Why the United States comes short of making international interventions work

There is a thin line between encouraging democracy and ‘forcing’ democracy. The U.S has mostly strayed into the latter with bad consequences for those most directly involved. This has made ‘intervention’ to be sometimes spelt as ‘invasion and occupation.’
The U.S may want to start with pragmatically deciding if it really has to involve itself in every national event happening elsewhere, and to tell the world, point blank, that it cannot possibly be involved in everything beyond its national interests.
The facade it puts on that ‘The U.S. can’ got old since the end of the Cold War. Really, I think the reason why the United States had such a credible pose as an effective global leader during the war was that it had a smaller sphere to concern itself with. The former USSR took care of one global half, and the U.S covered the other half. In that acute divide, propaganda made both sides look good, talk tough and act as moral vanguards for their ideologies. But with the fall of the Soviets the United States had a new half to influence, to demonstrate that it is the right ‘global leader’. But in all reality, except the United States was going to assert an imperial rule, such ambition is impossible. Going the unilateral way is clearly overstreching the USA and pulling bad publicity for it when it falls short of its liberal expositions.
I think this is the time for the powers to let the United Nations step up, and multilateraly decide where, when and how ‘interventions’should be done. This century does not belong to a single state or one hemisphere. The challenges and opportunities of this
century can only be met by broad multilateral consensus. And it is important that this consensus is steered by a global international institution- the United Nations. Quite a lot of people criticize the United Nations for being ineffective but such criticism will fall to an all time low when we consider that like all intergovernmental organizations, the United Nations can only succeed to the extent that its members, from whom it derives its powers and objectives, permit it.


About Johnson Boyede

Johnson Boyede, B.Sc in International Relations. He wrote 'Addressing terrorism in Nigeria and possible spill over into West Africa' for his Long Essay. He contributes scholarly writings to an open facebook group, 'League of Diplomats'. He agrees and runs with the opinion of Paul Romer that, "Knowledge is a non-rival nature and only partly excludable... In an open society, knowledge's non-rival nature means that a piece of new information can be used over and over again, by different people, in varying contexts and to make new things...one good piece of knowledge will live several lifetimes, undergo different iterations and be put to ever more unique purposes."
This entry was posted in Foreign policy, International Intervention, Politics, Responsibility to Protect, Security, Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s