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.
My RESPONSE:
The statement above mentions superpowers and their responsibility for policing world affairs. The author of the statement is of the opinion that superpowers have to remain neutral with the exception of self-defense.
I agree with the author for several reasons. I will discuss my viewpoint below, structured in the three issues definition of superpower, alternative role of a superpower and exception to the rule.
First of all, there is the lack of a common definition. Who would be allowed to think of himself responsible for policing world affairs? Is a country which has the greatest population, say 10% of the world population, allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of another country? Alternatively, do countries with a nuclear arsenal have the right to intervene in other country's affairs? For a lack of a common definition, a superpower cannot be allowed to be responsible for policing world affairs.
Secondly, let us assume the opposite of the author's viewpoint. If we could all agree that superpowers were allowed to have a status as world police what would that mean? Possibly, that a larger power could suppress a smaller power. If you subsitute the abstract word 'power' by country and country by people one gets a gasp of the insanity of this viewpoint. If we assumed that a superpower were allowed to play world police, one country would be allowed to suppress other countries.
Thirdly, the author, wisely, mentions an exception to his rule that a superpower is not allowed to take a position other than neutral towards world affairs. If the superpowers were attacked, it would not have to remain neutral. Even though there is no common definition of self-defense, one could include aggressive preventive strikes, this exception makes the author's position attractive in that it does not rule out a superpower being responsible for policing world affairs. The exception to the rule makes the author's argument attractive as it does not rule out exceptional cases.
As we have seen in the above reasoning, I agree with the author's argument for three seperate reasons, those being definition of superpower, alternative role of a superpower and exception to the rule.
"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.
My RESPONSE:
The statement above mentions superpowers and their responsibility for policing world affairs. The author of the statement is of the opinion that superpowers have to remain neutral with the exception of self-defense.
I agree with the author for several reasons. I will discuss my viewpoint below, structured in the three issues definition of superpower, alternative role of a superpower and exception to the rule.
First of all, there is the lack of a common definition. Who would be allowed to think of himself responsible for policing world affairs? Is a country which has the greatest population, say 10% of the world population, allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of another country? Alternatively, do countries with a nuclear arsenal have the right to intervene in other country's affairs? For a lack of a common definition, a superpower cannot be allowed to be responsible for policing world affairs.
Secondly, let us assume the opposite of the author's viewpoint. If we could all agree that superpowers were allowed to have a status as world police what would that mean? Possibly, that a larger power could suppress a smaller power. If you subsitute the abstract word 'power' by country and country by people one gets a gasp of the insanity of this viewpoint. If we assumed that a superpower were allowed to play world police, one country would be allowed to suppress other countries.
Thirdly, the author, wisely, mentions an exception to his rule that a superpower is not allowed to take a position other than neutral towards world affairs. If the superpowers were attacked, it would not have to remain neutral. Even though there is no common definition of self-defense, one could include aggressive preventive strikes, this exception makes the author's position attractive in that it does not rule out a superpower being responsible for policing world affairs. The exception to the rule makes the author's argument attractive as it does not rule out exceptional cases.
As we have seen in the above reasoning, I agree with the author's argument for three seperate reasons, those being definition of superpower, alternative role of a superpower and exception to the rule.
