Politics, News & Issues >
International Politics (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US continue to be the leader in world politics?
Results so far:
| No | 47% | 392 votes | Total: 828 votes | |
| Yes | 53% | 436 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesDuring WWIII, the US was forced to break out of its policy of isolationism with a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Many historians agree that by the end of the war, the US was left as the world's sole remaining superpower. It, therefore, had the supposed duty of rebuilding the war-torn nations and peoples of the world. The earlier USA-proposed League of Nations had failed without the participation of the proposing country itself, greatly. With the recovery of the Soviet Union in the background, the world would soon be brought a Cold War, with the Americans perceiving the Soviets to be aggressive in nature.
With its responsibility of rebuilding the world, the US provided aid and assistance to many nations around the world, officially as "rebuilding efforts" as actually part of the Cold War arsenal against the Soviet Union. Indeed, many of the G8 today would not have been if not for the large financial aid packages i.e. Marshall Plan given to them by the US then, fuelled by the paranoia of that period. Many nations today can attribute their growth and continued prosperity to the US. The sphere of influence of the US then slowly spread from its base in North America to the rest of the world.
It is like an eerie fulfillment and extension of the Manifest Destiny of the 19th century - today the US is argued to be the leader, or perhaps imperialist, in world affairs. I do not deny, however, that the world now has the US to thank for its heavy efforts of reconstruction in the past, though the intent of which remains to be much-debated to this date. Democratic ideals have survived and gained strength, as Communism slowly became passive and contained.
My question, for my argument hence, is whether the US should carry on to exert its giant influence over the world politics?
I think that the US imperium over the world ought to have expired. In recent years, the US has had more failures than successes, so much so that its "well-intended" big brother status over world affairs is as effective as the obsolete League of Nations.
Popular examples include Iraq, which by the opinion of a great many seem to judge it as "fighting a losing war". I recall that in Russia today, there exist sympathizers for the Soviet cause, who seem to think that the fall of Communism in 1990 was not for the better of the people, given that it was that strong authoritarian power in the past to bind the deeply-fragmented peoples of Russia together. By analogy, it does not seem that the downfall of Saddam has done much to alleviate tensions. Besides the fact that the initial push into Iraq was justified by claims by the US that the former held weapons-of-mass-dest ruction, which never quite materialized, the invasion did little to help the people. True, I will admit that the genocide did stop on a macro-level. Yet on the micro-level, such killings are frequent with tribal clashes and bombings. I would even go on to say that the scale of these conflicts have increased. Indeed, Saddam was a cruel leader, but while the US had no clear understanding of Middle-Eastern sensitivities and clear plans on halting the genocide and killings, they should not have entered the region at all. As we see now, they are caught back in where they started like the Vietnam War.
I should only hope that they do not touch on Iran unless they be clear-headed about their direction. Iran, though dangerous, is but a democracy with a decent standard of living. I seriously think the US should weigh all their options carefully before proceeding.
Outside of the Middle-East where they have had the worst stroke of bad luck thus far, the US has had tensions with several countries around the world- traditionally North Korea. Yet as this occurs, how can we be sure that these countries will be the only few points of contention for good? The US foreign policy seems to point to a dire possibility - the US influence over the world will ultimately establish them as "bad influences", with a rising big brother China, the US should have more work to do at home improving the living standards of its people. The rich-poor divide is still a fundamental issue untackled throughout the years.
The US could indeed have great domestic leaders, but for their messy foreign affairs, there remains much to be said. If the leaders could focus more at home, then maybe they would be much more well-loved, both locally and overseas.
Learn more about this author, Ajani Mgo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
The US leads not only because it's a superior military power but in tandem with the tapestry of freedoms that are available to everyone under the Constitution and its form of representative government. For as long as the US remains able to promulgate personal, religious, economic and political freedom, it will continue to lead world politics.
Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be king." It's also good to be tough. We have been granted leadership by the majority of the world's kindred souls who respect and admire our political vision as well as our military strength. We rose to this vaunted position as the leader of the free world not by bludgeoning our opponents into submission but by the ideological power of our social dream; freedom for all.
Do we err? Of course. Interfering with other governments is a factor of which we can't be proud but we can learn. Five decades of meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and Central America for "fun and profit" has come back to bite us and we must make amends.
In spite of political mistakes of hubris and a false sense that military power trumps all, we remain, in eyes of the rest of the world, a beacon of government of the people, by the people and for the people . . . a concept that continues to awe all other populations living under governments that use oppression to control their people.
The secret of America's political system is its flexibility to meet new and discomfiting social and cultural conditions with non-violent debate and come to rational compromises without a violent revolution. The Greeks pioneered democratic government on a smaller scale and lasted for a thousand years. It took another two thousand years of monarchs and emperors in Europe and the Middle East, some benign, many malevolent, to raise political philosophy to the level of the US Constitution. Even then, our tactics in developing the New World were often less than admirable.
We have to be careful. We fought the Japanese and the Germans against frightful militaries bent on global domination in WW-II and won with the grateful admiration of the world. We instituted the Marshall Plan to assist our former enemies' recovery and eventual prosperity. But we fought in Vietnam and fight in Iraq to establish American-style governments indebted to US business interests while indigenous residents object to our presence and fight us with cheap weapons against our expensive smart bombs and Mach-3 aircraft.
The attraction of America's message is not our military; it's the way we've demonstrated that governments that adopt the policies of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition for grievances and freedom to trade with other nations can and will live in peace and benefit from worldwide prosperity.
The US occupies half of a continent. Our three-hundred-millio ns are significant but pale against China's 1.4 billion and India's 1.1 billion people. Those nations have the capacity to equal us militarily in the near future if they devote enough resources.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick," Theodore Roosevelt said. Since the Sixties our leadership has used a "big stick" international policy. Dazzled by our success in WW-II, we were overcome by the fantasy that everyone, anywhere, would love to toss out all their religious and cultural conventions to watch "Desperate Housewives" and eat at McDonalds.
We have ignored the advantages of "speak softly," and have tried to force nations to our way of thinking by military overthrow coupled with economic bribery and political chicanery. The current administration is known for these tactics and we have lost our moral imperative. A new administration must work hard to restore the world view that America's example is a better way of governing. If we do that, we will continue to lead for as long as we remain a land of such remarkable freedom where good people of all colors, religions and politics are able to participate side-by-side in this noble experiment.
Learn more about this author, Michael Patrick.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- International Politics (Other)
- Should the US keep paying dues to the UN?
- Are developing countries better served by male or female leaders?
- Does big business unduly influence government?
- Is President Obama prepared to let Iran eliminate Israel?
- Is independence a panacea for struggling, underdeveloped countries?
- Is a one world global community a good idea?
