After researching some material there are a few issues that I believe to be evident in the topic of America being the world police. The first one that comes to mind is the issue of fundamentalism. Our text book (Mandaville, 2009)makes reference to Tariq Ali and his reference to the fundamentalist relationship between George W. Bush Jr. and Osama Bin Laden. Another issue is a matter of ability. I'm referring to military power and economic ability to support that military in the endeavor to police the world. Also the people in charge of the world police is something that should also be considered.
It seems evident that countries want to live their lives in different ways. whether it be different religions, different national identities, or on how to run their existing economies. It seems as this will not be changing any time in the near future. So how can a country whose fundamental beliefs are religious freedom, democracy, and capitalism be in charge of policing other countries who may not value those ideals as we do? In some societies it is these values that are seen as evil traits that should be done away with. Our book discusses the idea of power. Edkins (2009) quotes Michel Foucault. His quotes suggest to say that power is a relationship between people, and obedience to that power will be accepted only if it is seen as a non-oppressive force that doesn't exist simply to say no to things. That power needs to also produce things, or introduce pleasures as well as new forms of knowledge. How can two societies with different fundamental ideologies agree with what forms of pleasure are acceptable, or what knowledge should be passed on? Can we really believe that the people that we are trying to police are going to respect our power and authority to keep the peace between different nations? Are they going to let us play the role of arbitrator when they don't trust us. It's even been suggested (Davidson, 2009) that the foreign policies with regard to the middle east have direct relationships to the strengthening and radicalizing of Islamic fundamentalist groups throughout the area. It seems unlikely that we can police the world due to very different fundamental beliefs. For that to happen I would think we would have to base our policing efforts on the fundamentals of the given nation in dispute. World view of the U.S. would also have to be very high to respect the power that we would be trying to wield.
Still, there will always be people around the world that need to defend themselves but don't have the means to do so. It's obvious that even in a bad economy the U.S. is still far better off then some of the third world countries across the globe. According to Shah (2009) the United States was responsible for 48% of the world's military spending. He also projects that 44.4% of our tax dollars will be spent on our military. There's no question that we have the resources to at least lead a military whose responsibility would be to police the world. Since we have the ability the question here is do we help those that can't help themselves, or do we focus on the problems that we have at home?
Another concern that I have would be the motives of those who would be in charge of this world police force. There are always whispers that politicians are only out for their careers and not really the public interest. There are politicians that say that they won't raise taxes and then they do after they get elected. I'm just not sure that we could trust just one government to run an institution whose job it is to police the world. I'm not sure what they would be but I think there would have to be some sort of checks and balances to ensure that those in power do not abuse that power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, would you say that fundementalism is incompatible with being a "world policeman"? Would there be any set of values that might serve as the basis for the legitimacy of a global police force? The UN Peacekeeping forces and the International Atomic Energy Agency both do some of this policing (as does Interpol and the World Court). What about those options?
ReplyDeleteYou also raise an important issue about the danger of the abuse of power, and there is always a trade-off there. If you need someone to maintain order, then they will need to have power. But there are ways to limit that power (such as with the separation of powers in the U.S.) It comes down to what kind of balance do you need between power and restraints on that power.
Also, for future entries, it would be good to keep focused on the case with N. Korea, and to provide more references from the articles you've been reading on the subject.
ReplyDelete