National Sovereignty, Oppressive Government, and the US Role in the World

Since World War II, America has often been considered and called upon to serve as the world’s policeman. But is it a role we have performed effectively – and perhaps more importantly, is it one that we should continue to play? With opinion polls showing the American people’s overwhelming reluctance to serve a military role in foreign countries, it is time to consider whether the title of “world’s policeman” is one we should keep. Studying American interventions in the world since WWII offer some lessons and insights into both America’s desire – and ability – to police the world, and leads to the unavoidable conclusion that we are the only nation capable of preventing the all-too common atrocities, genocides and acts of aggression that destabilize continents and create untold human suffering.

US armed intervention seeks mainly to counter the “threat of good example”. Chomsky suggests the real domino theory refers not to the threat of communism spreading, but the idea that a country may develop a successful socialist state and economy independent from the US, thus setting an example for other countries where the US has economic interests. This may result in a domino effect where these other countries are influenced to do the same and develop independence from the US, thus threatening US hegemony. There are two types of domino effects: the threat of communism which is used to justify US intervention to the public, and the actual threat of “good example” which motivates US to suppress socialist movements in countries like Guatemala, East Timor, Laos, Grenada, and Nicaragua. The real motives for US intervention are therefore for its own material and strategic gains, under the pretense of propagating the ideas of freedom and democracy.

Ever since its rise to global power in the early 20th century, the United States has been involved in countless foreign affairs. Said involvement has really influenced how the United States should look at foreign affairs today. In essence, being the lone Superpower of the modern world, the United States acts like the World’s Policeman. While on paper, this idea of having a World Policeman may seem like a great idea, since there will always be that one nation standing by with the intent of protecting shared ideals around the globe. However, actually putting this idea into practice says otherwise. Taking a look back at the outcomes of recent military interventions, specifically the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the

Washington Rules emphasizes that the United States should order world politics. It is safe to say that since the Post-Cold War era; The United States is seen as the world’s superpower, and it is to a point where numerous countries expect us to protect them, and intervene in any situation that is not “right.” The US has taken a preemptive role on ordering the word and senses the need to help those who are not super powers in order to promote peace. America’s military remains unchallenged, spending around 736 billion dollars yearly. In addition, the American economy remains strong amongst the global financial system, and the United States political influence around the world remains very strong as well.

A number of contrastive theories dominate American foreign policy operation, both in the present and in the country’s relatively brief history. Among them are exceptionalism, a long-standing, explicitly American ideal that lends us a divine purpose; expansionism, a desire to widen our borders and conquer territories; unilateralism, a freedom to engage with other countries but without formalities such as alliances or agreements; and isolationism, a hesitance to engage with other countries in any manner, to focus on domestic interests. In its brief life, America and its citizens have maintained sturdy exceptionalist mindsets and, arguably, functioned with a mostly unilateral approach. The result of the interaction between exceptionalism, expansionism, and unilateralist thought and belief has created a blurred-lines realist approach

Since its birth in the late 18th century, the United States has arguably had one of the greatest global presences in human history. It has left its impact on most, if not all, nations currently in existence. In the past century, the United States has helped develop and manage many different countries around the world. In recent years the goal of this nation building and managing came in response to the spreading of communistic ideals. The United States, being a democratic and capitalistic nation, helped many nations avoid being led by communistic regimes. United States intervention has helped to prevent dictatorships, oppression, and genocide around the globe. Many of these interventions came during a key period of time of communistic ideology

So I think our approach of engaging to get extreme leaders or regimes out of power, is not always the best idea. I think our tumultuous track record in the Middle East gives me basis for my negative feelings. However, I don’t say that with the naivety of someone who pretends there aren’t heinous crimes carried out in countries where leaders don’t have the peoples’ safety or best interests at heart, and we’ve also got to acknowledge the civilian deaths that happen because of our own U.S. drones and airstrikes. Why We Fight, cites the Iraq War as an example where the U.S. may not have even gone abroad to promote liberty. The approach of going abroad in our own self-interest is not one that sits easily with me. Charles Lewis

(1)Should the U.S sometimes pursue realpolitik and sometimes human rights? In other words, is it acceptable for the U.S. to someimes anything even support dictators, if it is good for the nation, sometimes pursue moral priciples when it can reasonably do so?.(2) I think the U.S. should do what is in the best interest of the United States for example, (3)Just one day after the French surrender at Dien Bien Phu, an international conference to settle the Indochina conflict began in Geneva, Switzerland. There , representatives of the French and Vietminh attempted to to map out Indochina’s future. Cambodia, Great Britain, Laos, the People’s Replublic of China, The Soviet, and the United

The analytical text “The Paradox of American Power,” written by Joseph S. Nye was quite a fascinating read, as it analyzes the reasons behind why the U.S. has become a worldwide leader and is able to maintain its position as a leader. In addition Nye writes about “hard” and “soft” powers as one of the main reasons why the U.S. is able to hold its position as a world leader, and describes it as a major factor in determining whether or not other countries, such as Russia and China, have the ability to emerge as global superpowers. Throughout the book, Nye teaches the readers about the “Game of Politics,” describing unilateral and multilateral approaches to problems, and why the U.S. should initiate more cooperative relations with the other countries of the world in an analytical objective manner; even with its faults, it manages to convey this message in a way that gives its many of its strong points.

Emerging from World War II as victorious and relatively unscathed, America embraced its new title as the new “Global Power.” However, global leadership was not entirely in the hands of America. Through the Cold War, America struggled with the Soviet Union for global influence and operated many regime changes in order to halt the spread of communism, the ruling political party of the Soviet Union. The American overt and covert actions of overthrowing and replacing foreign governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Afghanistan have come with immediate and long-term effects, which have weakened American security, created more foreign enemies, and established Anti-Americanism.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

After the Cold War, the United States emerged victorious and became the sole super power in the international system. Since then, the US has been a champion of liberal democratic values such as very strong institutional protections of individual civil rights, free-market economy, governmental leaders who are elected by the people in fair and balance elections who make the choices concerning peace and war and a secular political order. However, in recent years there are debates and talks of what role the United States as a country should play in the future, especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The debate on what path the nation should follow has led to debates with those who argue that we should revert back to isolationism and to others who believe the United States should submit its power to the United Nations and an international system of laws. But I argue for a different approach, an approach that the nation has used in the past and that is primacy.

A foreign affair is an event that takes place in an overseas country that could potentially pose an ultimatum to national interests, goals, and safety. Whether or not to intervene in these countries has invaded the American mind in recent years. Proponents of intervention argue yes because intervention is a way to protect the U.S. from terrorism. Opponents argue that the U.S. should not intervene in foreign conflicts because of the strain it puts on the American economy, the public opinion views intervention as less favorable, and the lack of progress that has been made so far. Due to these reasons, the U.S. should not intervene in external affairs

There have been numerous books written in the past by various political scientists on how to improve U.S. foreign policy. However, Fettweis’s Pathologies of Power provides a very interesting and somewhat unusual dig at U.S. foreign policy. In his book Pathologies of Power Fettweis is highly critical of the below average foreign policy performance of the United States over the last few decades and he strives to shed some light on why the U.S. keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again. In his view, the many blunders in American foreign policy can be attributed to the nation’s deep connection to a series of closely held pathological beliefs that he collectively describes as fear, honor, glory, and hubris. Professor Fettweis in his book also discusses the origins of these deep pathological beliefs. He strongly argues that some of the major foreign policy disasters like the Iraq War, the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War was a result of these strongly held pathological beliefs. He also recommends that American foreign policy performance can be improved significantly if these strongly held pathological beliefs are identified and eradicated and replaced with prudence and restraint.

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.