The thin line between helpful neighbor and world police

[Ria]

Last night, one of my insomnia nights, I stayed up for a while just thinking and having an argument in my head about this...It's probably been discussed many times before, but it seems impossible to search for this exact subject, so here goes.

When does the US (I use the USA because we have received the most flack for it) cross the line of providing help to foreign nations, and simply become the world police? Or put another way, how can a country be faulted for acting as the world's police in one place and then damned for not doing the same thing in other places? I realize that this is a complicated issue (bahaha what isn't in politics) but there must be some clarification...

For example, the US...it has received endless criticism of invading Iraq. Ok, now what about Africa? We sent money, medications, etc, but we know this won't eliminate the problem(s). How do you do that? By eradicating the root of the problem. So should we occupy places in Africa and kick out the existing government (if you could even call if a government), or should we let it continue and have them try and solve their own issues, in order to avoid more criticism...meanwhile sending aid that temporarily solves a miniscule percent of problems. Then there's the question of if we did invade, what government would we (US) set up...democracy most likely. But then we would get more mean stares from that..another example of America spreading their beloved democracy in places that maybe it shouldn't be. Damn if we do, damn if we don't?

[Weasel]

Last night, one of my insomnia nights, I stayed up for a while just thinking and having an argument in my head about this...It's probably been discussed many times before, but it seems impossible to search for this exact subject, so here goes.

When does the US (I use the USA because we have received the most flack for it) cross the line of providing help to foreign nations, and simply become the world police? Or put another way, how can a country be faulted for acting as the world's police in one place and then damned for not doing the same thing in other places? I realize that this is a complicated issue (bahaha what isn't in politics) but there must be some clarification...

For example, the US...it has received endless criticism of invading Iraq. Ok, now what about Africa? We sent money, medications, etc, but we know this won't eliminate the problem(s). How do you do that? By eradicating the root of the problem. So should we occupy places in Africa and kick out the existing government (if you could even call if a government), or should we let it continue and have them try and solve their own issues, in order to avoid more criticism...meanwhile sending aid that temporarily solves a miniscule percent of problems. Then there's the question of if we did invade, what government would we (US) set up...democracy most likely. But then we would get more mean stares from that..another example of America spreading their beloved democracy in places that maybe it shouldn't be. Damn if we do, damn if we don't?

Good question, hard to answer. I think the problem with the USA (but also with many other states) is that the world does not see their initiatives as help but as following their own interests. You know what I mean? Is spreading democracy the reason for invading Iraq? Or is there an other hidden reason (oil, political influence or whatever)? Nobody knows, but the world is sceptic when it comes to world police actions because too many times the US supported the wrong people. And you better don´t trust politicians.

Just my 2 Eurocents.

[Ria]

Good question, hard to answer. I think the problem with the USA (but also with many other states) is that the world does not see their initiatives as help but as following their own interests. You know what I mean? Is spreading democracy the reason for invading Iraq? Or is there an other hidden reason (oil, political influence or whatever)? Nobody knows, but the world is sceptic when it comes to world police actions because too many times the US supported the wrong people. And you better don´t trust politicians.

Just my 2 Eurocents.

Yes Weasel, and I kept thinking about that as I tried to form my question (thanks to Hellfish for helping me with that, btw) and I realize that it can depend on the intentions of the "invader." I felt bad generalizing my post so much but it gets nearly impossible to sort it all out when you involve other details, blahblah.

[Weasel]

Yes Weasel, and I kept thinking about that as I tried to form my question (thanks to Hellfish for helping me with that, btw) and I realize that it can depend on the intentions of the "invader." I felt bad generalizing my post so much but it gets nearly impossible to sort it all out when you involve other details, blahblah.

It´s a difficult subject.

[praetorian6]

I used to think about this question alot, and lately I've been thinking that maybe we would be better off if the US focused inward instead of trying to save the world (or conquer the world, depending on your view I guess).
It's impossible to make everyone happy, and no matter what course of action you take, someone will be offended/discriminated/left out/something. Like Ria said, it's pretty much damned if you do, damned if you don't. Lately I've been of the mind that we should focus our time and energy fixing the problems we have domestically; if the world is going to complain anyway we might as well take the time to fix our own problems.

[Hellfish]

I would argue that being the world police has nothing at all to do with where the US intervenes. At least not in the 21st Century thus far. I where and when we intervene somewhere is determined by how much we'll get out of it in return. In Iraq, clearly, our return on investment would be oil, basing rights in the ME, a state friendly to our interests, and improved security.

Now you gotta look at Africa - if we were to intervene in the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur, what would our return on investment be? A couple hundred thousand Africans still alive? Rwanda certainly doesn't have anything we want. We don't want to piss of the Sudan too much over Darfur because they have oil (though I'm not sure where most of that oil goes).

Call my cynical, but intervening to save lives in Africa just means that in ten years we're going to have to feed and clothe those people. There is very little in our (the US) interest in Africa outside of maybe Nigeria, Angola and South Africa.

The really cynical part of me (maybe we should call it the terribly inhumane part of me) thinks that maybe genocide is good for Africa.

No, seriously. Hear me out.

Africa is fucked up. We all know it - they know it. They were given these artificial borders by the Europeans. These borders have split tribes, families, traditional territories and it's so bad that even today, 2-300 years later, they are still unable to create stable government due to either the sheer size of the country and difficulty governing such vast, undeveloped places or because of internal conflicts between ethnic groups in Africa.

Maybe we could just wipe those borders off the map, said to the Africans "here you go, take what you want" and come back in 20 years to see who is left. I'd be willing to bet that we'd see smaller, far more stable nations develop around tribal and ethnic lines.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The problems the US faces are no different to the problems the British were facing prior to WW2.

The key problem however is that unlike the British the US has no viable alternative power to dispute with.

The British always had the Spanish/French and Germans to have a dance with. And the British had no problems in going to war against these nations. Even at the rosk of losing everything.

The US on the other hand has no enemy or state that is large enough to destroy it. And thus when it acts it's seen as acting with it's own imperialist agenda.

[Zarathustra]

Regarding how Africa looks today. I'd strongly support a recolonization of it. Otherwise, the chaos there will goes on, the billions we - the West - have spent for medications and stabilize their countries does not even goes to the impoverished population, rather to their corrumpted dictator. Millions of Africans will flood Europe in the next few years. Since 1999, the immigration (legal and illegal, but mainly illegal) to Europe from sub-sahara Africa went up 45%. Something needs to be done. That definitely can't last.

[Laworkerbee]

Africa is fucked up. We all know it - they know it. They were given these artificial borders by the Europeans. These borders have split tribes, families, traditional territories and it's so bad that even today, 2-300 years later, they are still unable to create stable government due to either the sheer size of the country and difficulty governing such vast, undeveloped places or because of internal conflicts between ethnic groups in Africa.

Maybe we could just wipe those borders off the map, said to the Africans "here you go, take what you want" and come back in 20 years to see who is left. I'd be willing to bet that we'd see smaller, far more stable nations develop around tribal and ethnic lines.

Well said, let the chips fall where they may and let the Africans restructure their countries, these old borders imposed by European colonial powers are responsible for untold amounts of bloodshed in Africa and the Middle East.

[Hollis]

The US on the other hand has no enemy or state that is large enough to destroy it. And thus when it acts it's seen as acting with it's own imperialist agenda.

I think that sums it up. Anti-USA it is Imperialism, Pro-USA it is being a helping neighbor.

I don't think that having a counter equal nation is necessary. They US is not completely on it's own. The US has great limitations, especially reading what the US is NOT doing. It is not doing many things because it just can not.


RIA, thank you for a excellent thread.

[CSAR]

I don't think there's nothing wrong trying to play the world police. Democracy and human rights should be defended whenever possible. But it's just not as simple as invading a country, setting up a regime and finally pulling out. Usually right wing people tend to think in a cowboyish way like "We're gonna kick their balls and save the day". Bad thing is that usually you don't get results using kick ass attitude, these things are extremely complex and require hard work and patience. The people must want the change and do it by themselves, it can't be forced from outside.

I don't think we are going to see anything spectacular in Africa for decades. Best we can do is try to educate people and stall conflicts from escalating. Europe was a stinking hole where people were anctious to kill each others just hundred years ago, and this didn't change until the WW2 was over. And still Soviet Union survived the war and continued the tensions for decades. Considering that Africa is maybe even hundreds of years behind us it's little wonder there are so much problems. If people are offered education it will eventually change things, educated people are able to help themselves and are harder to get along to some tribal or religious wars.

[Switek]

What is a police?

It's a group of armed person hired by community, society, state to guard (according to current laws stricly describing their privileges an its limits) law an order, life, safety an property of the members. Members agree to transfer prsonal laws to police in particular situations when common good right its requires. the depth of the transfer is negotiable and changes from time to time.

In international community it desn't work. US is used sometimes by countries in trouble as a "gunman to rent". Well, this gunmen works for his best interest first of all. It's much simplified picture, of course.

[balrog]

Well there are a few things the US government does that cause the rest of the world to complain. First thing is they act unilateraly. (here comes the "well the useless UN...blah, blah...) Second there motives are called into question, why? Let's use Iraq, why did the US invade Iraq with so many bigger, better and more dangerous fish to fry? It's simple black and white to people outside the US. Why not North Korea, they are unpredictable and have nukes? Why not Iran, they are much more dangerous than a castrated, sanctioned to death Iraq? The last thing is that the US, and the rest of the world, does when dealing with a foreign peoples is completely fails to empathize with them. This leads to that often repeated case of "Why don't the damn locals just let us save them?".

[Ria]

Well there are a few things the US government does that cause the rest of the world to complain. First thing is they act unilateraly. (here comes the "well the useless UN...blah, blah...) Second there motives are called into question, why? Let's use Iraq, why did the US invade Iraq with so many bigger, better and more dangerous fish to fry? It's simple black and white to people outside the US. Why not North Korea, they are unpredictable and have nukes? Why not Iran, they are much more dangerous than a castrated, sanctioned to death Iraq? The last thing is that the US, and the rest of the world, does when dealing with a foreign peoples is completely fails to empathize with them. This leads to that often repeated case of "Why don't the damn locals just let us save them?".

I don't advocate the US's invasion of Iraq. I don't think it was for honest and sweet intentions. But I don't think our country is too far gone...or well, I hope not. We will see what the future brings, since we can not (and should not) pull out of Iraq anytime soon.

I agree with you CSAR...maybe if the people of Africa are educated, they can learn what the real problems are, and how to fix them. They must learn how to take care of themselves individually before they can work with each other to better their conditions.

thank you all for your comments, I admit I was quite nervous posting this...I usually am not so upfront with my thoughts. I am slowly learning though

[Ria]

I think that sums it up. Anti-USA it is Imperialism, Pro-USA it is being a helping neighbor.




RIA, thank you for a excellent thread.

Exactly, that's why there is no real answer, and why this topic is so difficult. I find things I want to say but then I quickly contradict myself soon after..such a multifaceted question...

and thank you and everyone else for excellent reponses.