Our ideals involve fairness, open and honest international communication, and the idea that consensus can be reached peacefully. On the other hand, war is unfair, and success in war is based on deception more than anything else. I believe Washington and the founding fathers were right in wanting America to lead the way into an era of open and plain-spoken diplomacy, and that alone could go a long The previous answer pegs the central dispute.
Towards a post-traditional renaissance forthcoming-Africa World Press. Introduction It is clear that power relations in the global system have been severely tested since the events of September 11,so much so that it has become fashionable these days for people to argue that the world has irrevocably changed with those events.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on September 11th, were calculated moves to test the standing and political and economic positions of the world's sole superpower.
They were aimed at delivering a blow that could carry several messages around the world at once. Indeed, it is clear that this fateful event was a manifestation of the contradictions of the modern world system since its foundation some five hundred years ago, and the messages the attacks were calculated to transmit were intended to convey to all and sundry those contradictions.
The first of these messages was the expression of anger by those disaffected social and political forces, that felt mistreated, marginalized, and oppressed by U. The second was to demonstrate to the U. Thirdly, the attacks gave signal to other disaffected groups opposed to U.
Fourthly, by attacking these two pillars of U. These messages had other side interpretations. This was in fact what president Bush dubbed an "attack on civilization" in his condemnation of the strikes. This interpretation had the effect of influencing the way the world looked at the attack and the U.
While not necessarily accepting this interpretation, it forced all foreign governments, with the exception of the very few, to side with the U. Thus in addition to the overwhelming humanistic outpouring of sympathy for the victims, it enabled the Bush administration to arm-twist all governments and individuals throughout the world to side with its response on the grounds that the attacks were not on the U.
It forced these governments to side with the U. The generalization of the consequences of the attack also put emergent "anti-globalization" activists on the spot since any attempt by them to express sympathy with the attackers by asking that the causes of the attacks be examined and addressed was interpreted as being "unpatriotic" expression of sympathy with "the enemy.
This interpretation was also used to crack down on the democratic and civil rights of U. Thus, the event and the reactions surrounding it were turned from a political discourse into a moral-religious event in which "the enemy" was equated with evil and barbarism, while the victim was equated with virtue and civilization.
Nevertheless, these interpretations have begun to have an opposite effect in that the widening of the net in "the war against terrorism" with the attack against Iraq has caused many countries to pose questions that were not posed earlier.
Questions are being asked whether the tragic events of September 11 are not being misinterpreted to advance a narrow political agenda of some cliques within the U. Something like a return to a political discourse is beginning to emerge with a call being made to address the real causes that led to the September 11th attacks against the headquarters of the "Free World" and for the United Nations to resume its responsibilities for international peace and security.
President Bush's threats against the United Nations to act according to his will "or become irrelevant" are being taken as rantings of a president whose unilateralism has gone wild. The war against Iraq has again undermined the hope of a return to a multilateral world. In may ways, therefore, these events, and particularly the unilateral action of launching the war against Iraq with the support of Britain and the so-called "alliance of the willing," have confirmed a predictable hegemonic trend in U.
This trend has afflicted all great hegemonic powers in history. Nevertheless the role of the U. These theories have been challenged by institutional stability theorists, who have argued that the model of institutionalized hegemony, which explains the functioning of multilateral arrangements based on the cooperation of a number of core countries to overcome "market failures," is preferable to the hegemonic power model [Keohane, ].
This Bretton Woods system was predicated on the coincidence of three favorable political conditions. The first was the concentration of both political and economic power in the hands of a small number of western states; secondly, the existence of a cluster of important economic and political interests shared by those states; and thirdly, the presence of a dominant power "willing and able" to assume a leadership role in the new situation [Spero, It is the evolution of the contradictions of this combination that Spero spoke about that has created the predicament in which the present situation for the U.
The domination of the U. These institutions expressed the interests of the western powers at first hostile to Japanese emergence on the world economic scene as the culmination of the western modern system based on liberal-monopolistic capitalism.
The institutions also expressed political military power that the western countries wielded throughout the world. Western systems of economic, political, and military power in fact protected those economic interests that were threatened by "communism," and as time passed, by the emergent nationalism of what came to be called "Third World" or "developing" countries.
Indeed, as Paul Kennedy argued in his book: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers , economic power is always needed to underpin military power, while the latter is also necessary in order to acquire and protect wealth that superpower status demands.
The problem arises when a disproportionate share of a hegemon's economic resources is increasingly diverted from wealth-creation and allocated to military purposes. The result is the weakening of the economic backbone of the military power of the hegemon in the long run, which often leads to its eventual collapse.
This reality took some time to come through in the case of the U. The rise of U. Having suffered from its isolationism of the interwar years and thereby contributing to the eventual collapse of the economic system and of the peace that had followed World War 1, the U.
Having settled into the role of a superpower only challenged by the Soviet Union, the U.The U.S. Role in World Affairs In today's world, what do you think America's role should be? I think the Americans, as the largest power, have to remain involved without falling into the trap of becoming the world's policemen and becoming over involved.
All US Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives — initiated by Democratic and Republican presidents — have failed. They were doomed to failure by the tendency to downplay the complex intra-Arab.
The United States has no vital interest in Libya but does have vital interests in preventing a substantial interruption in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. “ What Role Should the U.S. Play in Middle East?. Europe’s Role in International Affairs.
America’s role in a turbulent world real alternative to the United States playing these roles is not the United Nations, it is not a benign compact of the powers; it is a ruthless. As important as it is to support people on the front lines of the struggle for freedom, however, such support will not be meaningful if the United States is perceived as a .
Get an answer for 'What role should America’s ideals play in its national security policy? Include historical, current, and hypothetical cases in the analysis' and find homework help for other.