Login
iscover
Few nations have benefited from the era of history known as Pax Americana or the American Peace quite like Australia has. But is the mythos surrounding this era just hype, and has the American Peace ever actually existed?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Few concepts have been as influential in modern history quite like the idea of the “American Peace”, the belief that the United States, through a combination of its economic, political and military pre-eminence, has been the linchpin of peace, prosperity and security since the end of the Second World War.
Now in many ways, this is, in essence, at its simplest level both a reasonable and factual statement to make, yet in other ways, it is blatantly false.
While the United States has undoubtedly played a significant role in shaping the post-World War II global order, the notion that it has brought peace to the world is perhaps, controversially, a flawed and selective interpretation of history.
In reality, the period since 1945 has been marked by numerous conflicts, interventions, and wars, many of which have been directly or indirectly influenced by American actions, particularly during the Cold War, when the United States and its allies sought to curb the spread of Communism around the world.
Following the end of the Cold War and the struggle between liberal capitalist democracy and Marxist–Leninist socialism and the rise of the “End of History”, it would be safe to assume that the efforts to “secure” the post-war global order would give way to a far more “hands off” approach to global affairs by the world’s sole remaining superpower.
We now know that was wishful thinking, with the post-Cold War world enjoying a period of relative stability to become an increasingly contested and multipolar world, dominated by a constellation of growing great powers across the world, serving to fundamentally reshape the geopolitical geography of the 21st century.
As an aside, this is not a criticism of the concept or the narrative that surrounds Pax Americana, rather, it is an attempt to acknowledge and better understand the historical examples in order to push back against the revisionist narrative of nations seeking to undermine the global order we owe our wealth, prosperity, security and stability to.
Proxy wars and ‘hot’ wars – the Cold War conflicts
One of the earliest examples of American involvement in global conflicts post-WWII is the Korean War (1950–53). This conflict, often seen as a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union, was a direct result of the geopolitical struggle for influence during the early Cold War period.
The Korean Peninsula, divided along the 38th parallel after Japan’s defeat in WWII, became the battleground for two competing ideologies – communism and capitalism.
The United States, fearing the spread of communism in Asia, intervened militarily to support South Korea after North Korea, backed by the Soviet Union and China, invaded in 1950.
While the war ended in an armistice, with the border between North and South Korea largely unchanged, it set the stage for future American military interventions under the guise of containing communism. The Korean War also demonstrated that the idea of American Peace was already being compromised as the world witnessed the devastating consequences of a conflict that left millions dead and the peninsula permanently divided.
Bringing us to perhaps the most significant challenge to the concept of American Peace is the Vietnam War from 1955–75.
The United States, driven by the doctrine of containment and the desire to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia, became embroiled in a conflict that would ultimately lead to widespread devastation and loss of life. The war not only resulted in the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese civilians and 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers, but it also cost the lives of more than 58,000 American soldiers.
The Vietnam War revealed the deep flaws in the idea that American intervention could bring about peace. Instead of stabilising the region, the war exacerbated tensions, led to significant civilian casualties, and left Vietnam in a state of turmoil that would last for years. The war also deeply divided American society, leading to widespread protests and a questioning of the United States’ role as a global peacekeeper.
The notion of American Peace was further discredited as the world watched the United States struggle to justify its involvement in a war that many believed was unnecessary and unjust, a narrative that many domestic political movements in both the US and Australia used to mobilise the public and push back against the governments of the day.
Southeast Asia wasn’t the only theatre of American focus, with the presence of communist insurgencies across central and south America prompting significant US intervention, culminating in a pattern of intervention that has frequently resulted in instability, violence, and waves of human rights abuses.
One of the earliest and most notable examples of American intervention in Central America is the 1954 CIA-backed coup in Guatemala. The US was driven by both economic interests, particularly those of the United Fruit Company (UFCO), and fears of communist influence in the Western Hemisphere.
This intervention had long-term consequences for Guatemala, leading to decades of civil war and instability. The US-backed military regimes that followed were responsible for widespread human rights violations, including the persecution of indigenous communities and the death or disappearance of over 200,000 people during the Guatemalan Civil War (1960–96).
Bringing us to Chile, the CIA actively supported the 1973 coup that overthrew President Salvador Allende, the first Marxist to be elected president in a Latin American country through open elections.
The coup led to the installation of General Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship, which ruled Chile with an iron fist for nearly two decades, Pinochet’s regime was marked by widespread human rights abuses, including torture, forced disappearances, and the execution of thousands of political opponents.
US support for Pinochet was part of a broader strategy to prevent the spread of communism in Latin America, even at the cost of democratic governance and human rights.
But US instigation, support or involvement in these instances are just part of the equation and baggage associated with the 20th century implementation of the Pax Americana.
Everyone’s favourite basket case – the Middle East
The American Peace narrative is also challenged by the United States’ involvement in the Middle East, a region that has seen continuous conflict since the end of WWII.
Much like the British, French, Ottoman and Russian Empires before them, the US has played a central role in shaping the political landscape of the Middle East, often through military intervention and support for authoritarian regimes.
The 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran, which overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah, is an early example of American interventionism in the region. This action set the stage for decades of unrest in Iran, culminating in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which significantly altered the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East and an enduring mistrust and hostility between much of the West and the Iranian regime to this day.
Further to this, the long-standing US support for Israel, particularly during the Arab–Israeli conflicts, has also contributed to the ongoing instability in the region. American military aid to Israel, combined with its diplomatic support, has often been seen as one-sided, fuelling resentment among Arab nations and contributing to the protracted conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The most glaring example of the failure of American Peace in the Middle East is the Iraq War (2003–11). The US invasion of Iraq, justified by the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), led to the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime but also unleashed a wave of violence and instability that continues to affect the region today.
The power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam, combined with sectarian tensions, led to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS, further destabilising the Middle East, with the widespread implications continuing to this day. The Iraq War, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers, is a stark reminder that American military intervention often leads to more conflict rather than peace.
Beyond the Cold War
Even after the end of the Cold War, the United States continued to engage in military interventions around the world, some unilaterally and some with the sanction of multilateral organisations like the United Nations, further complicating the history of the Pax Americana.
In particular, the 1990s saw American involvement in the Balkans, Somalia, and Haiti, while the post-9/11 era ushered in the Global War on Terror, leading to military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.
These interventions, often justified in the name of promoting democracy and combating terrorism, have frequently resulted in prolonged conflicts and humanitarian crises, further undermining the notion of American Peace and fed conveniently into the narratives of the world’s rising powers like China and its gaggle of revisionist comrades.
Today, we are seeing nations like Russia, China, Iran, and even pseudo-partners like India, actively use narratives, all of which have some element of truth in the historical context to undermine the good the United States and its allies have done in the world. They also mobilise these narratives to justify the expansion of their own interests and narratives that gloss over their own crimes.
I guess the old saying of “history being written by the victors” has never been more important.
Final thoughts
It is reasonable to say that the idea of American Peace, in some, was a selective and idealised interpretation of history that overlooks the numerous conflicts, wars, and interventions that have characterised the post-Second World War era.
From the Korean War to the Vietnam War, from the Middle East to the numerous proxy wars during the Cold War, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the American Peace is more myth than reality.
The world has not experienced a true era of peace since 1945, and the role of the United States in global conflicts challenges the very notion that it has acted as a benign and stabilising force in international affairs; however, we have avoided direct confrontation between the world’s nuclear armed powers and that is a good thing.
However, it is important to acknowledge and understand that these actions didn’t occur in a vacuum, with the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, radical Islamic movements and others all actively seeking to expand their influence, their ideology and national interests to their benefit.
Only by acknowledging that while the United States has played a significant role in shaping the global order, its actions have often led to instability, violence, and prolonged conflict rather than peace. By accepting this, the United States and allies, like Australia, can begin to rebuild their moral, political and strategic legitimacy in the face of mounting multipolarity and great power competition.
If both Australian policymakers and the Australian public don’t snap out of the comforting security blanket that is the belief in the “End of History”, the nation will continue to rapidly face an uncomfortable and increasingly dangerous new reality, where we truly are no longer the masters of our own destiny.
All of this combines to form a rather confronting and disconcerting outcome for our long-term national security and one that requires remedying immediately if Australia is to be positioned to capitalise on the truly epoch-defining industrial, economic, political, and strategic shifts currently underway across the globe.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at
