PART 1 – LIBERAL ARGUMENT FOR HUMANARIAN INTERVENTION The liberal argument is no doubt the best to explain the reasons behind and the benefits of humanitarian intervention. Famous liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, expressed that there was a distinction between going into aggressive wars for selfish reasons and going to war in order to prevent atrocities wh... ... middle of paper ... ...e state is the main argument against its existence. (Spalding, 2013, p.5) Realist international theorists are in effect non-interventionists as they as believe the international society to be a state of anarchy and as such value order way above morality. In their opinion, for there to be order, states must be sovereign and their sovereignty respected. The highest power remains the state, it is on these grounds that universal human rights are rejected as well as the need for humanitarian intervention.
The internal structures of a state are paramount to such an atmosphere and when they lead a different style of relationship with other states, the theory of perpetual peace fails to hold any water. The behavior of states can only be explained... ... middle of paper ... ... the recent past, the idea of global security has been used as a reason for war. For example, the USA engagement in war against Afghanistan and Iraq was based on the argument of promoting peace in the name of democracy. This is a perfect example of how the interpretation of democracy can lead to hostility among nations. In conclusion, the theory of perpetual democracy is based on tangible pillar but upon analysis, relativity, uncertainty and vagueness present themselves hence the criticism.
And when Bush led the United States out of the Kyoto accord on global warming, he turned Washington into a laughingstock, with 178 nations on one side and the United States on the other. By not requiring U.S. companies, which produce a huge chunk of the world's carbon dioxide, to curb their emissions, Bush showed a reckless disregard for the environmental health of the planet. Like many know-nothings, Bush believes the United States is better than any other country. They're foreigners; what do they know? So what if 178 nations disagree with us?
The ... ... middle of paper ... ...e out there that believe that the US should remain as the global police. They think that possible replacements are not powerful enough to take over the role that the US currently plays (Messerli). Organizations, such as the United Nations, can’t be an be an effective global policeman because countries don’t offer enough help or aid needed for military action (Reed). This claim has been supported with its inability to stop the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda (Boot). Though The UN should not be a reliable replacement, the US can no longer afford nor have sole responsibility to take this role.
George Kennan's "Long Telegram" introduced the concept of containment, arguing that the US could keep communism from spreading by deterring Soviet expansion at critical points. Critical occurrences in1949 brought American communist fears to an extreme level. The Berlin Blockade and the Berlin Airlift, followed by Mao Zedong's triumph over Chiang Kai-Shek's Chinese Nationalist forces, and the successful atomic bomb tests of the USSR all contributed to the hysteria. America was gripped by paranoia, embodied by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy Communist witch hunts. The escalation period of the Vietnam War, which lasted for a decade (1955-1965) reflected the Cold War conflict in which the US and USSR avoided direct combat and thus avoided the possibility of nuclear war.
If the League of Nations failed in its primary responsibility, it was because nations failed to transition to the Wilsonian principle of collective security. The default position of “realpolitik” and balance of power politics, which meant alliance systems – sprang back the moment nations perceived themselves as threatened. From the outset, the seeds of the League’s failure were sewn by its association with the Treaty of Versailles, membership and structural faults, lack of an army and the continuous relapse of powerful nations into old paradigms in the 1920’s. Although this decade tainted the image and authority of the League, the 1930’s dictated its ultimate breakdown. The 1930’s were a time of global emergency as nations shifted... ... middle of paper ... ..., a detrimental blow to the League’s authority and image.
What, for Kurth, are the preconditions of genocide, and what are the implications for responding to it? In this essay, James Kurth talks about how the face of Humanitarian efforts has changed in the last decade. There had been no effective humanitarian intervention in the 2000’s and he claims that like the “Vietnam syndrome”, Iraq has made states less inclined to get involved with foreign powers on humanitarian issues. He begins his explanation by debunking common myths about genocide, he says they “are commonly thought to be the product of longstanding and widespread hatreds” but “there has always been a large organization, usually a modern bureaucratic state, behind them” (196, 7). This distinction has huge policy repercussions.
They did not agree with his fourteen points and at the end Wilson had to sacrifice many of his ideas to get the League of Nations in the treaty. As you know, the United States did not enter the League because of Wilson's stubborn attitude of all or nothing. Wilson's political blunder in dealing with foreign relations hurt him as president. Although Wilson was a master in forming American polices, his scheme on foreign policies was not as clear cut and precise. In America, Wilson passed many invaluable laws fighting the tariff and the trusts.
In his final point, Lowi concludes that interest group liberalism in the United States destroys the systems of democracy. Interest groups encourage informal bargaining and a country ruled by interest groups need informal bargaining to succeed. Although this environment is necessary to all political climates, a nation cannot survive on this environment alone or often because it often evolves into a climate of distrust and an unhealthy level of political cynicism (p. 292). Lowi comes to the conclusion that even though interest group liberalism was created to combat absolutist nature of the majority/minority rule in democracy, it instead negates democratic power and leaves public policy
According to Dr. M. Santos in “The New Deal Was a Failure,” states “I do not believe that Roosevelt will solve this crisis, for if he had wanted to, as he promised to the American people, he would have solved it, as the Legislature and the Senate have given Roosevelt more power than any other president of the United States….” As Roosevelt continued the New Deal, he used his power in a negative effect regarding the nation’s hardships. Programs in the New Deal opposed the foundation of the Constitution and constantly need improvements thus not assisting the problems. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration represents one program that was ruled unconstitutional. US History.org from The Farming Problem states, “The Supreme Court put an end to the AAA in 1936 by declaring it unconstitutional… After years and years of plowing and planting, much of the soil of the Great Plains and become depleted and weak.” The lack of government intervention within the New Deal’s programs, such as the AAA, allowed Roosevelt to continue the destruction of soil. Broken sod and power farming put the nation into a time of anguish leading up to the Dust Bowl.