It is of course referencing the recent comments made by Russian President Putin regarding how he believes the US forces it's will on the rest of the world (often through military means).
What do you think? Does Putin here have a point? Are we -- as a combination of being the sole remaining super-power and our leaders administering a rather undeniably interventionist foreign policy of late -- trying to play control with the rest of the world? Are we the world's self-appointed policeman? Or worse... ?
Your thoughts?
24 comments:
The United States has taken the self appointed role as world policemen. Since the beginning of the New World, the United States played the role of, “light upon the hill.” This way of thinking led to an end of slavery and improvement of women’s rights well before other countries around the world. As the “light upon the hill” the United States must also set the example in ensuring that rights are not withheld from world citizens. Therefore, the United States earned the role as “world policemen” in defending an ultimate right.
A bad reputation for defending this ultimate right results from a lack of power felt by other nation in their defense of the ultimate right. The United States may be guilty of coercing other countries into a way of fighting though not guilty of an interventionist role. The United States is not trying to take control of world affairs. Instead, the United States is picking larger issues that have the potential to result in greater world harm. Examples include intervening in countries that harbor terrorists or are in the process of making nuclear bombs.
Putin has a very good point. But is that necessarily a bad thing? In some cases (in my opinion: Iraq), it is a bad thing, but not all. Yes, I think Saddam needed to go, but we didn't go about it in the right way or maybe just the right time. We should be concentrating on humanitarian problems like Rwanda (are we too late?) and Darfur (they could still use our help).
Though the movie Team America: World Police is a comedy/satire, it is based on the truth of the matter. We are the self-appointed policemen of the world. Again, this is not a bad thing in of itself, but we've squandered the opportunities to do the right thing for the world. Instead we've been led by agendas that involve (possibly) revenge and economics instead of strictly humanitarian aid.
I think we have the responsibility as the strongest world power to make sure evil does not spread throughout the globe. It's too bad everyone is mad at us and they don't want our help...
I could have sworn we were one of the last countries to end slavery and were still behind times with women's rights and especially minority's rights...its actually Black History Month at the moment.
The United States plays the role as policemen when it helps the United States citizens. It is hard to convince the public that it should help the helpless with no benefit (stopping terrorism is a benefit, allows us to sleep well at night) when its own citizens are sleeping on the street and overdosing on drugs the payed for with prostitution.
We should be able to stop warlords from committing genocide on its civilians, but we are not That powerful to always be policing every inch of the world at the same time giving every US citizen the ability to pursue happiness and live their life to the fullest.
Putin's attacks on the U.S. draw the attention away from his own country and place the spotless on the U.S. One of the arguments he makes is that we impose our will on the world by only signing treaties that serve our interest. He wants to paint America as the hostile country who is overexerting its power. He wants to draw attention away from his own country's actions. One of which includes selling billions of dollars of weaponry to Arab countries. By taking the focus off Russia, he has more liberty to take what actions he desires.
I have to wonder about Putin's motives when he attacks the US in such a manner. Russia and the former Soviet Union were famous for imposing their style of government on others and were responsible for the deaths of millions of their own citizens. True, it is wrong in a sense to blame a country for its past, but Russia still exhibits some of its older tendencies. Russian forces are using brutal tactics to suppress an independence movement in Chechnya (the rebels have certainly not been nice either, with multiple terrorist attacks including the theater hostage and school takeover incidents), and while it may never be proven, several journalists and critics of the Kremlin have been murdered in recent years. So, Putin seems to be taking advantage of the world stage to draw attention away from his own efforts. However, as to the original accusation, he may have a small point, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. While I may not agree (like some of the previous posts) with the methods used in places like Iraq, eradicating radical Islam is not just a selfish move to allow Americans to sleep at night. The radical imams and religious structure is bad for those who live under it as well. Women are murdered for wanting to be politicians (a women was shot to death last week in Pakistan for running for office) and stoned to death for wearing improper clothing. It fosters ignorance and hatred and sends countless people to their death in defense of religion. While it might be unfair to say that, after all, they are defending their homeland as we (supposedly) are, ask yourself these two simple questions: If it could be absolutely verified that the terrorists had laid down their arms and wanted to negotiate tomorrow, would we stop fighting and resort to diplomacy? If we stopped fighting, would the terrorists do the same? So yes, the United States is imposing its will on others, but is that necessarily a negative consequence for those living under radical Islam?
Although Putin's comments ring true, what is the alternative? If the U.S. sought and practiced a strategy of non-interventionism then the critics would say just the opposite, that the U.S. should be actively seeking to end injustice in the world. For example, if the U.S. has the means to stop countries from harming their citizens, isn't it our duty to act? I would submit that it really falls back on America's self-interest. If if will benefit the U.S., then we will help another country. But if it is not in our self-interest, then why would we weaken our economy and spend our resources on something that doesn't benefit the U.S, however injust it may be? No matter how altruistic we would like to be, We can't save everybody afterall. It is far better to pick and choose our level of foreign policy and intervention based upon the benefit to our own country.
Putin makes some good points, but he is not thinking practically. The United States is the most powerful and richest nation in the world. When the rights of world citizens are being violated, who else has the power to fight for them. However, there is no way we can solve all of the world's problems. If we tried to punish all the leaders and governments that harass its citiznes, we would go bankrupt.
Really, the only way to delegate who we can help is to decide if our country can gain in addition. If we can, then we can accomplish the task and help ourselves out while still perhaps make life better for a group of oppressed people.
It is withou a doubt that the United States has appointed itself as a worldwide policeman. However, it is how people perceive our actions that becomes their reality. After WWI, the United States took an inherently isolationist approach to the world. Consequently, the biggest catatrophe the world had ever seen resulted. WWII may have been prevented with such a interventionist type attitude that we maintain today. We do not attempt to control the pace and agenda of the world, rather we try to mitigate issues that could lead to unnecessary conflicts.
I believe the United States needs to realize that thought our views on what is right may differ from other nations, we must accept that there will be different views and that is ok. The US continued role as a world police force invades the sovereignty of foreign nations and drastically hurts our world image. We have no right to send forces into nations and act as an aggressor, even if it may, but only according to our societal views, help that nation. In a world of independent nations, they each have rights which protect them from aggression of an outside source. When the US commits this aggression we are the criminals, and it is no wonder our popularity across the globe has decreased so rapidly.
The US needs to realize its limits and begin to respect the values and sovereignty of other nations, even if these values are different. Some argue that it is justified to aggress because these nations are killing their citizens, and it’s just the right thing to do. They are killing them for doing what they declare is wrong. I would like to point out that we do the same thing in America; we simply have different standards for which this act can take place. Is a difference in standards on the same laws and rules something you can justify going to war over?
Putin's comment is, in a way, merely a reflection of the popular view of America as a world empire by other countries. Many nations around the world consider the US to be an imperial force - not in terms of a militaristic conqueror, but rather as an economic force. We literally dominate world economics through our sheer size, and many countries ally themselves with us simply because they cannot compete with us. Americans gorge themselves on luxurious excesses in comparison to even the "developed" nations of Europe. In the last decade, some regions of the world are making an effort to combat our influence: Hugo Chavez and his efforts to unite northern South America, the European Union, China's deals with the middle east and Africa.
Although our military presence provides a generally stable environment where markets can flourish, I can understand the resentment that a former superpower such as Russia may feel toward US world-dominance.
I'm just wondering why our imposition of will doesn't extend into sub-saharan Africa, regions of Southeast Asia, South America, and countless other countries/dictatorships/drug syndicates that "deserve" their right for peace, liberty, and freedom.
If the United States could act unilaterally to "impose" these things wouldn't we have already done so? WOuldn't going into these countries increase our credibility in the eyes of the UN and the world in general? Why don't the world nations call for interference with these nations if we are indeed a "world police force"?
Perhaps what these countries are afraid of is a loss of their own sovereignty. When the US was opposing the USSR the world as a whole had reduced sovereignty in the face of the two superpowers, but because they were recovering from war and their own problems they didn't care quite as much when they felt protected by "big brother." Now that there is no more "giant in the east" the world questions our presence in their countries and the countries of their allies. We threaten their own sovereignty and the proposition that the US can go anywhere it want's means that the world community is walking on eggshells to avoid the attention of the United States.
If we are to be the "world police" that some claim us to be, we should decide now if that is really what we want. if it is we are morally obliged to set out "rules" for interference that can be easily recognized for grounds to invade. Of course this could never happen because our "allies" are breaking the same rules half the time and would greatly jeopardize peace. On the other hand we can continue to act in our own interests as long as there is no significant outcry and our intentions are are "good." we just need to make sure our definition of good is still valid as foreign currency.
The U.S. has taken a stance within the international community as "policeman". Putin has a point that the U.S. at times imposes its will on other countries. However, this is a necessary part of international relations. For the most part, I agree with the Westphalian system of nation-state sovereignty, but there is a time when a nation-state's sovereignty takes a back seat to basic human rights and morality. If Putin had his way, the U.S. would follow an isolationist policy and keep to ourselves. This is just asking to open the door for another holocaust and racial genocide. For this reason, there needs to be an international "policeman" to protect the rights of mankind. This may not be the place of the U.S., but until there is an international/multinational body capable of enforcing basic human rights around the world, the U.S. must do what is necessary to fill this void.
The US has taken on the role of world policemen, but for good reason. Based upon our argument that we are morally superior, we have the duty of regulating the remaining immoral parts of the world. Terrorists around the globe as well as dicators and cruel athoritarian leaders seek to build their own power while depriving millions of people around the world of the basic natural rights that we believe all men are garunteed.
Our nation is build upon the idea of a universal right and a universal good. We must protect the rights and interests of our nation so that we can remain strong enought to help spread those ideals and garuntee those rights to people who have never had the privelege of experiencing them.
If we do not play the role of the global cop, then authoritarian regimes and terrorists will continue to be able to hide in the remote corners of the world where they can thrive and continue to disrupt the common good of our globalizing world.
Putin does have a point. The United States is the self appointed world policeman. This position for the United States has its pros and cons. The United States can make a stand on issues to fix them to what they believe is the greatest course of action. It is obviously a good thing to help out other countries (it could be debated what actually helps them) but the problem comes when the United States makes a mistake. Like spreading drugs or disease by mistake or several other things... then all of a sudden it would appear that the United States is stepping out of their boundaries and hurting others when they should have just left them alone. It allows the United States to have a position of power to spread good things around the world, but sets up the United States to take all the blame for every single wrong thing in the world.
Sleepless in vandy makes a good point. Id also just like to add that the US seems to be in an interesting position where it is idealist and realist at the same time. These two philosophies conflict and naturally make the US appear to be the bad guy to weaker countries. The US needs to look out for itself (state interests). But, it also believes in the natural rights of man. For this reason the US needs to figure out how to balance these roles. However, in the end the US needs to look out for itself. If that means rooting out leaders that could influence danger to the US, then so be it.
The US is in a unique position and i can say that i find some valid points in everyone's posts.
Yes the US has taken on a role as a World Police... yes it can be good and i wouldnt want any other country to do it and yes it is bad in that it is quite hypocritical when we still have some major problems at home.
I think the US's complex role in the international world has now become a necessity. We have put ourselves as the "light upon the hill" (sleepless in vandy) and now other countries have certain expectations of our country.
To pull out of international relations and let tradgedies occur would be extremely hypocritical of us, i think we have set ourselves up for attack because once we made a stance against what is (in our minds) morally wrong, the international community will now expect us to act everywhere where there is immoral action occurring.
Let's be real. Realist real. WE are out for ourselves. Anyone who says that the us is an international policeman is wrong. Policeman serve a law that all people of the state are bound too. The international system is anarchic and thus there is no higher law. If you think that we are a policeman, look at where we have not intervened. WE intervene when it is easy to win and when we have a true benefit to be gained, whether it be oil, money, or international prestige and goodwill. There is danger when we trap ourselves in an ideological war of good versus evil. States only act in their own interest. When we start saying good and evil instead, we breed conflict and not cooperation. Should we say that we have higher morals, yes, and we should persue what is justice for America. But can we pursue that justice for another state, i don't know.
Putin and many other world leaders are unwilling to step up to the modern world "agressors." Many still find themselves stuck in a Westphalian world system. The United States, along with Great Britain (maybe a few others I'm leaving out) have figured out that in modern times, more often than not, aggression stays inside a country's immediate borders.
The new. post 9/11 National Security Strategy written by the Bush administration is disturbingly accurate. Biological, Chemical, and especially Nuclear weapons afford countries the capability of posing an imminent threat to any of its national neighbors, and not just the ones next door. The United States might be falling into the same trap Athens did. Most of the nations in the world benefit from our "world policing." That is the precise reason why our military has grown so powerful. They rely on our invterventions and find it easy to degrade our tactics when in action but despise us when we don't take action in situations.
The United States does often take attempts to find allies in the world. Iraq did begin as a coalition and perhaps that is a poor case to analyze simply because the premises for being there have changed...but we can't leave now (that's an argument for another blog).
Anyway, yes, Putin is probably correct but his comments greatly point to his own country's and others inaction and apparent disdain for justice. America promotes a world society that tries to give opportunity to each nation-state.
It is not only the right but the responsibility of the United States (or any nation) to protect its international interests and national security. This is exactly what we have done in the past, what we are doing right now and what I foresee us doing in the future. The U.S is not a policeman simply because we pick and choose the conflicts that we have a vested interest in. A policeman does not have the luxury of picking and choosing the criminals he pursues (at least he is not supposed to). Laconeus hit on an important topic with respect economics though. We do exert influence throughout the entire world but the vast majority is not military influence. Our economic and cultural influence is far greater than any military influence we have had (on a global scale). This creates some animosity in many parts of the world (especially in the Middle East) and it is simply easier to point the finger at our military operations.
The rest of the world, the middle east in particular, needs us along with the rest of the world to be their "policemen." it is seen on a daily basis that the problems in some areas of the world are not going to get any better with super powers such as the United States just sitting back and waiting. the longer that we wait, the more time the issue has a chance to escalate. that being said, i believe that there are some instances where the US pushes a little too hard. there are some places in the world where a democracy simply will not work and the US government has a hard time seeing that in some cases. if the US turned more towards a policy of helping these nations get rid of their problems instead of trying to implement things that work for us, then it would not only help change the worldly opinion of the US but also have a much greater affect on these problems.
Putin has a good point because the U.S. does often act like a world police force. I agree with this, and I think someone would be hard pressed to argue the opposite; however, I think the real debate that is often overlooked is to investigate what the moral choice is in international politics.
I am proud of the U.S. and that we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard. We should not justify immoral actions or the breaking of any Just War principles or international treaties because our enemies are doing so. Even if they are treating our prisoners completely illegally according to the Geneva convention, for example, we, as the United States of America and leader in the global village, must set the standard and adhere to the highest level of morality.
Therefore, with that understanding, I suggest that we continue to push the world in the correct direction. I am not arguing that every engagement the United States enters into is a good decision; however, I do argue that intervention must occur on some level and especially if nobody else is going to intervene, then the United States should as a last resort.
However, I would like to argue that military intervention should not be taken lightly. Nevertheless, the pacifist approach can not be taken because it turns a blind eye to atrocities. Also, the classical realist point of view is flawed in its approach to the inherent anarchic aspects of international affairs. Much to the contrary, I feel that international affairs are both productive and essential to the stabilization of our global community. All aspects of the conflicts must be heavily debated in this realm of diplomacy. Also, the information and economic sources of power must be used prior to establishing a military directive to engage the spotlighted country. However, if this last step is to be taken, thorough attempts to build a coalition to avoid acting unilaterally must be tirelessly sought after. Finally, if the conditions on the ground continue to worsen, all aspects of the Jus ad bellum principles must be met and reviewed again, prior to engaging in a military solution.
I believe we should cut down on our budget substantially if we dont want to appear to be hypocrits. The founding fathers never intended for us to have a large standing military, as much for our benefit as for the freedoms of every nation's peoples.
with such a formidable power, we tend to push our way of life on those whose cultures may not agree with it. When did America intend to be the "world police"?
Can we honestly say our humanitarian efforts have not cause further problems? Would we be in this situation in Iraq if we were not such a world power?
i just think its funny to view the perspective of the US from the other side. of course we are the number one country in the world and that brings some contempt from others the real value in this understanding the views others
Post a Comment