7/27/2019 PAX AT SEA

1/3

Paxat Sea

-- Vijai S. Chaudhari1

Every political regime offers its followers the vision of a stable

environment where they can exercise their rights and freedoms. This

quest for peace and stability may be as old as human civilization but is

it a realistic expectation at sea?

The ancient Romans had a remarkable record of inventions,

innovations and achievements. They invented concrete and used it to

build exceptionally well-engineered roads, arches and aqueducts.

Their imprint on European languages, law, politics, art, theatre, public

administration, medicine, clothing, customs and religion continues tothis day. ThePax Romana or the Roman Peace was one of their less

recognised achievements. It was only towards the end of the 18th

Century that Edward Gibbon, author ofThe History of the Decline and

Fall of the Roman Empire, first popularized the term.

The Roman Peace was a period of relative peace and stability

within the empire. It lasted two centuries, from 27 BC until the death

of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD. However, the Roman Peace did not

imply a complete absence of conflict or even a particularly benigngovernment. The period had its share of tyrannical and extravagant

rulers (notably Nero). Many of them came to violent ends. Some

fighting continued at the borders of the Empire, including the conquest

of Britain. Many writers even describe thePax Romana as a balance

of terror. But it was nevertheless a peace of sorts. The common

citizens were largely free to go about their daily lives with some

assurance of stability and protection of the law. The Roman policy of

conquest and expansion gave way to stabilization and creation of

conditions for prosperity. However, like much in history, the idea

may be more important than the reality. Besides, it is an idea that haspersisted.

A thousand years after thePax Romana, Genghis Khan laid the

foundations of the largest contiguous empire in human history,

extending 9700 km across the Eurasian land mass. The Mongol

1 Vijai S. Chaudhari is Additional Director of the Centre for Joint

Warfare Studies, New Delhi. He is a former Rear Admiral of the

Indian Navy. The opinions expressed here are his personal views.

7/27/2019 PAX AT SEA

2/3

Empire ensured safety and good governance which made the Silk

Road a lucrative trade route. A network of well-maintained roads

connected China to the Mediterranean and even Marco Polo used it to

make his epic journey in relative safety. Well before the current wave

of globalization, the government considered it important to protectmerchants and traders. Trade thrived and safe travel was open to all

law-abiding users. The prevailing conditions came to be known as the

Pax Mongolica.

The modern Colonial Era started some time after the Mongol

Empire faded into obscurity. Unlike previous empires, seaborne

commerce was the lifeblood of the colonial system and its

administration stretched across large stretches of ocean. A strong navy

was needed to sustain a Pax across the oceans so that profitablecommerce could flow unhindered. Every sizeable European maritime

power entered the fray but it wasPax Britannica that prevailed. At the

height of its power, the British navy was more powerful than any two

other navies combined. Despite this large investment, many critics

have described it as aPax on the cheap. Rebecca Matzke offers a

more balanced explanation: The Royal Navys main role in the

nineteenth century was to be a deterrent force . . . . . . Britains navy

was visible and credible. British naval power posed a genuine threat,

but British governments exercised discretion in using it. On some

occasions they chose not to act but inaction did not necessarily mean

that the British battle fleet was too weak to assert British

influence. . . . . British statesmen were prepared to use its force to

guard Britains interestsand maintenance of peace was, generally

speaking, one of those interestsbut they rarely needed to do so.

A worldwide naval presence was needed to underwrite

Britains colonial empire. Good order at sea was perhaps an

unintended benefit that had to wait another century for Geoffrey Till to

propose a supporting theoretical framework. The dawn of the 20thCentury found British resources, appetite and need for shouldering the

burden of good order at sea in steady decline. Pax Britannica soon

gave way to thePax Americana. The United States was motivated by

Cold War requirements and empowered by a navy more powerful than

the combined fleets of all its competitors.

Today, the Cold War has receded into history and multilateral

arrangements have overtaken unilateralism. Meanwhile, the United

Nations Law of the Sea Convention has given coastal states

jurisdiction over large sea areas. These states differ widely in their

ability, inclination or even willingness to cooperate in maintaining

7/27/2019 PAX AT SEA

3/3

good order within their areas of jurisdiction. Criminals and terrorists

therefore use the gaps to undermine good order at sea. Exploitation of

natural resources is already the subject of much conjecture and

environmental issues could well create the next crisis. The United

States has the naval forces to sustain aPax Americanabut finding thepolitical support, financial resources and international acceptability

seems difficult.

Given the forces of globalization and the large number of

diverse stakeholders, multilateral or UN sponsored solutions hold the

most promise. Overwhelming naval superiority would help but it is

numbers, presence, persistence, national resolve, legal structures and

cooperation on a global scale that would really count. The future of the

oceans as a global commons may depend on whether the world canforge a consensus on good order at sea before it is too late.