Еssay Should the US be the global cop?

Nowadays, theUSis the only superpower in the world and this is why it is considered that this is the only country that can fulfill the role of the global cop. However, this role of theUSin the modern world is often argued and, in actuality, there is a strong opposition to the growing power of theUSand its role as the global cop.

In this respect, it should be said that in order to definitely answer this question, it is primarily necessary to clearly define what this role actually implies. Obviously, the answer will depend on what we imply by the term ”˜global cop’. In fact, the opponents of such a role of theUSin the modern world argue that, being a global cop, theUSfulfils the functions of reactionary power which repress any possible opposition that rises in different parts of the world.

In other words, the critics of theUSargue that this country uses its power to simply destroy any regime that is not loyal toWashingtonand its foreign policy. In such a way, theUSviolates the basic rights of sovereign states and establishes its control over the world.

On the other hand, the supporters of theUSin its efforts to become the global cop argue that theUSis the most developed democratic country. Moreover, this is the country where the traditions of democracy are really deep-rooted. In such a context, being the global cop is viewed as a historical role of theUSto preserve and promote democracy throughout the world. This means that the repressive policy of theUStargeting at the fall of the hostile regimes may be explained by its efforts to establish democracy in the world and protect human rights but not to become the world tyranny offending the sovereign rights of other countries.

In such a context, it is obvious that theUSshould become the global cop but, in actuality, the arguments of the supporters of theUSsound too idealistically and, on a profound reflection, the apprehension of its opponents are more persuading. This means that theUSshould not become the global cop because it cannot impose its own vision of the socio-economic and political model to other countries. In other words, democracy may be a really effective system but it is not ideal and it would be unfair to deprive the mankind to search for better alternatives.

Moreover, theUSshould not ignore the position of other countries, especially democratic ones. This means that theUSshould closely cooperate with international community, actively participating in the UN functioning and taking important decisions along with its members. Otherwise, theUSmay really become a country which ignores the interests of other countries and simply use its superior position to defend its national interests solely. This is why theUSis really responsible for the promotion of democracy but it cannot impose its own lifestyle and political or economic system to other countries without the support of the local population.

Naturally, there are some cases such as terrorism that threatens to the existence of theUS. Obviously, in response to terror attacks, the US should use all possible means regardless the position of the UN as long as it affects only its direct enemies and not the third parties or civilians but this rather an extreme situation while it should primarily to receive the international support first before some military actions, for instance, are undertaken. This is why the ignorance of theUSis acceptable only in exceptional cases when theUShas no other choice but either to destroy its enemy or be destroyed. In all other cases, the coordination of American actions with the UN and international community is needed.

Leave a Reply