war and preparing and living your life that way?  Even countries that take their defense seriously, like Israel, have been lulled to sleep by dreams of perpetual peace and Israel too will have to increase its already high defense spending. 

This proposal will need political, emotional and financial boldness by the status-quo countries and by the US.  In the US this will have to be a bipartisan agreement much like the early cold war since it will require 10-15 years to put in place and the United States will have to take the lead on implementation.  This is not a quick solution. 

For each of the status quo countries it will require leadership that is not there now.  The manufacturing of weapons, chips and other items will have to shift to status-quo countries and each alliance will have to support that.   Diplomatically, the status-quo countries will have to support each other, with the US still in the lead.  But the US will have to stop its woke foreign policy goals, stop interfering in the internal workings of its allies and stop putting pre-conditions on its supply of military hardware to other status-quo countries.  It will also have to get its fiscal house in order so that the US dollar can continue to be the reserve currency. These are some of the prices it will have to pay for its disengagement. 

Can freedom survive the retrenchment of US power?  With hard work it just might.