I think these particular questions are difficult to answer. I think that the United States, as a whole, should play less of the role of "global peace-keeper". Over the years we have received the unspoken title of world policeman as a nation. While in past times we have been in a position of power and wealth, currently, our nation is broken. Our economy has rapidly declined over the past 10 years and we have countless problems on our own soil. While there are atrocities taking place all over the world, it is not solely the job of the United States to protect against and end these atrocities. As for other Western nations such as Great Britain, France and Germany, they should be taking greater efforts to protect against global atrocities on soil they own or occupy. Part of being a world power is taking responsibility for one's people and protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. Like Alberto mentioned in his blog post, if countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany want to take responsibility for the land they own in different countries, then they need to step up their efforts to protect against atrocities against their people. There are of course examples in history where Western nations were unable to protect against atrocities in their own motherland. For example, taken from the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide by Leslie Alan Horvitz, the Oradour-Sur-Glane massacre took place in France during WWII and the French were powerless to stop it. The Oradour massacre was the worst atrocity to take place on French Soil. The Massacre took place 10 days after D-Day, before French Soil was re-taken by France and the Allied Armed Forces. In summary of the Oradour events, the French town of Tulle was recognized for killing and mutilating the bodies of 62 Nazi Soldiers who had surrendered themselves to the resistance. The SS commanding officer of that section of France found out about the massacre of Nazi soldiers and with the help of the mayor, destroyed the entire town. French men were hanged, an approximation of 500 French citizens were killed in Tulle as the response of the SS officer. Had Great Britain or the United States tried to intervene in this situation, the massacre could have been stopped. The atrocity committed by the German Officer and his followers did not take place over a day, but over the period of a week or more. Whether or not Great Britain or the US were able to step in does not matter, the question is whether they should have or not. I think that it is incredibly difficult to judge the level of commitment Western Nations have to other countries or territory. I think that if a nation has the power to aid those victim of atrocity then they should. But it is not our job, or our nations job, to dictate how another country should respond to a global crisis. Each atrocity has its own specific details, moral conflict, and question of who should step in and when. It is challenging to label how a country should respond to individual and unique situations.
This is an image of a building in Oradour-Sur-Glane after the Nazi massacre and destruction. Atrocities will never stop occurring, sometimes they are unstoppable, but whenever Western nations are in a position to provide aid they should. 
I agree that the US should focus its efforts on domestic issues, but like you said, some events require our intervention, such as the Oradour massacre. Yes, sometimes intervention from a European superpower, our from us, might not solve the problem, as we do not always understand the cultures or ways of other nations. Certainly this is a difficult issue, but when something as horrible as a genocide or massacre is occurring, surely Western nations should intervene.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danielle. Sometimes countries do not have the resources to defend themselves, so it would seem that it is the Western nations' moral responsibility to aide these countries against atrocities. We do have plenty of problems here in the US, but I don't think that's a valid reason to say "Not our problem" and allow horrible things to occur, yet it is difficult to decide what qualifies as horrible and what does not. For example, The Cold War and the US's intervention in other countries during that time period are debatably necessary.
DeleteThe inclusion of the fact the U.S. is already considered the peacekeepers of the world seemed especially apt. I also like the inclusion of the picture because it illustrated how devastating the world can be. The one thing I would of included was an example of where the western world recognized an atrocity and decided to do nothing.
ReplyDeleteI think the mention of the many atrocities that happen across the globe is important. How can we pick and choose which disasters are bad enough for intervention? Is there really any way to intervene in them all? I think nations do have primary concerns for domestic affairs, but part of world nations' agendas, such as their participation in the United Nations, must address world issues.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about the US needing o focus on domestic issues instead of spreading ourselves too thin trying to be the "policeman of the world." I also agree that more Western nations need to intervene when they see the atrocities elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is difficult to decide where/when intervention is necessary, especially with so many instances of brutality and oppression occurring worldwide.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the US should focus more on domestic issues rather than be a "global peacekeeper," and believe that intervention is sometimes required in certain situations. But as you already addressed, the United States' economy has been in a rapid decline for the past ten years, and before we intervene in anything we need to ask ourselves, is it worth it; worth the cost in time and resources? This is indeed a difficult topic to discuss, what with all the underlying variables to consider.
ReplyDelete