"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.
The world has seen a lot at the hands of superpowers. On the one hand, superpowers can held solve many of the world’s problems. On the other hand, superpower’s interference has caused a lot of damage. In my opinion, no country should have the right to interfere in other countries’ personal affairs, as history stands to show.
First of all, historically, superpowers’ interference almost always has imperialist aims. If you can consider the British and French empires, they had colonies all over the world, from Egypt to India. They didn’t allow the people of the colonies to manage their own affairs. This lead to racism and inequality that lead the people of the countries to call for their own independence.
Moreover, wars have resulted as a result of the meddling of superpowers. British and French tread on each other’s property, and that resulted in the world wars. Presently, the US interference has caused the war in Iraq. If we allow superpowers to interfere in the future, can we guarantee that wars will not result?
Many superpowers claim that they interfere out of wanting to do good in the country, but often that is not the case. Notions of good are personally dictated by each superpower, and this may not be the absolute good in general. For example, the US presently claims to be fighting terrorism, but as a result 1,000,000 Iraqis have died, and they couldn’t have all been terrorists.
There is some good that could come out of a superpower’s intervening in other countries’ affairs, as they have resources to solve many of the eminent problems in the world such as poverty, lack of food, civil wars. The USAID, for example has helped solve many of Egypt’s rural areas to flourish, helped end starvation in Africa, and helped stop wars and end epidemics in much of Africa and Asia. Yet, many times aid offered to countries have strings attached. I believe it might be more helpful to countries if “objective” international organizations, such as the WHO, UN, and FAO, were the ones to help solve the worlds problems.
In conclusion, I believe more good would come out of allowing equal rights of self governance for all nations of the world. No country should have the right to dictate what another country should do, as the results are almost always catastrophic.
[/b]
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.
The world has seen a lot at the hands of superpowers. On the one hand, superpowers can held solve many of the world’s problems. On the other hand, superpower’s interference has caused a lot of damage. In my opinion, no country should have the right to interfere in other countries’ personal affairs, as history stands to show.
First of all, historically, superpowers’ interference almost always has imperialist aims. If you can consider the British and French empires, they had colonies all over the world, from Egypt to India. They didn’t allow the people of the colonies to manage their own affairs. This lead to racism and inequality that lead the people of the countries to call for their own independence.
Moreover, wars have resulted as a result of the meddling of superpowers. British and French tread on each other’s property, and that resulted in the world wars. Presently, the US interference has caused the war in Iraq. If we allow superpowers to interfere in the future, can we guarantee that wars will not result?
Many superpowers claim that they interfere out of wanting to do good in the country, but often that is not the case. Notions of good are personally dictated by each superpower, and this may not be the absolute good in general. For example, the US presently claims to be fighting terrorism, but as a result 1,000,000 Iraqis have died, and they couldn’t have all been terrorists.
There is some good that could come out of a superpower’s intervening in other countries’ affairs, as they have resources to solve many of the eminent problems in the world such as poverty, lack of food, civil wars. The USAID, for example has helped solve many of Egypt’s rural areas to flourish, helped end starvation in Africa, and helped stop wars and end epidemics in much of Africa and Asia. Yet, many times aid offered to countries have strings attached. I believe it might be more helpful to countries if “objective” international organizations, such as the WHO, UN, and FAO, were the ones to help solve the worlds problems.
In conclusion, I believe more good would come out of allowing equal rights of self governance for all nations of the world. No country should have the right to dictate what another country should do, as the results are almost always catastrophic.
[/b]
