ESSAY QUESTION:
"Status as a 'superpower' does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs. Even a superpower should remain neutral towards world events except in cases of self-defense."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The statement mentioned above implies that a country that is given the status of a "superpower" should also remain neutral to world events unless they are related to self defence. I don't agree with this statement. A country is called a superpower if it is the most advanced, prosperous and promising nation in the world. A country that is ideal, that is a role model for other nations. Such a country has a moral obligation for the rest of the world and it would be extremely deplorable to shy away from these responsibilities.
Looking at the world dynamics of today, and with the fall of the USSR, we can say that the United States of America is the only superpower left in the world today. The USA has been highly active in world affairs and has acted peacemaker at mulitple occasions. Over the years it has ensured that morality lives on. Then be it Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan, or be it the age old Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, the USA has always made it a point to counsel or act at the opportune time, thus ensuring decorum and world order. The latest has been the assasination of a long time Libyan dictator Gaddafi. It has been a great boon to the people of Libya who are taking baby steps towards democracy now with the help of America.
The break down of Afghanistan and falling of Osama Bin Laden has been another historic event. After the 9/11 tragedy, the USA worked with the single point aim of cracking down Al Qaeda and reaching to the perpetrator of mass tragedies - Osama Bin Laden, a mission that finally got accomplished when the mass murderer was caught and killed this year. Though 9/11 is a glaring incident that perhaps forced such a concentrated movement against Al Qaeda, it was not the only one. And the falling of the leader of this terror group is a great respite for each and every nation facing terrorist attacks over the years. Apart from fighting terrorism, there are multitudes of developing and under-developed nations that the USA has helped either financially, or strategically in rising up in the world order. The USA is one of the first donors of daily succor and money in the face of a natural calamity in any part of the world.
The picture is never black and white as they say. So having said all this, there are other aspects that urge that a line be drawn to the extent to which a superpower can meddle or dictate world affairs. The reluctance of the USA to make any tangible changes in its day to day dealings when it comes to the environmental deterioration is a case in point. Though the USA has been a stalwart for raising environmental awareness, but it has been highly non commital in mending its own ways to improve the situation. Forcing recommendations and limits on developing nations is an indicator of bullying which is regrettable. Matters of such grave consequence should be dealt with more sincerity and open mindedness. Taking another trajectory, during the US invasion of Iraq, there were incidents reported when the Iraqi nationals were ill treated. This hurts the image of the US and puts its selfless efforts of establishing a better world to question.
Looking at the overall picture, it can be safely said that a superpower has a moral responsibility towards the rest of the world and it should exercise the same. But care should be taken that no national sentiments are hurt in the process. Though every nation has to contribute for a better and safer world, a superpower is more capable than the rest in accomplishing this feat.
"Status as a 'superpower' does not make a country responsible for policing world affairs. Even a superpower should remain neutral towards world events except in cases of self-defense."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The statement mentioned above implies that a country that is given the status of a "superpower" should also remain neutral to world events unless they are related to self defence. I don't agree with this statement. A country is called a superpower if it is the most advanced, prosperous and promising nation in the world. A country that is ideal, that is a role model for other nations. Such a country has a moral obligation for the rest of the world and it would be extremely deplorable to shy away from these responsibilities.
Looking at the world dynamics of today, and with the fall of the USSR, we can say that the United States of America is the only superpower left in the world today. The USA has been highly active in world affairs and has acted peacemaker at mulitple occasions. Over the years it has ensured that morality lives on. Then be it Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan, or be it the age old Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, the USA has always made it a point to counsel or act at the opportune time, thus ensuring decorum and world order. The latest has been the assasination of a long time Libyan dictator Gaddafi. It has been a great boon to the people of Libya who are taking baby steps towards democracy now with the help of America.
The break down of Afghanistan and falling of Osama Bin Laden has been another historic event. After the 9/11 tragedy, the USA worked with the single point aim of cracking down Al Qaeda and reaching to the perpetrator of mass tragedies - Osama Bin Laden, a mission that finally got accomplished when the mass murderer was caught and killed this year. Though 9/11 is a glaring incident that perhaps forced such a concentrated movement against Al Qaeda, it was not the only one. And the falling of the leader of this terror group is a great respite for each and every nation facing terrorist attacks over the years. Apart from fighting terrorism, there are multitudes of developing and under-developed nations that the USA has helped either financially, or strategically in rising up in the world order. The USA is one of the first donors of daily succor and money in the face of a natural calamity in any part of the world.
The picture is never black and white as they say. So having said all this, there are other aspects that urge that a line be drawn to the extent to which a superpower can meddle or dictate world affairs. The reluctance of the USA to make any tangible changes in its day to day dealings when it comes to the environmental deterioration is a case in point. Though the USA has been a stalwart for raising environmental awareness, but it has been highly non commital in mending its own ways to improve the situation. Forcing recommendations and limits on developing nations is an indicator of bullying which is regrettable. Matters of such grave consequence should be dealt with more sincerity and open mindedness. Taking another trajectory, during the US invasion of Iraq, there were incidents reported when the Iraqi nationals were ill treated. This hurts the image of the US and puts its selfless efforts of establishing a better world to question.
Looking at the overall picture, it can be safely said that a superpower has a moral responsibility towards the rest of the world and it should exercise the same. But care should be taken that no national sentiments are hurt in the process. Though every nation has to contribute for a better and safer world, a superpower is more capable than the rest in accomplishing this feat.
