Does the United States have the right as a developed liberal society to police the world into respecting human rights?

  • To Promote overall human development

    Currently, human society has arrived at a very delicate situation. Basically we find that a majority of the world lives below the poverty line, deprived of human rights, and a minority of the world holds the greatest concentration of wealth, opportunity and happiness. I believe it befalls on the rich world to help pull these countries out of the poverty line through policing. By ensuring their human rights are not violated. I would argue that the U.S is one candidate of man others that should have the right to police the world.
    There are 2 things I would like to say in support of this:
    1. Involvement from the developed world is important
    2.Why the U.S is such a good candidate

    1. I believe that change happens internally however not without the help of external influence. There has always been, historically speaking, and external event or force acting on country to build up the momentum of change within. This is especially true in the instance of the majority world where the standard of living is so low. These people are trapped in a vicious cycle. Because they don't have access to education and because they are so poor the best they can do is 'get bye'. Especially when they are oppressed by a regime, or when their country is torn apart by conflict, the respect for human rights reaches an all-time low. Without respect for freedom of speech and things like that, these people don't have the resources or the ability to invoke change. It therefor befalls on the rich world to keep these dictators and rebellious criminals in check while promoting human rights in order to invoke change that will progress all humanity.

    2. I believe it befalls on the United States to do this because of 3 reasons:

    a) International organizations often fail to do their jobs. For example the U.N has problems by passing resolutions and getting involved in bloody conflicts because of the veto power. Other examples like Rwandan Genocide prove the U.N and other organizations can easily fail at their job. We see that in this situation, independent countries such as the U.S have an underlying moral duty to police the world (since no one else is doing it)

    b) More specifically, the U.S is the kind of nation we want to police the world. Countries such as China and Russia are equally rich, however their Human rights records are horrible and they have themselves much poverty within their own countries. I believe the U.S has appropriate underlying values and understanding of human rights which make it a good candidate for doing much of the needed policing around the world

    c) U.S has the appropriate resources to do so. Amongst all other Western liberal democracies, U.S has an already strong global presence which can often get things done without doing anything. Furthermore we see that the U.S has a strong standing army and advanced technology which grant them the ability to accomplish all this policing.

  • American intervention is never effective.

    If the US could successfully enforce human rights and secure a better quality of life for foreign citizens when they attempt it, my answer to this question would be different. However, our track record in this area is disturbingly poor. In all honesty, the US does very little "policing" of human rights. In almost every instance of military intervention in American history, our country's interests played a major role in the decision; a role far more significant than our supposed concern for human rights. This is clear when considering our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America and our contemporary presence in the Middle East. Additionally, except for the two world wars, our involvement has never had a positive impact on the region in question. I believe our miserable failure as the world police has removed any right we may have had to act as such.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.