Should The United States continue to act as ‘the world’s police’.

Assignment Brief

The United States should continue to act as ‘the world’s police’. Discuss this statement, with reference to conflict and change.

Sample Answer

Introduction

The idea that the United States should serve as "the world’s police" has been central to global debates on international relations, especially since the end of World War II. This role refers to the United States taking an active stance in intervening in international conflicts, promoting peace, upholding international law, and influencing global political and security frameworks. While many view this leadership as essential for maintaining global stability, others argue that such unilateral or hegemonic behaviour undermines sovereignty, leads to prolonged conflicts, and often serves American self-interest more than global welfare.

This essay critically examines whether the United States should continue to act as the world’s police, evaluating both sides of the debate in relation to modern conflict and global change. It assesses the impact of this role on international peace and stability, the implications for American foreign policy, and the broader global shifts that question the sustainability of this position.

Understanding the `World’s Police` Concept

The concept of a `world police` refers to a dominant state’s self-assigned role to enforce international norms and intervene, militarily, politically, or economically, when violations occur. For decades, the United States has assumed this role, often justified through humanitarian concerns, national security interests, or commitments to allies.

This role has evolved through different global events, such as the Cold War, the Gulf War, NATO interventions, the War on Terror, and more recently, responses to cyber threats, nuclear proliferation, and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Each instance has raised questions about legitimacy, effectiveness, and ethical responsibilities.

Arguments in Favour of the U.S. as the World’s Police

1. Global Stability and Peacekeeping

The United States has played a significant role in deterring conflicts and supporting global stability. Interventions in Kosovo, South Korea, and the Persian Gulf helped prevent wider regional wars. Through its military presence, the U.S. has protected vital sea lanes, combated piracy, and maintained order in unstable regions. Proponents argue that without U.S. engagement, power vacuums may be exploited by hostile actors or rogue states.

2. Responsibility of Power

As the world`s largest economy and military power, the U.S. arguably has a moral obligation to lead. With vast resources and global reach, the U.S. can mobilise coalitions, offer humanitarian aid, and enforce international sanctions. Some posit that leadership in international affairs is a natural extension of its democratic values and historical role in shaping post-war institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank.

3. Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights

American intervention has supported transitions to democracy in many states, including Germany, Japan, and more recently, Eastern Europe. Supporters argue that U.S. influence helps enforce human rights, prevent genocide, and dismantle tyrannical regimes. For instance, U.S. actions in Bosnia and Kosovo helped stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Arguments Against the U.S. as the World’s Police

1. Violation of Sovereignty and International Law

Critics argue that acting as the world’s police leads to the infringement of state sovereignty, often without proper international consensus or UN mandates. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a prime example, undertaken without clear international support and justified on questionable intelligence, it led to widespread instability and undermined global trust in U.S. leadership.

2. Selective Interventions and Double Standards

There is strong criticism that U.S. interventions often reflect national interest rather than genuine concern for human rights. The inconsistency in responding to crises, such as limited action in Rwanda or Syria, suggests that economic and strategic benefits influence decisions more than humanitarian necessity. This selective policing undermines the credibility of the U.S. and challenges the moral foundation of its interventions.

3. Unintended Consequences and Prolonged Conflict

Interventions can have long-lasting negative outcomes. The toppling of regimes in Iraq and Libya, for example, created power vacuums that led to civil war, terrorism, and large-scale displacement. These cases highlight how even well-intentioned interventions can destabilise regions and escalate violence.

4. Domestic Costs and Priorities

The economic and human costs of policing the world are significant. Prolonged military operations strain the national budget, diverting resources away from healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Furthermore, veterans often face mental health challenges and insufficient support. Public opinion within the U.S. has increasingly shifted towards prioritising domestic issues over foreign entanglements.

Continued...