Pax Romani?: In 1999 and

Pax Romani?: In 1999 and 2000 I was fortunate to spend some time in Rome, in ’99 with my father, and in ’00 with the lovely Ms. Katherine. I came away from each visit with an insatiable fondness for Roman style and beauty. I also returned wondering deeply about the tenure of American international power and leadership.

Wander the ruins of the Roman Forum long enough and you’ll inevitably question the steadfastness of American power and culture … nothing so clearly illustrates that every hegemonic state can fall to ruin, and to this point in history, every hegemonic state has.

Are we due? Do a war on terror, preparations for war in Iraq, and potential for war in North Korea herald the rising challenge to our hegemonic position? Many are familiar with the general process for hegemonic growth and decline outlined by Paul Kennedy in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: global powers ascend from periods of great conflict and establish economic and military dominance over the world in a phase of hegemony. They then face increasing challenge from other states, and ultimately, as their power diffuses among their rivals, they enter a period of decline: a period marked by slowing economic growth, lessening international influence, and more frequent and dispersed international conflict.

Any of this sound familiar? But many claim Kennedy fails to recognize a critical point: that hegemonic power arises not simply from economic and military dominance, but from enjoying among the states of the world a large amount of normative credibility -- social and political capital -- a sound and leading reputation for standing for that which is right. And in this, some say, a hegemon can short-circuit the process, in essence multiplying their economic and military capital by virtue of their international credibility and moral leadership. Lead as the light of the world, and those who share in your light will stand by your side and extend the reach of your power.

As Torbjorn Knutsen writes in his introduction to The Rise And Fall Of World Orders:

This power is militarily strong -- stronger than the others -- materially wealthy, and it is normatively influential: it expresses a code of values, norms and rules for social conduct that other Great Powers embrace. Why does one power have such normative influence? Why does it set the tone for the political discourse of its age? Why does it articulate the political sentiment of the times? Partly because it is strong and wealthy … [b]ut also -- and this is a simple answer which has been much neglected in recent debates -- a Power exerts a unique normative influence because it stresses the universal application of its values.

It represents good values and norms -- virtues like freedom, decency, honesty, equality. It articulates these values with great sincerity. And it grows more sincere, the more it is admired, flattered and wooed by others. In this conception of hegemony lies also a key to the demise of world orders and the decline of Great Powers. A preeminent Power declines when its military strength and economic wealth becomes more equal to that of other core states. But its loss of authority and command of public opinion -- at home and abroad -- is also a decisively important component of decline. Hegemony, as defined above, has a moral component. A hegemon owes its commanding position to its effective articulation of globally relevant values, norms and rules of social interaction. If it loses this normative authority, it will also forfeit its commanding position.

And that’s where I see the crux of the war on terror in general, and a war in Iraq in particular. American military and economic might are unequaled (even with our current economic malaise). But how’s our normative capital? Hegemons articulate the political sentiment of the times, but they also shape them. In projecting power in Iraq are we reflecting a commitment to globally relevant virtues and norms that will further bolster our social and political capital, or are we exhibiting values in which many other states can no longer find inspiration and leadership?

The recent actions of France and Germany, the lack of continuity among the U.N. Security Council, and the lack of support among the U.N. as a whole would suggest the latter. Personally, I prefer to believe the former. Of course, with this thesis, you can’t be “a little bit normative” -- the credibility of one’s values lies in their consistent application. Lead for what’s right in Iraq, and North Korea and Iran must quickly follow.