text:
Pax Americana

Pax Americana (Latin for "American Peace", modeled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica; also called the Long Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later in the world after the end of World War II in 1945, when the United States became the world's dominant economic, cultural, and military power.

In this sense, Pax Americana has come to describe the military and economic position of the United States relative to other nations. The U.S. Marshall Plan, which saw the country transfer $13.3 billion (equivalent of $173 billion in 2023) in economic recovery programs to Western European countries, has been described as "the launching of the Pax Americana".

Early period
The first articulation of a Pax Americana occurred after the end of the American Civil War (in which the United States both quashed its greatest disunity and demonstrated the ability to field millions of well-equipped soldiers utilizing modern tactics) with reference to the peaceful nature of the North American geographical region, and was abeyant at the commencement of the First World War. Its emergence was concurrent with the development of the idea of American exceptionalism. This view holds that the U.S. occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions, and unique origins. The concept originates from Alexis de Tocqueville, who asserted that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. From the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution until the Spanish–American War, the foreign policy of the United States had a regional, instead of global, focus. The Pax Americana, which the Union enforced upon the states of central North America, was a factor in the United States' national prosperity. The larger states were surrounded by smaller states, but these had no anxieties: no standing armies to require taxes and hinder labor; no wars or rumors of wars that would interrupt trade; there is not only peace, but security, for the Pax Americana of the Union covered all the states within the federal constitutional republic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first time the phrase appeared in print was in the August 1894 issue of Forum: "The true cause for exultation is the universal outburst of patriotism in support of the prompt and courageous action of President Cleveland in maintaining the supremacy of law throughout the length and breadth of the land, in establishing the pax Americana."

With the rise of the New Imperialism in the Western hemisphere at the end of the 19th century, debates arose between imperialist and isolationist factions in the U.S. Here, Pax Americana was used to connote the peace across the United States and, more widely, as a Pan-American peace under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine. Those who favored traditional policies of avoiding foreign entanglements included labor leader Samuel Gompers and steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie. American politicians such as Henry Cabot Lodge, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt advocated an aggressive foreign policy, but the administration of President Grover Cleveland was unwilling to pursue such actions. On January 16, 1893, U.S. diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Kingdom of Hawaii and establish a Provisional Government and then a republic. On February 15, they presented a treaty for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the U.S. Senate, but opposition to annexation stalled its passage. The United States finally opted to annex Hawaii by way of the Newlands Resolution in July 1898.

After its victory in the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the subsequent acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, the United States had gained a colonial empire. By ejecting Spain from the Americas, the United States shifted its position to an uncontested regional power, and extended its influence into Southeast Asia and Oceania. Although U.S. capital investments within the Philippines and Puerto Rico were relatively small, these colonies were strategic outposts for expanding trade with Latin America and Asia, particularly China. In the Caribbean area, the United States established a sphere of influence in line with the Monroe Doctrine, not explicitly defined as such, but recognized in effect by other governments and accepted by at least some of the republics in that area. The events around the start of the 20th century demonstrated that the United States undertook an obligation, usual in such cases, of imposing a "Pax Americana". As in similar instances elsewhere, this Pax Americana was not quite clearly marked in its geographical limit, nor was it guided by any theoretical consistency, but rather by the merits of the case and the test of immediate expediency in each instance. Thus, whereas the United States enforced a peace in much of the lands southward from the Nation and undertook measures to maintain internal tranquility in such areas, the United States on the other hand withdrew from interposition in Mexico.

European powers largely regarded these matters as the concern of the United States. Indeed, the nascent Pax Americana was, in essence, abetted by the policy of the United Kingdom, and the preponderance of global sea power which the British Empire enjoyed by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy. Preserving the freedom of the seas and ensuring naval dominance had been the policy of the British since victory in the Napoleonic Wars. As it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom to permit any European power to interfere in Americas, the Monroe Doctrine was indirectly aided by the Royal Navy. British commercial interests in South America, which comprised a valuable component of the informal empire that accompanied Britain's overseas possessions, and the economic importance of the United States as a trading partner, ensured that intervention by Britain's rival European powers could not engage with the Americas.

The United States lost its Pacific and regionally bounded nature towards the end of the 19th century. The government adopted protectionism after the Spanish–American War and built up the navy, the "Great White Fleet", to expand the reach of U.S. power. When Theodore Roosevelt became President in 1901, he accelerated a foreign policy shift away from isolationism towards foreign intervention which had begun under his predecessor, William McKinley. The Philippine–American War arose from the ongoing Philippine Revolution against imperialism. Interventionism found its formal articulation in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming the right of the United States to intervene in the affairs of weak states in the Americas in order to stabilize them, a moment that underlined the emergent U.S. regional hegemony. By 1900, the United States possessed the world's largest industrial capacity and national income, having surpassed both the United Kingdom and Germany.

Interwar period
The United States had been criticized for not taking up the hegemonic mantle following the disintegration of Pax Britannica before the First World War and during the interwar period due to the absence of established political structures, such as the World Bank or United Nations which would be created after World War II, and various internal policies, such as protectionism. Though, the United States participated in the Great War, according to Woodrow Wilson: [...] to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles.

[...] for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.

The United States' entry into the Great War marked the abandonment of the traditional American policy of isolation and independence of world politics. Not at the close of the Civil War, not as the result of the Spanish War, but in the Interwar period did the United States become a part of the international system. With this global reorganization from the Great War, there were those in the American populace that advocated an activist role in international politics and international affairs by the United States. Activities that were initiated did not fall into political-military traps and, instead, focused on economic-ideological approaches that would increase the American Empire and general worldwide stability. Following the prior path, a precursor to the United Nations and a league to enforce peace, the League of Nations, was proposed by Woodrow Wilson. This was rejected by the American Government in favor of more economic-ideological approaches and the United States did not join the League. Additionally, there were even proposals of extending the Monroe Doctrine to Great Britain put forth to prevent a second conflagration on the European theater. Ultimately, the United States' proposals and actions did not stop the factors of European nationalism spawned by the previous war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the failures of the Treaty of Versailles from plunging the globe into a Second World War.

Between World War I and World War II, America also sought to continue to preserve Pax America as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Some sought the peaceful and orderly evolution of existing conditions in the western hemisphere and nothing by immediate changes. Before 1917, the position of the United States government and the feelings of the nation in respect to the "Great War" initially had properly been one of neutrality. Its interests remained untouched, and nothing occurred of a nature to affect those interests.

The average American's sympathies, on the other hand, if the feelings of the vast majority of the nation had been correctly interpreted, was with the Allied (Entente) Powers. The population of the United States was revolted at the ruthlessness of the Prussian doctrine of war, and German designs to shift the burden of aggression encountered skeptical derision. The American populace saw themselves safeguarding liberal peace in the Western World. To this end, the American writer Roland Hugins stated: The truth is that the United States is the only high-minded Power left in the world. It is the only strong nation that has not entered on a career of imperial conquest, and does not want to enter on it. [...] There is in America little of that spirit of selfish aggression which lies at the heart of militarism. Here alone exists a broad basis for "a new passionate sense of brotherhood, and a new scale of human values." We have a deep abhorrence of war for war's sake; we are not enamored of glamour or glory. We have a strong faith in the principle of self-government. We do not care to dominate alien peoples, white or colored; we do not aspire to be the Romans of tomorrow or the "masters of the world." The idealism of Americans centers in the future of America, wherein we hope to work out those principles of liberty and democracy to which we are committed. This political idealism, this strain of pacifism, this abstinence from aggression and desire to be left alone to work out our own destiny, has been manifest from the birth of the republic. We have not always followed our light, but we have never been utterly faithless to it. It was observed during this time that the initial defeat of Germany opened a moral recasting of the world. The battles between Germans and Allies were seen as far less battles between different nations than they represent the contrast between Liberalism and reaction, between the aspirations of democracy and the Wilhelminism gospel of iron.

Modern period

The modern Pax Americana era is cited by supporters and critics of U.S. foreign policy after World War II. From 1945 to 1991, it was a partial international order, as it applied only to the Western world, being preferable for some authors to speak about a Pax Americana et Sovietica. Many commentators and critics focus on American policies from 1992 to the present, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context. For example, it appears three times in the 90-page document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, by the Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance and hyperpower status as imperialist in function and basis. From about the mid-1940s until 1991, U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the Cold War, and characterized by its significant international military presence and greater diplomatic involvement. Seeking an alternative to the isolationist policies pursued after World War I, the United States defined a new policy called containment to oppose the spread of Soviet communism.

The modern Pax Americana may be seen as similar to the period of peace in Rome, Pax Romana. In both situations, the period of peace was 'relative peace'. During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for both Western and Roman civilizations. It is important to note that during these periods, and most other times of relative tranquility, the peace that is referred to does not mean complete peace. Rather, it simply means that the civilization prospered in their military, agriculture, trade, and manufacturing.

Pax Britannica heritage
From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the First World War in 1914, the United Kingdom played the role of offshore-balancer in Europe, where the balance of power was the main aim. It was also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time. The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation-states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. In 1905, the Royal Navy was superior to any two navies combined in the world. It provided services such as suppression of piracy and slavery.

In this era of peace, though, there were several wars between the major powers: the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Japanese War, as well as numerous other wars. William Wohlforth has argued that this period of tranquility, sometimes termed La Belle Époque, was actually a series of hegemonic states imposing a peaceful order. In Wohlforth's view, Pax Britannica transitioned to Pax Russica and then to Pax Germanica, before ultimately, between 1853 and 1871, ceasing to be a Pax of any kind.

During the Pax Britannica, America developed close ties with Britain, evolving into what has become known as a "special relationship" between the two. The many commonalities shared with the two nations (such as language and history) drew them together as allies. Under the managed transition of the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, members of the British government, such as Harold Macmillan, liked to think of Britain's relationship with America as similar to that of a progenitor Greece to America's Rome. Throughout the years, both have been active in North American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries.

Late 20th century
After the Second World War, no armed conflict emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons were used in open conflict. The United Nations was also soon developed after World War II to help keep peaceful relations between nations and establishing the veto power for the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which included the United States.

In the second half of the 20th century, the USSR and US superpowers were engaged in the Cold War, which can be seen as a struggle between hegemonies for global dominance. After 1945, the United States enjoyed an advantageous position with respect to the rest of the industrialized world. In the Post–World War II economic expansion, the US was responsible for half of global industrial output, held 80 percent of the world's gold reserves, and was the world's sole nuclear power. The catastrophic destruction of life, infrastructure, and capital during the Second World War had exhausted the imperialism of the Old World, victor and vanquished alike. The largest economy in the world at the time, the United States recognized that it had come out of the war with its domestic infrastructure virtually unscathed and its military forces at unprecedented strength. Military officials recognized the fact that Pax Americana had been reliant on the effective United States air power, just as the instrument of Pax Britannica a century earlier was its sea power. In addition, a unipolar moment was seen to have occurred following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The term Pax Americana was explicitly used by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, who advocated against the idea, arguing that the Soviet bloc was composed of human beings with the same individual goals as Americans and that such a peace based on "American weapons of war" was undesirable:

"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."

Beginning around the Vietnam War, the 'Pax Americana' term had started to be used by the critics of American Imperialism. Here in the late 20th-century conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the charge of Neocolonialism was often aimed at Western involvement in the affairs of the Third World and other developing nations. NATO became regarded as a symbol of Pax Americana in West Europe: "The visible political symbol of the Pax Americana was NATO itself … The Supreme Allied Commander, always an American, was an appropriate title for the American proconsul whose reputation and influence outweighed those of European premiers, presidents, and chancellors."

Contemporary power
Currently, the Pax Americana is based on the military preponderance beyond challenge by any combination of powers and projection of power throughout the world's commons—neutral sea, air and space. This projection is coordinated by the Unified Command Plan which divides the world on regional branches controlled by a single command. Integrated with it are global network of military alliances (the Rio Pact, NATO, ANZUS and bilateral alliances with Japan and several other states) coordinated by Washington in a hub-and-spokes system and worldwide network of several hundreds of military bases and installations. Neither the Rio Treaty, nor NATO, for Robert J. Art, "was a regional collective security organization; rather both were regional imperia run and operated by the United States". Former Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski drew an expressive summary of the military foundation of Pax Americana shortly after the unipolar moment: "In contrast [to the earlier empires], the scope and pervasiveness of American global power today are unique. Not only does the United States control all the world's oceans, its military legions are firmly perched on the western and eastern extremities of Eurasia ... American vassals and tributaries, some yearning to be embraced by even more formal ties to Washington, dot the entire Eurasian continent ... American global supremacy is ... buttered by an elaborate system of alliances and coalitions that literally span the globe."

Besides the military foundation, there are significant non-military international institutions backed by American financing and diplomacy (like the United Nations and WTO). The United States invested heavily in programs such as the Marshall Plan and in the reconstruction of Japan, economically cementing defense ties that owed increasingly to the establishment of the Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc and the widening of the Cold War.

Being in the best position to take advantage of free trade, culturally indisposed to traditional empires, and alarmed by the rise of communism in China and the detonation of the first Soviet atom bomb, the historically non-interventionist US also took a keen interest in developing multilateral institutions which would maintain a favorable world order among them. The International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), part of the Bretton Woods system of international financial management was developed and, until the early 1970s, the existence of a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was developed and consists of a protocol for normalization and reduction of trade tariffs.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the demise of the notion of a Pax Sovietica, and the end of the Cold War, the US maintained significant contingents of armed forces in Europe and East Asia. The institutions behind the Pax Americana and the rise of the United States unipolar power have persisted into the early 21st century. The ability of the United States to act as "the world's policeman" has been constrained by its own citizens' historic aversion to foreign wars. Though there has been calls for the continuation of military leadership, as stated in "Rebuilding America's Defenses": The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself. [... What is required is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. This is reflected in the research of American exceptionalism, which shows that "there is some indication for [being a leader of an 'American peace'] among the [US] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes". Resentments have arisen at a country's dependence on American military protection, due to disagreements with United States foreign policy or the presence of American military forces.

In the post-communism world of the 21st-century, the French Socialist politician and former Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine describes the US as a hegemonic hyperpower, while the US political scientists John Mearsheimer and Joseph Nye counter that the US is not a "true" hegemony, because it does not have the resources to impose a proper, formal, global rule; despite its political and military strength, the US is economically equal to Europe, thus, cannot rule the international stage. Several other countries are either emerging or re-emerging as powers, such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union.

Joseph Nye discredited the United States as not a "true" hegemony in his 2002 article titled "The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians". His book of the same year he opens: "Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others." And his 1991 book he titled Bound to Lead. Leadership, translated into Greek, renders hegemony; an alternative translation is archia – Greek common word for empire. Having defined the US hegemony as "not true", Nye looks for an analogy to the true empire: Decline, he writes, is not necessarily imminent. "Rome remained dominant for more than three centuries after the peak of its power ...

In fact, there are striking parallels with the early Pax Romana (especially between 189 BC when the supremacy over the Mediterranean was won and the first annexation in 168 BC). Under that Pax Romana other states remained formally independent and very seldom were called "clients". The latter term became widely used only in the late medieval period. Usually, other states were called "friends and allies"—a popular expression under the Pax Americana.

One of the first to use the term Pax Americana was the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy. In 1942, the Committee envisaged that the United States may have to supplant the British Empire. Therefore, the United States "must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a Pax Americana". According to Swen Holdar, the founder of geopolitics Rudolf Kjellen (1864–1922) predicted the era of US global supremacy using the term Pax Americana shortly after World War I. Writing in 1945, Ludwig Dehio remembered that the Germans used the term Pax Anglosaxonica in a sense of Pax Americana since 1918: "Now [1918] the [American colonial] cutting had grown into a tree that bade fair to overshadow the globe with its foliage. Amazed and shaken, we Germans began to discuss the possibility of a Pax Anglosaxonica as a world-wide counterpart to the Pax Romana. Suddenly the tendency toward global unification towered up, ready to gather the separate national states of Europe together under one banner and blanket in a larger cohesion ..."

The United States, Dehio associates on the same page, withdrew to isolation on that occasion. "Rome, too, had taken a long time to understand the significance of her world role." Two years earlier, with the war still at its peak, the founder of the Paneuropean Union, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, invoked the example of the two-centuries long "Pax Romana" which, he suggested, could be repeated if based on the preponderant US air power: "During the third century BC the Mediterranean world was divided on five great powers—Roma and Carthage, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. The balance of power led to a series of wars until Rome emerged the queen of the Mediterranean and established an incomparable era of two centuries of peace and progress, the 'Pax Romana' ... It may be that America's air power could again assure our world, now much smaller than the Mediterranean at that period, two hundred years of peace ... This is the only realistic hope for a lasting peace."

One of the first criticisms of "Pax Americana" was written by Nathaniel Peffer in 1943: "It is neither feasible nor desirable ... Pax Americana can be established and maintained only by force, only by means of a new, gigantic imperialism operating with the instrumentalities of militarism and the other concomitants of imperialism ... The way to dominion is through empire and the price of dominion is empire, and empire generates its own opposition."

He did not know if it would happen: "It is conceivable that ... America might drift into empire, imperceptibly, stage by stage, in a kind of power-politics gravitation." He also noted that America was heading precisely in that direction: "That there are certain stirrings in this direction is apparent, though how deep they go is unclear."

The depth soon became clarified. Two later critics of Pax Americana, Michio Kaku and David Axelrod, interpreted the outcome of Pax Americana: "Gunboat diplomacy would be replaced by Atomic diplomacy. Pax Britannica would give way to Pax Americana." After the war, with the German and British militaries in tatters, only one force stood on the way to Pax Americana: the Soviet Army. Four years after this criticism was written, the Red Army withdrew, paving the way for the unipolar moment. Joshua Muravchik commemorated the event by titling his 1991 article, "At Last, Pax Americana". He detailed: "Last but not least, the Gulf War marks the dawning of the Pax Americana. True, that term was used immediately after World War II. But it was a misnomer then because the Soviet empire—a real competitor with American power—was born at the same moment. The result was not a "pax" of any kind, but a cold war and a bipolar world ... During the past two years, however, Soviet power has imploded and a bipolar world has become unipolar."

The following year, in 1992, a US strategic draft for the post-Cold War period was leaked to the press. The person responsible for the confusion, former Assistant Secretary of State, Paul Wolfowitz, confessed seven years later: "In 1992 a draft memo prepared by my office at the Pentagon ... leaked to the press and sparked a major controversy." The draft's strategy aimed "to prevent any hostile power from dominating" a Eurasian region "whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power". He added: "Senator Joseph Biden ridiculed the proposed strategy as 'literally a Pax Americana ... It won't work ...' Just seven years later, many of these same critics seem quite comfortable with the idea of a Pax Americana."

The post-Cold War period, concluded William Wohlforth, much less ambiguously deserves to be called Pax Americana. "Calling the current period the true Pax Americana may offend some, but it reflects reality".

The ‘’Pax Americana’’ motif reached its peak in the context of the 2003 Iraq War. The phrase "American Empire" appeared in one thousand news stories over a single six-month period in 2003. Jonathan Freedland observed: "Of course, enemies of the United States have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades ... What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of an American empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the United States Accelerated by the post-9/11 debate on America's role in the world, the idea of the United States as a 21st-century Rome is gaining a foothold in the country's consciousness."

The New York Review of Books illustrated a 2002 piece on US might with a drawing of George Bush togged up as a Roman centurion, complete with shield and spears. Bush's visits to Germany in 2002 and 2006 resulted in further Bush-as-Roman-emperor invective appearing in the German press. In 2006, freelance writer, political satirist, and correspondent for the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, Arno Frank, compared the spectacle of the visit by Imperator Bush to "elaborate inspection tours of Roman emperors in important but not completely pacified provinces—such as Germania". In September 2002, Boston's WBUR-FM radio station titled a special on US imperial power with the tag "Pax Americana". "The Roman parallel", wrote Niall Ferguson in 2005, "is in danger of becoming something of a cliché." Policy analyst Vaclav Smil titled his 2010 book by what he intended to explain: Why America Is Not a New Rome. The very phenomenon of the Roman-American association became the subject of research for Classicist Paul J. Burton.

Peter Bender, in his 2003 article "America: The New Roman Empire", summarized: "When politicians or professors are in need of a historical comparison in order to illustrate the United States' incredible might, they almost always think of the Roman Empire." The article abounds with analogies:

1. "When they later extended their power to overseas territories, they shied away from assuming direct control wherever possible." In the Hellenistic world, Rome withdrew its legions after three wars and instead settled for a role of all-powerful patron and arbitrator.

2. The factor for the overseas engagement is the same in both cases: the seas or oceans ceased to offer protection, or so it seemed. "Rome and America both expanded in order to achieve security. Like concentric circles, each circle in need of security demanded the occupation of the next larger circle. The Romans made their way around the Mediterranean, driven from one challenger to their security to the next. The struggles ... brought the Americans to Europe and East Asia; the Americans soon wound up all over the globe, driven from one attempt at containment to the next. The boundaries between security and power politics gradually blurred. The Romans and Americans both eventually found themselves in a geographical and political position that they had not originally desired, but which they then gladly accepted and firmly maintained."

3. "Both claimed the unlimited right to render their enemies permanently harmless." Postwar treatments of Carthage, Macedon, Germany and Japan are similar.

4. "They became protective lords after each act of assistance provided to other states; in effect, they offered protection and gained control. The protected were mistaken when they assumed that they could use Rome or America to their own ends without suffering a partial loss of their sovereignty."

5. "World powers without rivals are a class unto themselves. They ... are quick to call loyal followers friends, or amicus populi Romani. They no longer know any foes, just rebels, terrorists, and rogue states. They no longer fight, merely punish. They no longer wage wars but merely create peace. They are honestly outraged when vassals fail to act as vassals." Zbigniew Brzezinski comments on the latter analogy: "One is tempted to add, they do not invade other countries, they only liberate."

In 1998, American political author, Charles A. Kupchan, described the world order "After Pax Americana" and the next year "The Life after Pax Americana". In 2003, he announced "The End of the American Era". In 2012, he projected: "America's military strength will remain as central to global stability in the years ahead as it has been in the past."

The Russian analyst Leonid Grinin argues that at present and in the nearest future Pax Americana will remain an effective tool of supporting the world order since the US concentrates too many leadership functions which no other country is able to take to the full extent. Thus, he warns that the destruction of Pax Americana will bring critical transformations of the World-system with unclear consequences.

American political analyst Ian Bremmer argued that with the election of Donald Trump and the subsequent rise in populism in the west, as well as US withdrawal from international agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, and the Paris Climate Accords, that the Pax Americana is over.

American imperialism

American imperialism is a term referring to the cultural and political outcomes or ideological elements of United States foreign policy. Since the start of the Cold War, the United States has economically and/or diplomatically supported friendly foreign governments, including many that overtly violated the civil and human rights of their own citizens and residents. American imperialism concepts were initially a product of capitalism critiques and, later, of theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive United States policies and doctrines.

Although there are various views of the imperialist nature of the United States, which describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of imperialism, explanations for imperialism vary widely. In spite of such literature, the historians Archibald Paton Thorton and Stuart Creighton Miller argue against the very coherence of the concept. Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.

title: Pax Americana


text:
Common Language Runtime

The Common Language Runtime (CLR), the virtual machine component of Microsoft .NET Framework, manages the execution of .NET programs. Just-in-time compilation converts the managed code (compiled intermediate language code) into machine instructions which are then executed on the CPU of the computer. The CLR provides additional services including memory management, type safety, exception handling, garbage collection, security and thread management. All programs written for the .NET Framework, regardless of programming language, are executed in the CLR. All versions of the .NET Framework include CLR. The CLR team was started June 13, 1998.

CLR implements the Virtual Execution System (VES) as defined in the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) standard, initially developed by Microsoft itself. A public standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure specification.

During the transition from legacy .NET technologies like the .NET Framework and its proprietary runtime to the community-developed .NET Core, the CLR was dubbed CoreCLR. Today, it is simply called the .NET runtime.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Common Language Runtime


text:
Common Intermediate Language

Common Intermediate Language (CIL), formerly called Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) or Intermediate Language (IL), is the intermediate language binary instruction set defined within the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) specification. CIL instructions are executed by a CIL-compatible runtime environment such as the Common Language Runtime. Languages which target the CLI compile to CIL. CIL is object-oriented, stack-based bytecode. Runtimes typically just-in-time compile CIL instructions into native code.

CIL was originally known as Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) during the beta releases of the .NET languages. Due to standardization of C# and the CLI, the bytecode is now officially known as CIL. Windows Defender virus definitions continue to refer to binaries compiled with it as MSIL.

General information
During compilation of CLI programming languages, the source code is translated into CIL code rather than into platform- or processor-specific object code. CIL is a CPU- and platform-independent instruction set that can be executed in any environment supporting the Common Language Infrastructure, such as the .NET runtime on Windows, or the cross-platform Mono runtime. In theory, this eliminates the need to distribute different executable files for different platforms and CPU types. CIL code is verified for safety during runtime, providing better security and reliability than natively compiled executable files.

The execution process looks like this:

 * 1) Source code is converted to CIL bytecode and a CLI assembly is created.
 * 2) Upon execution of a CIL assembly, its code is passed through the runtime's JIT compiler to generate native code. Ahead-of-time compilation may also be used, which eliminates this step, but at the cost of executable-file portability.
 * 3) The computer's processor executes the native code.

Instructions
CIL bytecode has instructions for the following groups of tasks:
 * Load and store
 * Arithmetic
 * Type conversion
 * Object creation and manipulation
 * Operand stack management (push / pop)
 * Control transfer (branching)
 * Method invocation and return
 * Throwing exceptions
 * Monitor-based concurrency
 * Data and function pointers manipulation needed for C++/CLI and unsafe C# code

Computational model
The Common Intermediate Language is object-oriented and stack-based, which means that instruction parameters and results are kept on a single stack instead of in several registers or other memory locations, as in most programming languages.

Code that adds two numbers in x86 assembly language, where eax and edx specify two different general-purpose registers:

Code in an intermediate language (IL), where 0 is eax and 1 is edx:

In the latter example, the values of the two registers, eax and edx, are first pushed on the stack. When the add-instruction is called the operands are "popped", or retrieved, and the result is "pushed", or stored, on the stack. The resulting value is then popped from the stack and stored in eax.

Object-oriented concepts
CIL is designed to be object-oriented. You may create objects, call methods, and use other types of members, such as fields.

Every method needs (with some exceptions) to reside in a class. So does this static method:

The method Add does not require any instance of Foo to be declared because it is declared as static, and it may then be used like this in C#:

In CIL it would look like this:

Instance classes
An instance class contains at least one constructor and some instance members. The following class has a set of methods representing actions of a Car-object.

Creating objects
In C# class instances are created like this:

And those statements are roughly the same as these instructions in CIL:

Invoking instance methods
Instance methods are invoked in C# as the one that follows:

As invoked in CIL:

Metadata
The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) records information about compiled classes as metadata. Like the type library in the Component Object Model, this enables applications to support and discover the interfaces, classes, types, methods, and fields in the assembly. The process of reading such metadata is called "reflection".

Metadata can be data in the form of "attributes". Attributes can be customized by extending the  class. This is a powerful feature. It allows the creator of the class the ability to adorn it with extra information that consumers of the class can use in various meaningful ways, depending on the application domain.

Example
Below is a basic "Hello, World!" program written in CIL assembler. It will display the string "Hello, world!".

The following code is more complex in number of opcodes.

This code can also be compared with the corresponding code in the article about Java bytecode.

In CIL assembler syntax it looks like this:

This is just a representation of how CIL looks near the virtual machine (VM) level. When compiled the methods are stored in tables and the instructions are stored as bytes inside the assembly, which is a Portable Executable (PE).

Generation
A CIL assembly and instructions are generated by either a compiler or a utility called the IL Assembler (ILAsm) that is shipped with the execution environment.

Assembled CIL can also be disassembled into code again using the IL Disassembler (ILDASM). There are other tools such as .NET Reflector that can decompile CIL into a high-level language (e. g. C# or Visual Basic). This makes CIL a very easy target for reverse engineering. This trait is shared with Java bytecode. However, there are tools that can obfuscate the code, and do it so that the code cannot be easily readable but still be runnable.

Just-in-time compilation
Just-in-time compilation (JIT) involves turning the byte-code into code immediately executable by the CPU. The conversion is performed gradually during the program's execution. JIT compilation provides environment-specific optimization, runtime type safety, and assembly verification. To accomplish this, the JIT compiler examines the assembly metadata for any illegal accesses and handles violations appropriately.

Ahead-of-time compilation
CLI-compatible execution environments also come with the option to do an Ahead-of-time compilation (AOT) of an assembly to make it execute faster by removing the JIT process at runtime.

In the .NET Framework there is a special tool called the Native Image Generator (NGEN) that performs the AOT. A different approach for AOT is CoreRT that allows the compilation of .Net Core code to a single executable with no dependency on a runtime. In Mono there is also an option to do an AOT.

Pointer instructions - C++/CLI
A notable difference from Java's bytecode is that CIL comes with ldind, stind, ldloca, and many call instructions which are enough for data/function pointers manipulation needed to compile C/C++ code into CIL.

The corresponding code in CIL can be rendered as this:

title: Common Intermediate Language


text:
Talk:Romania

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2023
According to the sources given, Romania is a developed economy. By far, all the sources support the fact that the country is developed, including the GDP Per capita (nominal). It is time to accept it (for whoever keeps editing it).

Also, Transylvania is part of Central Europe, so the previous version of the page was more accurate.

Thank you! 92.83.153.46 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

 * There is a difference between "high human development" (e.g. Romania) and "very high human development" (countries traditionally considered "first world" countries). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I know that, but Romania's HDI is classified as “very high”, with only Bulgaria having “high human development” from all the EU countries. 92.83.153.46 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Romania is not recognized as being very high income, or an advanced economy. Romania isn't even part of the OECD. HetmanWL (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * May I inquire, @HetmanWL, why did you remove two references that I added, with the curt comment "Unreliable sources cited for Romania being in Central Europe removed"? The first reference ("Romania – a Central-European country") is from a scholarly journal article published by Radu Săgeată, a researcher at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy, thus presumably a real expert on this matter, while the second ("Romania as a Case Study for a Dynamic Central Europe") is a report from the well-known strategic intelligence publishing company Stratfor. On what basis did you dismiss these two sources as being "unreliable"? Turgidson (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Researchgate is not a reliable source, it's a hub pretty much anyone can publish in. Stratfor is a company for hire and not listed as a reliable source AFAIK, furthermore, the article doesn't state that Romania is Central Europe, it's about the Three Seas Initiative, the Bucharest Nine etc.
 * Consider Ukraine. Would you also say that it's at the crossroads of Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe? It has Lviv (formerly Lwów), "culturally in Central Europe" which makes Ukraine a partly Central European country, right? No. Consider Bulgaria. It's plainly stated - Southeastern Europe. Consider Spain. It's plainly stated - Southwestern Europe.
 * Also User:Shqian made an interesting observation: "The source you provided puts Romania in southeastern Europe, not in the southeastern part of central Europe:" "From it’s creation up until 18:14, 8 April 2018, this article placed Romania solely in southeastern Europe." "At 01:04, 11 April 2018, the user made another edit described as: a minor linking edit in the beginning of the article. This edit put Romania in central Europe, as well as southeastern and eastern Europe." HetmanWL (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Researchgate is not a reliable source, you don't get it at all. ResearchGate is not a source in the first place, it's a paper-sharing website. The Romanian Academy is the most prestigious and authoritative academic institution in Romania. Someone working at its Institute of Geography is definitively reliable. By the way, your examples like Ukraine are WP:OTHERSTUFF which shouldn't be affecting the discussion regarding Romania. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the same thing. Romania is indeed, a high income economy, however the level of development is also measured by the HDI, which is currently “very high” (https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/specific-country-data#/countries/ROU). 92.83.153.46 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * With the majority of countries being "high" or "very high"... I thought they were more selective. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Imageddddd.png @HetmanWL, why do you remove Central Europe? Not whole Romania is part of Central Europe, but some regions part of it. Like Turkey and Russia has European and Asian parts. Oradea, Arad = Great Hungarian Plain, + Transylvania is Central Europe. Why would be sources for this? And if users provide sources why do you remove them anyway? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Ukraine in Central Europe because it has Lviv/Lwów/Lemberg? HetmanWL (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that region of Ukraine is historically and geographically part of Central Europe. It's not about putting it in one SINGLE box, and in these cases one can mention 2 or 3 regions if needed. The leading paragraph allows one to say that Ukraine is a the "crossroads of Eastern and Central Europe". Razvan Valentin Marinescu 05:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet Ukraine is described simply as a country in Eastern Europe. HetmanWL (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This person has an agenda. Naicullucian (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * what has oecd to do with it? the sources for being categorized as developed point to an UN study which states the the country is Developed. Can someone who isn't completely illiterate read that study? 85.221.16.108 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the sources after the paragraph. There is a disparity between the sources (mentioning Romania as being "developed") and the paragraph (mentioning it is "developing"). We need to agree with the sources we state in the article itself. This has nothing to do with Hdi, but with the mentioned source. 85.221.16.108 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is clearly still being discussed and not ready for an admin to implement. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The user that keeps changing seems to be obsessed with Croatia not being in South-Eastern Europe as well, instead using "Mediterranean"
 * To me what happens seems more like pushing an agenda. Andymxm (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally never edited anything related to Croatia. But it has to be noted that Croatia is included into Central Europe much more often (sometimes/rarely) than Romania (which is pretty much never). I think I'd use "Balkan" for Croatia still. The latest EU summit this month, concerning that region was called the EU-Western Balkans summit. Romania could be thought of as Eastern Balkans. But I digress. A look at the map is enough. HetmanWL (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Croatia belongs to Central Europe as much as Romania does.
 * Transylvania and Bukowina sum up to be 50% of the country territory, just like Slavonia in Croatia, most governmental sources regard Romania as a country in the SouthEastern part of CENTRAL Europe, so denying both East and South-Eastern.
 * I think it's fair to hold an obiective approach because both geographically and culturally Romania has ties in Central Europe, whole or partially. Andymxm (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia operates on consensus, what the majority of sources hold. Check out Central Europe HetmanWL (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal opinion, it is a fact, a fact that most people agree to before countless times. Romania is not an omogenous country and each region belongs to a different cultural and Geographic group, therefore we shall classify it as such Andymxm (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you're lying. You can see how most people view the matter on Central Europe. Cheers, and a happy new year! HetmanWL (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with @HetmanWL and agre with @Andymxm. I think the previous formulation that Romania is at "the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe" is the most representative and balanced towards all regions of Romania. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a Central European country. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. But we can all dream! HetmanWL (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of this thread is to reach consensus, we're not going anywhere that way because it feels like it's one person versus everyone else, there are sources and maps placing Romania is Central Europe as well, at least culturally speaking, even the Romanian official touristic site places Romania in Central Europe.
 * I think we should leave aside agendas and biases and just accept things as they are. Andymxm (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not one person. The admin isn't convinced, neither is User:Shqian, User:Retois, nor me. HetmanWL (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Romania has combined historical regions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Romania they have different geographical positions. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey folks, I see there is a lot of talk regarding the region and much less about the developed/developing part. This has led to statements in the article which are simply not reflective of the sources used (references 20, 21, 22) of the currently protected version, so I would like to separate the two in order to more easily build a path forward.

For the developing/developed statement, my suggestion would be to go forward with a text that strictly reflects the sources, such as: ''The UN considers Romania as a developed country,[20][21][22] while the IMF is still including it in the developing and emerging group. The country is emerging to be a middle power in international affairs[...]'' (of course, better sources are welcome).--Strainu (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Regarding the regions, I support the "crossroads" version. We definitively don't need "institutions" saying whether Romania is in a certain region or not, institutions like the UN have zero say over abstract topics like the regional subdivision of Europe. No instituion has any authority over this, and as long as we can find reliable sources attributing a region to a certain country I think we're fine.
 * Regarding the developing/developed I am pretty sure Romania is right now in the transition between the two, having recently been declared a World Bank high-income economy and being in the process of joining the OECD. I find it normal that some sources say Romania is still a developing country and others saying it is already a developed one, I think a good solution would be to mention both to reflect that currently there is no consensus or just use one of the two because it doesn't matter anyway as Romania will be universally considered developed in some years. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus gave us the most correct definition on this case. Andymxm (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with @Super Dromaeosaurusand @Strainu Razvan Valentin Marinescu 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with @Super Dromaeosaurus. Regarding the developing part, in my opinion Romania has domains that are already very developed, such as the internet network system(one of the best in the whole Europe), while other economy areas require more concern and development. I believe that the statement that says that Romania is in transition between the developing/developed part is the most correct. RaduGiurca12 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Romania is a developed country
According to the same sources, Bulgaria is a developed country, while Romania appears as developing. Stop pushing an agenda. 188.26.10.215 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Then the Bulgaria page is wrong. Thanks for pointing out, already corrected it.
 * Nowhere in the references cited does it state that either Romania or Bulgaria are developed countries. HetmanWL (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I diagree, see my post above. Romania is a developed country, and has a higher GDP PPP per capita than Greece, Slovakia and Latvia. Source again here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=RO-LV-SK-GR Razvan Valentin Marinescu 05:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a developed country and the sources referenced do not correspond to what is written. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. I'd also like to note that according to the IMF, Slovakia has a larger GDP (PPP) per capita than Romania, while all (Greece, Slovakia, Latvia) have a larger GDP (nominal) per capita. HetmanWL (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Get your facts straight. Source here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_high-income_economy 188.26.10.215 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you get it from that high-income economy according to the World Bank stratification of the economies of the world = developed nation? HetmanWL (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @HetmanWL here on Wikipedia we're based on sources. In the first source, Romania is declared as developed in the tables on pages 125, 135, 142 etc. Same in the other two. If you dispute the source, perhaps we should move towards a more specific statement, such as "The UN considers Romania as a developed country". Happy new year! Strainu (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources listed (world economic situation prospects from UN) all list Romania as developed. I think people here have a problem reading the tables. 85.221.16.108 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus not achieved yet User Turgidson pushes changes to the lede
As above. There is no consensus. Wikipedia operates on consensus. Try for an RfC in this situation or stand by. This edit pushing is in line with Mrazvan's confirmed case of brigading/canvassing of Wikipedia 79.191.151.137 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Irrelevant topic, consensus was already reached, banned and hidden users are not welcome. Andymxm (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mrazvan22 is banned, see WP:CANVASS. What you say is irrelevant, as there is no such rule. There is no consensus and of the 3 references for Romania being in Central Europe, one is unencyclopedic/not reliable and the two other do not refer to Romania as being Central European at all and are false citations. 79.191.151.137 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @79.191.151.137 I don't know if things have changed in the meantime, but now the sources for Central Europe and the idea of crossroads between regions are:
 * A research paper published in the Romanian Review on Political Geography (scientific journal from the University of Oradea), written by a professor at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest. It opens with: "Romania – a Central-European country. The mathematical coordinates of Romania’s geographical position, the distances separating it from the extreme points of the Continent and the big natural domains individualising it, place this country in the south-eastern part of Central Europe. This reality is confirmed by the geographical works published during the inter-war period..."
 * The website of the Romanian Embassy in the US. It says: "Geographic position: in the south-east of Central Europe."
 * An older article published by Stratfor, which is an american organization for strategic and geopolitical intelligence advisory. They write: "Romania, an important Central European country, can serve as a case study..."
 * Supporting this issue there are now additional sources I've added:
 * A general NATO introductory report, from Romania's accession in 2004. Their 'Geographical Location' section mentions: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe, north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube, [...] at the contact of Central Europe with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, at the junction of major west-east and north-south European routes. [...] its territory constituting a bridge between Central and Southeastern Europe and the Near East." (with added explanations)
 * The website of the Presidential Administration of Romania which states: "Geographical Facts. Romania lies in the northern hemisphere, in the south-eastern Central Europe at the junction with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula..."
 * Additionally, there was already a source copied from the Central Europe Wikipedia article, published by the Leibniz Institute for Regional Studies (IfL) in Leipzig, Germany. Which is a prestigious research institute, and one of their authors wrote a paper titled "Major division of Europe according to cultural-spatial criteria" which includes a map showing the different cultural & spatial regions of Europe, with over a third of Romania being included in the Central European part.
 * Also, the United Nations geoscheme places Romania in Eastern Europe, while the CIA Factbook and Britannica consider it Southeast... In contrast, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies in France (and European institutions in general) square it in the "Central and Eastern Europe" category. I would say that all this is sufficient to showcase the statement: "Romania is a country at the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.". There are very specific arguments as to why because of the main regions that formed Romania (Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia + Dobruja in the South), with their respective history plus geographic position – added source briefly touching on that.
 * I don't understand this pedantic never-ending argument that has started. I don't see the pages of Serbia, Croatia, or Moldova (which is classed as both Eastern or Southeastern Europe depending on the source) having the same issue. Or Italy. -- Dhyana b (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to add my 3 cents - Romania is commonly understood to be Southeast Europe FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is an oversimplification & misconception. Romania is included in all 3 Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe Wikipedia articles, either in part or in whole, by various definitions. Even a source like Encyclopædia Britannica who places Romania in Southeast Europe, describes the kingdom of Dacia as: "Ancient country, central Europe. Roughly equivalent to modern Romania".
 * So it's clear the current classification has modern political reasoning behind it (they even classify Moldova as Southeastern Europe even though most sources would place it in Eastern Europe). Nevertheless, historically, geographically and culturally Romania's territory is tied to all 3 European regions. Dhyana b (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Imporance in WikiProject Europe
Why Romania is at low importance in WikiProject Europe? I think that it should be high or top importance, but not low-importance. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

High income misrepresentation
I think it should read "Romania is rated by the World Bank as a high income country, while most of the population is severely underpaid." 178.138.33.220 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 * In comparison with China, Vietnam, Nigeria, Ethiopia, it is certainly a high income country. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request
In the section "Economy", subsection "Infrastructure", please change the paragraph "Bucharest Metro, the only underground railway system, was opened in 1979 and measures 61.41 km (38.16 mi) with an average ridership in 2007 of 600,000 passengers during the workweek in the country" to "Bucharest Metro, the only underground railway system, was opened in 1979 and measures 80.1 kilometres (49.8 mi) with an average ridership of 720.000 passengers during the workweek in the country".

The info in its current form is very outdated and needs this update. (I provided the source above). (the old info that is still in the article is from before the opening of the new M5 line and the extensions on the other existing lines). 2A02:2F0F:B308:E300:8C0F:B011:D7F6:D7AD (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ Geardona (talk to me?) 02:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Romania