Hi everybody. Special 10x to thoroughmba. I greatly appreciate your advices. That topic seemed an easy one, but probably that was my hardest issue in 30 min. In fact, I needed 2 min more to make the summary. I guess when it comes to global topics like that one, the writer could easily fall into the trap of stating too complex statements and eventually time is not enough.
So here it is...
"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."
,,The power of the strong is a two edged knife" a wise man once said. Being a superpower brings ultimate opportunities to influence the world as well as numerous obligations and immense responsibility. In the preceding statement, the writer relates the basic idea of that quotation, claiming that a superpower country should not intervene in the world problems and therefore should not be responsible for world affairs. Though, the writer's argument has its reasoning, in my point of view, a country which has the status superpower should be concerned with every world problem and should be responsible for finding the best solution.
Primary, a superpower country has definitely strong economic relations all over the world. Therefore, if a problem occurs in the region for oil supply for example, that superpower should ensure stability of that energy source and find the best way to deal with the crisis. A vivid example of such situation, is the war in Kuwait in 1992 when other country invaded the energy source of USA and consequently the US president responded to that act of violating oil supply. That action, according to me is not political but economic protection of a main energy product, that could influence not only USA but the entire world. Without the immediate actions of the USA army in 1992, the would could face enormous energy and economic crisis.
In addition, a superpower is undeniably responsible for the preservation of the human rights no matter the political and financial cost. Indeed, a strong country like USA could not stand silent when we are witnessing such violent military conflicts and repressions such as the war in Bosnia or the civil war in Rwanda. A superpower should ensure that global human rights are preserved globally. Otherwise, such country would be nothing more than a regional leader and inevitably would lose its global advantage and supreme.
Nevertheless, a superpower should not intervene irresponsibly in every point of the world in order to protect its own interests and so the author's reasoning has its validness in cases when protecting national goals intervenes the interests of the superpower.
In sum, being the leader of the world and a superpower has its benefits in means of greater influence and protection of national economic and social interests, but that status inevitably comes together with huge responsibility and capability to solve global problems and issues.
So here it is...
"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."
,,The power of the strong is a two edged knife" a wise man once said. Being a superpower brings ultimate opportunities to influence the world as well as numerous obligations and immense responsibility. In the preceding statement, the writer relates the basic idea of that quotation, claiming that a superpower country should not intervene in the world problems and therefore should not be responsible for world affairs. Though, the writer's argument has its reasoning, in my point of view, a country which has the status superpower should be concerned with every world problem and should be responsible for finding the best solution.
Primary, a superpower country has definitely strong economic relations all over the world. Therefore, if a problem occurs in the region for oil supply for example, that superpower should ensure stability of that energy source and find the best way to deal with the crisis. A vivid example of such situation, is the war in Kuwait in 1992 when other country invaded the energy source of USA and consequently the US president responded to that act of violating oil supply. That action, according to me is not political but economic protection of a main energy product, that could influence not only USA but the entire world. Without the immediate actions of the USA army in 1992, the would could face enormous energy and economic crisis.
In addition, a superpower is undeniably responsible for the preservation of the human rights no matter the political and financial cost. Indeed, a strong country like USA could not stand silent when we are witnessing such violent military conflicts and repressions such as the war in Bosnia or the civil war in Rwanda. A superpower should ensure that global human rights are preserved globally. Otherwise, such country would be nothing more than a regional leader and inevitably would lose its global advantage and supreme.
Nevertheless, a superpower should not intervene irresponsibly in every point of the world in order to protect its own interests and so the author's reasoning has its validness in cases when protecting national goals intervenes the interests of the superpower.
In sum, being the leader of the world and a superpower has its benefits in means of greater influence and protection of national economic and social interests, but that status inevitably comes together with huge responsibility and capability to solve global problems and issues.
