The United States is often labeled as the
World Police Force, intervening in various conflicts that often do not have
direct immediate consequences for the US itself. Individuals around the world
do not always praise this label. However, I believe there are ways that the US
can assist others in conflicts without direct military intervention, which is
typically utilized as a means of change particularly in the case of
Russia-Ukraine.
Given its role in the world as
a major superpower, the United States, at some capacity should intervene at
some level when human rights and international law are being violated. This
does not necessarily presume the use of military force or boots on the ground
rather there are several approaches that may be more effective or at the very
least worth a try before the use of force is employed. Russia's force in Crimea
has been deemed a violation of international law, while the US may not have as
much of a vested interest in this region as compared to Germany it is vital
that something be done when international law is broken. In this case, I
believe the US could have used their status at the UN and NATO to provide
advise and assist the world community in finding a viable solution to Russia's
violation. While this may solution may not materialize, I think it is a great
way for the US to get involved without deeply investing our resources and
deploying manpower. In the case of Russia-Ukraine the US did not do enough. I
believe they should have done more in ensuring international law is protected in
conjunction with the UN and world organizations alike including the World Bank.
There are ways to avoid military intervention while still lending a hand. While I agree with the masses that the US shouldn't be a World Police Force, I think it is unethical and against our values as a nation to stand by and watch when international law and human rights are being grossly disrespected. In many of those instances if able countries and world organizations do nothing to enforce the law then it not only continues but the affected individuals are often unable to stand up for themselves.
In conclusion, the US should be involved when gross
violations of human rights and international law are being violated because we
have the means to do so not just in terms of financial or military resources but
also due to our status in the world community and our strong allies.
Well I think this post does not look at the reason as to why Russia was involved in Crimea which I think leads to a good reason as to why the US got involved in the Russia- Ukraine ordeal. It is not just about a violation of international law and human rights. Do you think that the violation of human rights was the main and only driving force for getting involved? I do agree it is a great reason but dont believe it is the only one.
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding Emilia! I agree with what you are saying, I don't think the only reason to get involved was the violation of international law and human rights. There is always a number of factors involved in making these important decisions and I definitely would not overestimate them.
DeleteMeghan, you really should run for political office because of the way you discuss U.S. intentions because I SO WISH the United States did act on the values that you describe. However, my question for you is: Is it fair for the U.S. to hold nations accountable for violating international law when the U.S. wrote international law and constantly disregards it? Is it the United States' place to accuse Russia of the annexation of an island that has historically been theirs when U.S. has a history of CIA infiltration in foreign governments to ensure that our interests are protected by these governments? Is it fair for the U.S. to accuse Russia of gross human rights violations when less than 10 years ago, U.S. military tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and continues to hold prisoners in Guantanamo? This is what frustrates me about our government! We have so much wealth and influence-- such potential for good, but we can't impose good on others when we aren't good ourselves. We can't monitor democratic elections for other states when corporations can buy our own politicians. So, I agree with you about what circumstances should require intervention, but I just don't see a way that the U.S. can engage in these interventions without a thorough clean up of our own politics and foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thoughtful response Mary Grace..maybe I will run someday! You bring up a really good point that I had not previously thought about. I do not think it is fair for the US to hold others accountable when we are never ourselves held accountable. It is hypocritical, at most, for US to enforce international law when we ourselves have violated it and walked away.
DeleteI liked your argument Meghan and I agree with a lot of it. To maintain alliances and display strength, the U.S can give more aid or declare such acts a threat to human rights or international law. However, I am curious as to what you think if a humanitarian transport gets attacked. In recent news, a humanitarian aid truck traveling through Syria was destroyed. These acts not only kill the aid workers, but how many men, women, and children that were dependent on that aid? If states don't intervene militarily before the UN convoy destruction, which is fine the states do not have to, should they intervene with military force after a direct attack on aid convoys?
ReplyDelete