Pax Romana
It is interesting that the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (RAD) published in September 2003 by conservative think tank that included Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz called “Project for a New American Century” speaks of Pax Americana this way:
“At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.” It further claimed that: “The United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this ‘American peace.”[17] (Underscoring added.)
This document acknowledges its debt to an earlier document “Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-1999 drafted by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, in relation to the new situation after the fall of the Soviet Union, saying:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. … we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. … we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. … Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor. … In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. [18] (Underscoring added.)
Should we still wonder why the U.S. had to invade Iraq, the second biggest oil-producing country, against the will of the United Nations (UN)?
Needed “a new Pearl Harbor”
At the time of the above writing many Americans were not yet sure how to act in the new post-USSR world and were not yet willing to pursue this aggressive policy so the implementation had been delayed. But eight years later RAD stated there was now a need for a “new Pearl Harbor” to pursue such aggressiveness: “New Circumstances make us think that the report might have a more receptive audience now than in recent years” but that, “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary [sic] change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.”[19] (Underscoring added.)
And sure enough, 9/11 provided the new Pearl Harbor which shifted the spectrum towards the hawkish end by reducing domestic opposition to expansionism and providing a potent pretext for imperialism.
The “Threat of God Example”
To maintain the American Empire it is necessary to combat what is called the
“threat of Good Example.” If a part of the empire breaks off and prospers it could serve as an inspiration for other regions, leading to the loss of large areas of the Empire.
An example is the presidency of Salvador Allende, a Democratic Socialist who won the presidential election in Chile in 1970. Allende increased civil liberties, nationalized many companies, instituted programs of agrarian reform and increased spending on housing, education, sanitation and health. In his first year, unemployment dropped to 4.8 percent from its previous 8.4 percent, inflation dropped 12.7 percent and worker income rose by 50 percent. The net effect of Allende’s policies was to redistribute income towards poorer groups and to move Chile in the direction of economic independence. The U.S. did not like this and placed sanctions on Chile, hurting the economy. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded opposition groups and promoted instability within Chile. On Sept. 11, 1973 the CIA launched a coup that deposed Allende and installed a military dictatorship under Gen. Augusto Pinochet who slaughtered thousands of dissidents, reversed Allende’s reforms and implemented an extreme neo-liberal capitalist economic program.[20] Chile had to be destroyed. It was a “good example.”
The same was true with the Sandinistas overthrowing the Somozas in the 1970s. The social reforms did not do well with the U.S. and so the U.S. funded the terrorist Contras to wage a brutal war against the Sandinistas destroying whatever social improvements and eventually the Nicaraguans allowed the U.S. puppets to once again take over the country.[21]
Nicaragua could well just not affect the US economy but it has to be destroyed or else its success can become an inspiration to other countries.
Client States:
To keep the Empire intact, it must maintain “Client States.” A Client State is one that is dominated and controlled by the imperialist governments. It is dependent on the economic and military support of a more powerful country. Other names of these states are “satellite states”; “puppet government”; “vassal state.” The Roman Empire relied strongly on client states. It maintained Jewish kings such as the Herodians, for example.
Isn’t the Philippines under the present government or previous governments, a client state of the New Roman Empire?
Mechanisms of Control
The “Anatomy of the American Empire” describes in summary way examples of mechanism of dominance. We can only list them with our limited time. For example: (1) Military Intervention, (2) Proxy Forces, (3) Enforcer States, (4) The CIA, (5) Foreign Aid, (6) Coup d ’etats, (7) Sanctions, and (8) Subverting Elections. It is also interesting to note that the “Anatomy of the American” lists down the expansion of the American Empire towards areas of world domination. Starting with the (1) American Homeland as a base, it moves on to (2). Latin America, (3) East Asia, (4) Europe, (5) Africa, (6) Oceania, and (7) Central Asia.[22]
Let me now go back to some more major issues in the New Roman Empire as compared to the Old Roman Empire.
