Miles Hogerty English IV - 4th Hour Mr. Griffin September 17, 2015 America - The World's Policemen In an interview with Bret Stephens, author of America in Retreat, journalist Bree Hocking asked why America should be the world’s policeman. Bret’s response was this: “...the real question isn’t whether the world needs a policeman, the question is who should that policeman be?” (Hocking). It's undeniable that over the past few decades, America has taken the role of the policemen of the world. From gruesome wars like Vietnam to modern issues in the Middle East, the United States has acted as instigators of justice against enemies of the common good. But in recent years, our eagerness to resolve every global skirmish has become detrimental to …show more content…
has a duty to enforce rules and become an example of what a successful and happy nation should be like. The idea of enforcing rules on other nations may sound either unlikely to succeed or detrimental to helping calm situations down. Laying down the law in foreign land does sound like a poor decision on the surface, but there has to be some kind of rules that every nation must abide to in order to sustain a violence-free environment. Some might argue that intervening in issues outside our cultural bounds might argued as some kind of westward expansion (McDougall). When I say laying down the law, I mean rules that have no cultural influence on either side. Basic, human-rights protecting laws that prevent violence on mass scales like the happenings of the Middle East now. We, as westerners, have no business forcing our style of life on other established, rich cultures. But we do have a duty to protect human rights across the …show more content…
In our foreign policies and policing, we should adopt a broken-windows type approach. A broken-windows approach refers to a social experiment conducted in 1969 by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford. Zimbardo parked a car in Palo Alto, California - hood up and licences plate removed - on a street corner. The car sat untouched for days. After nothing had been stolen from the car, Dr. Zimbardo smashed one of the windows with a sledgehammer. And a few hours after smashing in the window, the car had been completely destroyed and anything of value had been stolen. In 1982, criminologist, George Kelling, and political scientist, James Q. Wilson, wrote an essay titled “Broken Windows.” The two applied Dr. Zimbardo’s findings into political ideology (Stephens). If we were to adopt a broken-windows foreign policy, we could crack down on the wrongdoings happening around the world, apply rules that prevent these wrongdoings from happening again, and in time, we’d be able to repair the windows, thus preventing these future wrongdoings. This doesn’t mean that we’d have to jump to help with every little geopolitical injustice, but instead figure out which injustice needs our assistance the most. And not just America’s help. These crimes against humanity should call every powerful nation to action. Without global action, as Jon Davis of Quora put it, “...many countries which most people
After the Second World War, America came out of the war with the responsibility of being the “superpower” of the world. In the past America would never get involved in foreign affairs however after World War Two things had changed. Since America was considered the most powerful natio...
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
As seen by the terrorist attacks of September 11th and afterwards this is not an easy approach, if even possible, and it asks for a unreserved commitment, the clear definition of interests within the international system, it asks for the use of force if necessary as well as the clear distinction when not, and it asks for a transformation of institutions and policies. Since this was not done early on, the examples provide the reasons of failure as well as a demonstration of a slow learning process in U.S. foreign Policy.
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
Therefore, while there is a disagreement over whether or not there is a new American way of war, the argument, in its entirety is not built on solid ground. The United States does not now, nor has it in the past, wage war with a specific method of combat. Additionally, those who persist in making the claim despite that fact both misrepresent the way that recent conflicts were fought and how the political object of a war effects how wars are fought. Thus, there is not a new American way of war, but rather a new, and perhaps ephemeral political object present in recent wars. It is a profound mistake to pigeonhole American policy and military tactics. Such an attempt fails to consider the different circumstances surrounding each individual war—and thus the necessity to adopt different means within each of them.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, challenges conventional wisdom and argues that the United States should not seek to remain the indispensable nation in the international system in “Delusions of Indispensability”. Carpenter depicts the concept of the U.S seeking to remain the indispensable nation as “dubious” and a “blueprint for strategic overextension” of resources leading to a “failed paradigm” (Pg.19). Carpenter frames his argument against the indispensable nation thesis around the following topics: unilateralism versus multilateralism, U.S. engagement as binary light switch, the failure to acknowledge that U.S. engagement can take different
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Over the last few decades, I and fellow French diplomats have noticed a change in the American foreign policy. America is no longer just stretching within its own borders but showing interests in neighboring countries and the affairs of European countries in these other countries. The American foreign policy appears to be dominated by the interest of progressing humanity.The idea of progressing humanity comes from the American belief of freedom for all and spreading the American political ideas.
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffused enemy has proven to be ethically more problematic regarding identification and actions against a combative force with considerations for emerging technologies.
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...
The grand narrative of the American past is mentioned again with the emphasis put on the special quality of the American republic, which has been exercising its power only for good and just purposes. The “justness of our cause” should be reinvented, after the period of American military involvement of rather dubious character and this principle of justice should be transformed into a multilateral perception of international cooperation, marked by the phrase “greater cooperation and understanding between nations”. Justice can be perceived as another of key principles or ideological cornerstones enshrined in Obama’s speech. Justice.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.