History-The new world power
What drove the US to become more engaged in global alliances and overseas involvement?
As addressed by George Washington during the first farewell speech, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”, alliances were meant to trigger rivalries and be the reason for most quarrels. According to him, considering the stable political and geographical circumstances of America, they seem to be not necessary. However, the situation changed later and U.S. intervened globally to serve various social, political and economic interests. During the late 1940’s, the U.S. began to actively involve itself in regional politics.
What were the arguments for global involvement?
Most of the arguments for global involvement centered around an unstable economy. Protecting and safeguarding America from the rest of the world was a prime concern. It was also generally argued that intervening globally only when the country’s self-interest is at stake will definitely mean ignoring our back towards other deadly issues prevailing in the world (Geringer J.M., Hebert L., 1989). These include poverty, malnutrition, terrorism, nuclear pollution and its cleaning up.
Were these arguments against this involvement?
No, the arguments were not centric to detangling global involvements. However, the first priority was to keep America safe and secure. Most of the them stayed tuned to the concept of being interdependent and interconnected. For example, while promoting the Geneva II peace talks, America wished to work with Russia in order to instigate a negotiated settlement in Syria (Slywotzky A., Hoban Ch., 2007). However, the arguments against enhancing U.S involvement in Syria were –
U.S. intervening will instigate greater involvement by Iran and Russia, thereby resulting in non-desirable outcomes
Greater involvement would convert Syria into identical Afghanistan or Iraq
A highly fragmented opposition
Too much intervention might result in intensified violence
America’s disinterest in Syria
Did other alternatives exist?
Yes, some alternatives to pose an end to the arguments contradicting global involvement of the U.S. did exist. These are further elaborated below:
Lead the World to Democracy: Needless to say, the United States is the potentially strongest and most powerful nation in the world such that the rest of the world relies on America for maintaining peace and order by leading the world to democracy, freedom and economic stability.
Safeguarding U.S. Global interests: The world is dangerously unstable and nations are striving for order and security. American’s must engage the rest of the world primarily to promote and reinforce U.S. interests.
Building a more cooperative world: U.S. must take a step forward to bring the nations of the world together. If environment problems persist in one part of the world, the entire ecological lifestyle is threatened. In case of an economic or political upheaval, waves of insecurity spread like an epidemic through the entire world (Slywotzky A., Hoban Ch., 2007).
Safeguarding U.S. homeland security: The 9/11 attacks brought another powerful message to Americans to protect their homeland from violent terrorist attacks. Hence, national attention shifts to real threats being faced by Americans such as a shaky health care system, unemployment, depleting resources to provide safety against terrorism and economic downturn (Geringer J.M., Hebert L., 1989).
References
Slywotzky A., Hoban Ch. (2007), Stop competing yourself to death: strategic collaboration among rivals, Journal of Business Strategy, 28(3), 45-55.
Geringer J.M., Hebert L. (1989). Control and Performance of International Joint Ventures, Journal of International Business Studies, 20(2), 235-254.
