 |
||||||||
|
April 10th, 2007 Ohmynews
Jung, Wook-Sik
Pax Americana, would it be continued even in 21st century?
This is a fundamental question regarding future of world order. Though Korea still has strong tendency to view America as a constant power, Anxiety is already well speared in “Iraq Syndrome” suffering America.
Peace by the powerful America: Korea is apt to think of so-called “Pax Americana” as a natural phenomenon. It is mostly based on wishful think, which is originated from the existing inertia on ROK-US allies and the belief that single US power system is superior to critical analysis of changes in US army force, public opinion, and world order.
However, these days, many warnings and signs are flushing to alert the end of US hegemony. If these warnings and signs were actualized, the result would effect the Korean Peninsula, one of the weakest links of world order, magnificently whether that is positive or not.
Based on the theory of hegemony by Antonio Gramsci, Pax Americana is founded on two factors. One is the physical evidence of superior power, namely economic and military power, which is considered as ‘coercion’. The other is the cognitive foundation based on the mutual agreement of international public and US to view US as a ‘World Police’; this is thought to be ‘consent’.
Unlike previous expansionism nations, which boldly showed their territorial ambitions, US has succeeded preventing diffusion of communism, and characterized itself as a defender of democracy and human rights without revealing such ambitions. These have been the foundations of Pax Americana even though these kinds of recognition contain many problematic concepts. At least, US had the general image of being ‘modesty hegemony’ for a long time.
U.S. citizens turn their backs from its Expansionism
However, basic fundamentals of Pax Americana have been threatened from the inside. As ‘Iraq syndrome’ got more attention with public, the voice of favoring isolationism increased as well.
First, it is worthwhile to focus on the sharp changes of the citizens’ reaction on US favoring militarism and unilateralism. At the time of “evil of axis” speech in 2002, the approval rating of President Bush, who is the head figure of US militarism and unilateralism, was over 80%, but at the time of annual State of the Union address in 2007, it harshly dropped to 30%.
Also, according to the survey on US foreign security policy on October 2006, about 80% of people pointed out that US should choose non-militaristic methods to increase its security level; moreover, about 70% insisted US cooperating with international community along side with UN. This result explains that augmentation of US citizen’s disapproval on how US performs its foreign policy. The militarism and exceptionalism, which are using armed forces and ignoring UN decisions ‘if it is necessary’, are loosing their ground.
The flow of favoring isolationism is also gaining power. According to the public census by Pew Research center, American professional public opinion Research Company, on October 2005, the 42% answered, “US should focus more on domestic issues rather than interfering with other countries.” The result was higher than one in 1976 right after the Vietnam War and another in 1995 after dismantling of cold war.
Remarkably, only 24% showed their support for Bush administration promoting democracy to other nations. This indicates carrying out aggressive policies are not so convincing even within US public opinions.
What should be more recognized is that the Yong Americans’ cognizance regarding this matter. A public consensus by Harvard policy research center on March 2005 gives us more insight to understand the youngsters view between ages of 18 to 24. 72% of people said US should not function as a main actor for inter-nations dispute, crisis, and conflicts along with the answer that the role should be carried out by UN and other countries.
Simply, this could be viewed as the characteristics of post WWII and cold war generation, nonetheless one cannot ignore the fact that the public view also mirrores the critical awareness in this case, generated by Iraq war along with the unilateralism and expansionism of Bush administration.
Cold attitude of international community toward US
International opinion on US is even colder. In 2007, BBC of England carried out a public census subjecting 25 countries 26,380 people. 49% said US negatively affected international community; only 29% answered opposite. In addition, comparing the result to the ones in previous years. 36% in 2006, 40% in 2005 gave US hands up. The cumulated census shows the reputations of US got worsen in international community over the years.
Remarkably US key allies showed negative opinions. Among allies, Germany showed 74% to highest, followed by France 69%, Australia 60%, England 57%, and Korea 54%. The rate of negative answers is relatively high comparing to China 52% and Russia 59%, which are former enemies and future competitors,
Negative opinions are still high looking at policies separately. 73% answered negative on the performance of Bush administration on Iraq War followed by Iran nuclear problem (60%), earth warming (56%), Guantanamo (67%), and North Korea nuclear problem (54%).
Intercession of US interference
Of course, with a single fact that public opinions from in and outside of US are negative, it is hard to make a conclusion that US would choose isolationism like during WWI & II. Empirically isolationism for US is not a tradition but an exception. Plus, not only democratic and republican party but also main public opinion still emphasizes the US role in international society.
Nevertheless, worsening of recognition of international policy of Bush administration would hinder performance of US international policies. It would even hamper sustenance and consolidation of US hegemony. Yet, it is true that if one defines hegemonic power as “to influence others to move one’s desired direction or to overpower other to take one’s desired thing”, US armed force and money power is still powerful.
But again, soft power, which is to change others’ opinion by touching their heart, is obvious getting less effect for US. Between two poles of hegemony, force and agreement, the pole of agreement is shaking from its ground now.
Especially, It is more meaningful that critical awareness on US hegemony increases among liberal democracy nations and US. The myth that “liberal democratic hegemony is mild” is breaking by nobody else but US itself. Plus, liberal democracy is basically very sensitive to public opinion
Therefore, it is highly possible that US interventionism and expansionism go under construction, which may not be mere isolationism. It is highly possible that US draws out of the areas where it does not find strategically importance or further mission.
If nuclear problem in North Korea is resolved, the relationship between North Korea and US become normalize, and the establishment of the peace system in Korean peninsula is possible, South Korea would be one of the good runner-ups of that. That is why the wisdom beyond strengthening of ROK-US alliance and FTA is needed this time.
Jung, Wook-Sik
Pax Americana, would it be continued even in 21st century?
This is a fundamental question regarding future of world order. Though Korea still has strong tendency to view America as a constant power, Anxiety is already well speared in “Iraq Syndrome” suffering America.
Peace by the powerful America: Korea is apt to think of so-called “Pax Americana” as a natural phenomenon. It is mostly based on wishful think, which is originated from the existing inertia on ROK-US allies and the belief that single US power system is superior to critical analysis of changes in US army force, public opinion, and world order.
However, these days, many warnings and signs are flushing to alert the end of US hegemony. If these warnings and signs were actualized, the result would effect the Korean Peninsula, one of the weakest links of world order, magnificently whether that is positive or not.
Based on the theory of hegemony by Antonio Gramsci, Pax Americana is founded on two factors. One is the physical evidence of superior power, namely economic and military power, which is considered as ‘coercion’. The other is the cognitive foundation based on the mutual agreement of international public and US to view US as a ‘World Police’; this is thought to be ‘consent’.
Unlike previous expansionism nations, which boldly showed their territorial ambitions, US has succeeded preventing diffusion of communism, and characterized itself as a defender of democracy and human rights without revealing such ambitions. These have been the foundations of Pax Americana even though these kinds of recognition contain many problematic concepts. At least, US had the general image of being ‘modesty hegemony’ for a long time.
U.S. citizens turn their backs from its Expansionism
However, basic fundamentals of Pax Americana have been threatened from the inside. As ‘Iraq syndrome’ got more attention with public, the voice of favoring isolationism increased as well.
First, it is worthwhile to focus on the sharp changes of the citizens’ reaction on US favoring militarism and unilateralism. At the time of “evil of axis” speech in 2002, the approval rating of President Bush, who is the head figure of US militarism and unilateralism, was over 80%, but at the time of annual State of the Union address in 2007, it harshly dropped to 30%.
Also, according to the survey on US foreign security policy on October 2006, about 80% of people pointed out that US should choose non-militaristic methods to increase its security level; moreover, about 70% insisted US cooperating with international community along side with UN. This result explains that augmentation of US citizen’s disapproval on how US performs its foreign policy. The militarism and exceptionalism, which are using armed forces and ignoring UN decisions ‘if it is necessary’, are loosing their ground.
The flow of favoring isolationism is also gaining power. According to the public census by Pew Research center, American professional public opinion Research Company, on October 2005, the 42% answered, “US should focus more on domestic issues rather than interfering with other countries.” The result was higher than one in 1976 right after the Vietnam War and another in 1995 after dismantling of cold war.
Remarkably, only 24% showed their support for Bush administration promoting democracy to other nations. This indicates carrying out aggressive policies are not so convincing even within US public opinions.
What should be more recognized is that the Yong Americans’ cognizance regarding this matter. A public consensus by Harvard policy research center on March 2005 gives us more insight to understand the youngsters view between ages of 18 to 24. 72% of people said US should not function as a main actor for inter-nations dispute, crisis, and conflicts along with the answer that the role should be carried out by UN and other countries.
Simply, this could be viewed as the characteristics of post WWII and cold war generation, nonetheless one cannot ignore the fact that the public view also mirrores the critical awareness in this case, generated by Iraq war along with the unilateralism and expansionism of Bush administration.
Cold attitude of international community toward US
International opinion on US is even colder. In 2007, BBC of England carried out a public census subjecting 25 countries 26,380 people. 49% said US negatively affected international community; only 29% answered opposite. In addition, comparing the result to the ones in previous years. 36% in 2006, 40% in 2005 gave US hands up. The cumulated census shows the reputations of US got worsen in international community over the years.
Remarkably US key allies showed negative opinions. Among allies, Germany showed 74% to highest, followed by France 69%, Australia 60%, England 57%, and Korea 54%. The rate of negative answers is relatively high comparing to China 52% and Russia 59%, which are former enemies and future competitors,
Negative opinions are still high looking at policies separately. 73% answered negative on the performance of Bush administration on Iraq War followed by Iran nuclear problem (60%), earth warming (56%), Guantanamo (67%), and North Korea nuclear problem (54%).
Intercession of US interference
Of course, with a single fact that public opinions from in and outside of US are negative, it is hard to make a conclusion that US would choose isolationism like during WWI & II. Empirically isolationism for US is not a tradition but an exception. Plus, not only democratic and republican party but also main public opinion still emphasizes the US role in international society.
Nevertheless, worsening of recognition of international policy of Bush administration would hinder performance of US international policies. It would even hamper sustenance and consolidation of US hegemony. Yet, it is true that if one defines hegemonic power as “to influence others to move one’s desired direction or to overpower other to take one’s desired thing”, US armed force and money power is still powerful.
But again, soft power, which is to change others’ opinion by touching their heart, is obvious getting less effect for US. Between two poles of hegemony, force and agreement, the pole of agreement is shaking from its ground now.
Especially, It is more meaningful that critical awareness on US hegemony increases among liberal democracy nations and US. The myth that “liberal democratic hegemony is mild” is breaking by nobody else but US itself. Plus, liberal democracy is basically very sensitive to public opinion
Therefore, it is highly possible that US interventionism and expansionism go under construction, which may not be mere isolationism. It is highly possible that US draws out of the areas where it does not find strategically importance or further mission.
If nuclear problem in North Korea is resolved, the relationship between North Korea and US become normalize, and the establishment of the peace system in Korean peninsula is possible, South Korea would be one of the good runner-ups of that. That is why the wisdom beyond strengthening of ROK-US alliance and FTA is needed this time.
