{"id":10275,"date":"2026-03-04T09:44:18","date_gmt":"2026-03-04T08:44:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.swud.org\/?post_type=events&p=10275"},"modified":"2026-03-04T09:45:27","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T08:45:27","slug":"big-brother-gone-europa-und-das-ende-der-pax-americana","status":"publish","type":"events","link":"https:\/\/www.swud.org\/en\/events\/big-brother-gone-europa-und-das-ende-der-pax-americana\/","title":{"rendered":"Big Brother Gone - Europe and the end of Pax Americana"},"content":{"rendered":"

Report on the lecture by Dr Marco Overhaus<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

A central certainty of European post-war policy is at stake: the assumption that the United States will continue to act as Europe's security guarantor and regulatory anchor. Under the title \u201eBig Brother Gone - Europe and the end of Pax Americana\u201c<\/em> analysed the now obvious erosion of the order that for decades combined military deterrence, economic openness and liberal democratic norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The speaker was Dr Marco Overhaus, Deputy Head of the Americas Research Group at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). The event was moderated by Julia Werner (SW&D).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Alliance guarantees subject to reservation<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Whoever says A must also say B - and anyone talking about the Pax Americana must take a look at its security policy dimension. The fact that the USA is no longer a reliable guarantor of security for Europe has recently emerged from the US government's new national security strategy. Promises of military assistance are becoming increasingly conditionalised and increasingly linked to domestic political interests and economic calculations. Although the United States still has the world's largest military budget, this superiority is losing its political effectiveness, according to Dr Marco Overhaus: deterrence and reassurance no longer function automatically, but require credibility - and it is precisely this that is now in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, NATO's previous strategic frame of reference is also beginning to falter. The idea of a permanent asymmetrical division of labour between the USA as a protective power and Europe as a junior security partner no longer seems viable under these conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Geoeconomics instead of openness: The economic realignment of American power<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another focus of the lecture was on the paradigm shift in US foreign economic policy. The long-dominant model of open markets has been gradually replaced by a geo-economic logic in which economic relations are primarily understood as instruments of power. Efficiency gains through the division of labour were no longer the primary goal. Instead, the focus is on the question of who is dependent in the event of a crisis - and who can exert pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Europe, this means a double challenge: on the one hand, the transatlantic economic area is losing its normative role model character; on the other hand, there is growing pressure to define its own industrial, technology and trade policy interests more confidently and autonomously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The normative crisis: democracy under fire<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

And then there is the internal constitution of the United States. The crisis of Pax Americana is inextricably linked to a crisis of US democracy. Doubts about the integrity of elections, the expansion of executive power, the politicisation of the judiciary and a fundamental erosion of liberal values are undermining the normative radiance that has long legitimised American claims to leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, US foreign policy is losing coherence. For European players, the question now increasingly arises as to the value basis on which transatlantic partnership can be conceived in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European answers<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

A clear political consequence followed from the diagnosis: European policy had to overcome the central assumptions of the past decades. Dependence on the USA in terms of security policy was not unalterable, nor could we rely on long-term American involvement in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Europeanisation of NATO was outlined as a possible solution. However, this would have to go beyond existing initiatives and encompass both military capabilities and political decision-making structures. A more independent European decision-making process, it was argued, was a prerequisite for putting the transatlantic relationship on a new, less asymmetrical footing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the Pax Americana: competition for the future world order<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the lecture looked at the global level. The time after the Pax Americana was not necessarily post-American, but more plural and conflict-ridden. Two fundamentally different ideas of multipolarity were in competition: an illiberal order, characterised by zones of influence and power politics, and a multilateral variant that relied on reformed institutions, greater participation of the Global South and cooperative problem-solving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The implicit conclusion is that which of these draft orders will prevail depends not least on Europe's ability to become more capable of acting in terms of security, economic policy and norms. The departure from the Pax Americana is therefore less an end point than an open process - full of risks, but also political room for manoeuvre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n