Are Weak States
Security Issues?
While I do think
weak states have the potential to be security issues as they are more likely to
fall vulnerable to terrorists, organized crime and radical groups I believe the
U.S. should develop strategies to fight specific threats, but only when they pose
an immediate threat to the U.S. and its interests. The United States tends to
meddle in foreign affairs; however, sometimes our interests seem to be
motivated by self-interest. During our class discussion we talked about whether
the U.S. should interfere with other country affairs and what the U.S.’s
motives might be. In my opinion, we should go into foreign countries, but only
if it is a threat to our security. We discussed several instances where the
U.S. sometimes goes into countries simply to take advantage of natural
resources such as oil because we’re motivated by our own hidden agenda.
However, it can be deemed that our “real” interests are never the reason we
actually go into these countries. According to our political leaders there are
other reasons such as human rights violations or weapons of mass destruction in
the hands of bad groups that force us to take action and invade these areas.
Though the U.S. has helped many regions around the world it is not our duty to
police the affairs of other countries unless we are directly in danger because
of them. I understand helping countries that are our allies and having a moral
obligation to intervene in some cases, but nevertheless we have many problems
within the U.S. that we could be working to solve that should trump our foreign
objectives.
I found the argument
presented in the Moore article in response to Fukuyama's book interesting as it
pointed to two theories for the prevalence of weak and failing states in the
South and the East. The first, the culture theory explains the problem of the
various peoples of these regions who by reason of inheritance or temperament
are ill suited to work with the institutions of modern governance and
democracy.[1] The second, derives from
the fact that these countries are poor and this poverty leads to bad government
because those with power want to grab it for themselves. Additionally, poverty
leads to low levels of education and thus a lack of understanding of the value
of democratic and constitutional processes.[2] This article draws on a
third explanation that isn't discussed in Fukuyama's book. Which attributes the
reason to the fact that these poor countries and their citizens now share the
globe with rich and powerful countries that have created global market institutions
and have a long global reach, whether political or economic.[3] I think that this third
reason is true to a certain extent. I think large powers such as the United
States underestimate their sphere of influence and the effects they have on
smaller weaker states. While big and thriving states are not at fault for the
weaknesses of governments in the South and East they could do more to change
the international environment and influence these weak states.
Post by: Hedvig Blanco
Hedvig,
ReplyDeleteDo you think a realist foreign policy centered on national interest and security would lead to any meddling? If so, is this meddling something you are willing to accept? Why?
A realist foreign policy approach places importance on the belief that relations with other countries should be guided by national interest. In other words, policy is centered on what is best for America. I think a realist foreign policy centered on national interest and security would not lead to the reduction of any meddling. If we take into consideration the scenario of helping weak states the challenges for the U.S. are vast. Going into these nations, which are often poor countries with deep rooted issues at the core of their foundations means the job of the U.S. will be costly and time consuming. If there were a realist foreign policy in place there would be no interference on behalf of the U.S. in a country with internal divisions that have no barring on the security of our nation. The only way the U.S. would interfere in a case like this is in a case of natural resources where the U.S. was motivated by its own self-interest.
ReplyDeleteEven with a policy in place where the U.S. was motivated by its own self interests I think there has to be a line drawn between what is morally okay and what is not. I think if the U.S. takes advantage of its size and power to go into a country and take advantage of its resources then we are being motivated by our self interest negatively and our intentions are not justified. However, if it is in the case of our national security being in jeopardy or if a country is posing an immediate threat to our country I think it is acceptable for us to go into that country and be motivated by our self-interest of protecting our nation and people back home.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the U.S. should be intervening only when necessary, when weak states actually pose a national security risk to us or our allies. It is unfortunate, as you note, that we meddle for control of natural resources, hiding behind veils such as "weapons of mass destruction," as was the case in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, did Saddam Hussein's regime actually have WMDs and did it actually pose a potential national security threat? We may never know. But we do know that the war and its result of being a weaker state helped harbor the rise of ISIS.
So, weak states are definitely security issues. But I feel we help contribute to the conception of weak states, whether we have good intentions or not.
Anthony Coppola