21st Century: End of the American Peace and Dawn of the Unknowns

Eduardo San Miguel Velasco

It indicates an old Roman adage "si vis pacem, para bellum". It is often invoked as a theoretical argument by advocates of the doctrine of political realism, "if you want peace, prepare for war". The most contemporary case would be the need to arm Ukraine against Russia so that the latter can negotiate the best possible peace agreement. But the truth is that it also has followers, if possible more relevant, outside the always limited sphere of international analysts. I am talking about the world of statesmen: the world that builds the world.

The latest of these men and women to apply the Latin maxim is the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz. A politician of a rather restrained character who is preparing to rearm his country because the country, he says, is facing a "Zeitewende", a change of era. We are not talking about something anodyne because, although everything is more complex, the last two Teutons to rearm Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler, catapulted mankind into conflagrations that need not even be mentioned.

“Zeitewende”, a change of era.

Of course, I did not imply that this Social Democrat and former finance minister will irretrievably join the other two German statesmen in the history books. He certainly does not seem to give the boastful and megalomaniac profile. I just want to highlight the undeniable change in the status quo that has taken place within Europe. The German rearmament is unequivocal in its significance: as soon as possible we should all agree on an irremediable end to the idyll of the Pax Americana. The dream of a world governed by morality and international legality is extinguished.

If only things had turned out differently. Now is not the time to lament, but to observe, since, whether in the foundations of events or in the mind of the human being, History seems to be an infinite repetition. The medieval dream of a universal Christian empire, an obvious analogy of the missionary idealism that has guided U.S. foreign policy in the 20th and 21st centuries, perished in the 16th century under the raison d'Etat-driven strategy of Cardinal Richelieu. In the following two centuries, the French Liberal Revolution and the Austrian Conservative Revolution infused Europe with a new moral worldview. In the second half of the 19th century Bismarck took up the raison d'Etat under the Germanic name of Realpolitik. After the apocalyptic end of that period came the Pax Americana and the idea shared by almost all Westerners of something that is ultimately universal democracy.

The first idea to note, therefore, is that nothing new is happening under heaven. That should be reassuring because it allows us to ask questions about our destiny. In what state do we want democracy to arrive at the next historical turning point? Do we accept that state interests temporarily crush democracy or do we prefer moral purity and its consequences? In that case, democracy in, democracy out, or both? Will we self-interestedly accept autocratic peace in the rest of the world or seek democratic war? Ambivalence or dichotomy as guiding principles? These are old debates with new names, but they are inescapable because metaphysics precedes physics.

These are old debates with new names, but they are unavoidable because metaphysics precedes physics.

The second idea is the need to give this issue a global framework and not merely a European one, as has been the case until today. China is a superpower and will remain so throughout this century. Human civilization is one, but its dominant cultures are only two; the Sinic and the Western. It is worrying that we are heading for a conflict of interests and values with this culture and know absolutely nothing about it.

Its history and philosophy are completely unknown to us, but they directly condition the lives of 1.3 billion human beings and indirectly that of the rest of us and, especially, that of other Asian peoples. Perhaps I am wrong, but even though conflict is inherent to man, it has never occurred between sides whose worldviews were so different. Or, at least, we have not inherited a cultural background in the best conditions to understand China. Be that as it may, it seems clear that the failure of the Pax Americana lies in ignorance. If today we learn and act correctly, aware of all the imprecision of that word, perhaps in one or two centuries there will be a Eurasian Pax and the dawn of the unknown will also be the dawn of the desired.