Should the U.S. intervene to prevent or end violations of human rights (including genocide) in foreign countries when these violations do not directly affect other American interests?
The United States is a growing global power and presence. Most other countries are not. We are often called upon to engage in conflict situations like preventing violations of human rights and genocide. Intervening only where our national interest is concerned would only bring about negative reactions, which could undermine our effectiveness and especially our international credibility. Therefore, the U.S. should seek to intervene in and prevent violations of human rights not only where we have other interests but in most other circumstances.
The U.S. should see itself as the world's policeman in an increasingly criminal world, just as other countries see it and therefore seek to intervene in such situations. The U.S. is thought to be a lawful country where the law reigns supreme and where infringement on human rights is strictly prohibited by the law so the rest of the world has a reason to look up to the U.S. to help prevent any such violation of human rights in their countries as well if the need arises, regardless of whether national interest is at stake or not, and the U.S. had a duty to do just that. As we have emerged in this "shadow of superiority" in this present day and time, we have a duty to help whenever the need arises in weaker countries where genocide of violation of human rights is involved to preserve global peace.
Also, the U.S. should intervene whether national interest are involved or not because this will continue to ensure that the U.S. plays a major role in shaping other countries foreign policy and remaining a key player in world politics. Editor and Author, Robert Kagan maintains in his book, "American Power A guide for the perplexed" that American "national interests" need to be interpreted broadly to take into account the country's...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document