Winners and Grudging Participants: How the World Lived Under the Pax
Not everyone wanted to live under Pax Americana.
But once the U.S. built its global order—military, economic, and cultural—most of the world had to decide: join, resist, or try to balance both.
Some countries became true allies. Others played along for the benefits. And a few stood apart, resisting or challenging American influence outright.
Let’s take a look at the winners, the reluctant participants, and the rivals that made Pax Americana anything but simple.
The Winners: Western Europe, Japan, South Korea
After WWII, much of the democratic West fell into lockstep with the U.S.—and it paid off.
Western Europe:
Got billions in U.S. aid through the Marshall Plan.
Was protected by NATO from Soviet aggression.
Rebuilt into wealthy, stable democracies with strong trade ties to the U.S.
Japan:
Occupied and reshaped by the U.S. after the war.
Given access to U.S. markets and technology.
Rose from destruction to become the world’s second-largest economy by the 1980s.
South Korea:
Protected by U.S. troops after the Korean War.
Turned from a dictatorship into a thriving democracy and tech superpower.
Became a key ally in Asia—militarily and economically.
In these cases, American support helped fuel stability and prosperity, and in return, the U.S. gained loyal allies and strategic footholds.
The Reluctant Participants
Not every country loved the Pax—but many still played the game.
Latin America:
Saw frequent U.S. interference—backing coups, toppling leftist governments, supporting right-wing regimes.
Many leaders cooperated to keep trade flowing and receive aid, but resentment grew over time.
Middle East:
Some governments aligned with the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt).
Others (like Iran post-1979) rejected U.S. influence outright.
U.S. military bases and oil politics made the region a constant source of tension.
India:
Tried to walk a non-aligned path during the Cold War.
Accepted U.S. trade but resisted Western-style alliances.
Eventually warmed to the Pax in the 2000s as ties with China and Russia shifted.
These nations often acted as frenemies—cooperating for practical reasons while keeping their distance politically or culturally.
The Resisters: Soviet Bloc, Maoist China, and Beyond
Of course, not everyone bought in at all.
The Soviet Union:
Built its own rival order: Pax Sovietica—a world of command economies, satellite states, and ideological control.
The Cold War was the defining battle between these two visions of global peace.
China:
Initially part of the communist bloc, then broke away.
Spent decades resisting U.S. influence—until it entered the global economy (and WTO) in the early 2000s.
Now stands as a challenger to the Pax, offering its own model of order.
Cuba, North Korea, Iran:
Reject the U.S.-led order entirely.
Face sanctions, isolation, or proxy pressure as a result.
Why Most Still Played Along
Despite the critics, many countries found Pax Americana more useful than not:
Access to U.S. markets and loans.
Protection under the U.S. security umbrella.
Stability in a world that had just survived two world wars.
For all its flaws, the Pax created a sense of order—and for many, the alternative seemed worse.
What Comes Next
Next time, we’ll zoom out and ask: What did Pax Americana really give the world?
A long peace between superpowers, sure.
But was it fair? Was it sustainable? Was it worth the cost?
And more importantly—what happens when that order starts to break down?