OPINION:
There has been little official fanfare about this, but 80 years ago Tuesday — Sept. 2, 1945 — the Japanese government formally surrendered its nation to the Allied forces (which consisted primarily of Americans). This surrender ended World War II, which had resulted in the deaths of perhaps as many as 80 million people, mostly civilians. The war destroyed much of Europe, significant portions of China and the Japanese Empire.
Looked at through a certain lens, the Second World War was an unhappy continuation of the First World War, which had resulted in the deaths of “only” 20 million people.
In the wake of all that bloodshed, those who survived concluded that war on that scale, with that ferocity and lethality, could not be allowed to happen again. They formed a host of institutions — the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc. — designed to direct the energies of the nations and their citizens into productive channels and based on the sure and certain knowledge that the United States, as the only power remaining intact, would be a fair and impartial enforcer of those norms.
As part of the reconstruction of Japan and Europe, the very real interests of the U.S. were sometimes, but not always, sublimated to the greater good of the order. The most obvious example of that is the Marshall Plan. Although it is tempting in retrospect to see those sacrifices as uncomfortable or intolerable, the reality is that the United States has benefited and still benefits in numerous ways from the world order that emerged after the wars.
We indeed shoulder more than our share of the defense of weaker allies in Europe, which has had the unfortunate and unintended effect of infantilizing much of the European population. It is also true, however, that most trade in the world is done in the U.S. dollar, which allows us to alter the world’s economy pretty much however we see fit.
In addition, English is the reserve language of the planet. For better or worse, our media, movies, TV, etc., form the reserve culture of the world. Most of the best universities and a disproportionate share of Nobel Prize winners are found in the United States, and more than 1 million foreign-born students study at American universities.
These advantages eventually show up on the bottom line. In the past 30 years, our economy has outperformed just about every other nation on the planet. Of the 25 largest companies in the world, 22 are American. We have put men on the moon not once but several times and returned them home safely. We are blessed with just two neighboring nations, with which we share common religious and ethnic ties, and have been at peace for most of the past two centuries. We can project power — air, naval or land — pretty much on demand anywhere in the world.
In short, the postwar order, for all its deficiencies, has been pretty good for the United States. None of us has ever lived in a world in which our nation has not enjoyed supremacy and set the contours of pretty much every material interaction. Before we finish deconstructing the order built by the men who won the war, we might want to think about the cost-benefit of the current arrangements.
The simple reality is that the postwar world has worked pretty well. Has it been perfect? Of course not; nothing created by man is ever perfect. However, under American leadership, more people than ever are free, fed, prosperous, literate and not subject to state or criminal violence. Not a bad record.
On the deck of the USS Missouri that morning 80 years ago, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the Allied Powers, said: “It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past — a world founded upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice.”
Whatever world order comes next, let’s hope it successfully achieves those hopes. In the absence of American leadership, though, that doesn’t seem likely.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.