Jump to navigation
What are the hazards of acting alone as an international “umpire”?
There is limited burden sharing, but specifically responsibility when there are problems.
Its a current dilemma with Syria, the coalition is thin. Previously supporting Gulf states are now focused on Yemen.
There are multiple hazards of acting alone as a world power. The hazards that I see are both domestic and international. On the Domestic front the hazards are a weak education system and failing infrastructure. As we spend more to help out we are weakening our future position in human capital and in a sense creating a brain drain by the failure to get our kids successfully from high school to a post secondary institution to an actual profession. Internationally we loose the ability to step back. If we keep doing the same thing expecting a different result we will still loose. We need to be aggressive with these national leaders. It Must be done in secret as to not eager our geopolitical opportunists (Russia) (China).
The current system is unsustainable. Either the United States will gradually hand over responsibility to other countries or a time will come when other countries will be forced to take responsibility for themselves all at once.
Adding to the above, a country following an ossified doctrine which seeks to maintain the role of an umpire to an outdated field will struggle to adapt to a new order outside of its remit. If we are hypothetically drifting to a multi-polar, from a uni-polar world, the United States ought to adapt her foreign policy away from acting as an arbiter to a system in which all players do not play fairly. Continuing such a policy may be to the detriment of maintaining a strategic advantage, as time and effort are maintained not in building indigenous capacity, but in reinforcing an outdated global system, justified by drawing tenuous links between the preservation of that system and America's future prosperity.
Log in or register to respond.