Issues Concerning United States Intervention: Is the U.S. a Bully?

The United States is ever increasingly becoming known as the bully of the world. At this critical juncture, the United States must look at why such claims are being made and what they can do to change this image. It can gain more international praise by intervening in humanitarian crises, seeking Security Council approval for pre-emption, and adopting multilateralism. The United States must realize that it is part of a world that needs our help, but deserves our respect as well.

The United States often has an ulterior motive in intervening in humanitarian crises. The two primary motives are gain and reputation. First, the United States, when it does involve itself, does so in order to gain from the humanitarian crisis. For instance, though the United States object in Iraq was for self-protection, humanitarian aid was also cited as a reason for intervention. However, many speculate that our primary reason for helping Iraqis was to gain access to their oil supply.

Moreover, the United States intervenes in humanitarian crises in order to uphold its reputation as the "police of the world" and protectors of human rights and freedom. For example, we can see this in the United States intervention in the Balkans. At the time, the conflict in the Balkans was receiving heavy press coverage and the world was urging to United States to act. If it had not, the United States would have suffered great damage to its reputation.

The question of intervention in humanitarian crises has never been one of morals to the United States However, it should be. If the United States claims to have liberty, freedom, and justice as its top priorities, how could it allow such atrocities to occur without intervening? Furthermore, the United States must uphold the treaties and declarations which it has signed, such as the Human Rights Declaration, in order to preserve United States integrity and uphold our morals throughout the world. Doing any less would deny what the forefathers set out to create.

It is almost impossible to argue the moral imperative seeing as each person's morals vary. Nonetheless, we can point to instances in which political leaders have not followed their moral obligation and realized too late that they should have done so. Following the genocide in Rwanda, former President Clinton became angry with his inaction in the crisis. He was outraged that his cabinet had not led him towards a moral course of action, but a practical one. During a speech in 1998 he told Rwandans, "Never age must we be shy in the face of evidence." He also acknowledged, "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" (Power 2001: 1-19).

There are many actions the United States can take to prevent or even stop a humanitarian crisis. First, the United States, and the international community, should engage in smart diplomacy months, if not years, prior to a crisis. Specifically, they can and should cut foreign aid to the government. If this did not prevent the crisis, economic sanctions should be place on the offending country. In addition, the United States should encourage the United Nations to implement raids on weapons caches. Finally, the United States, and other nations with the resources, should send peacekeeping troops to the country in conflict and ask the United Nations to do the same. (Kuperman 2000: 7-8). Such actions would also be acceptable when addressing a threat posed to the United States by a country such as Iraq.

If these measures do not work, the United States should take measures to stop the crisis once it has been set in motion. In order to suffer the least casualties of United States troops, the United States should take a minimal approach to intervention. For example, the United States should attempt to jam or destroy radio transmitters, crippling the communications of the violent force involved in the humanitarian crisis. Additionally, the United States should maintain airpower over the country and threaten to bomb strategic sites of the country's military and roadblocks. They should also use this air presence to direct refugees out of the country and to refugee camps by dropping leaflets and making airborne broadcasts. And if necessary, well-armed troops should patrol on the ground (Kuperman 2000: 9).

However, unlike the case of Iraq, the United States should only use these aggressive tactics in a crisis; not a presumed threat. Before using such aggressive tactics, the United States must consult the United Nations. The doctrine of pre-emption is never justified when the United States wants to eliminate a threat solely on its own. The international community expects us to use the avenues we have to work out disputes instead of taking matters into our own hands. The United Nations was created to moderate such threats so that conflicts can be sorted out, creating an equitable compromise for both groups in the conflict (Rourke 2006: 212).

For example, the United States government should have received approval from the Security Council before starting the war in Iraq. Perhaps, if the United States the justification of international law, there may have been cooperation from other nations in the rebuilding of Iraq. However, the United States' pre-emptive action alienated other nations, making them adopt an attitude of "This is your mess. You clean it up."

In addition, the United States should have listened to claims that sanctions were in fact working in Iraq. The sanctions alone persuaded Iraq to allow weapons inspectors into the country and stop production of weapons. Perhaps if the United States had committed to receiving United Nations approval before invading Iraq, such things would not have been overlooked (Lopez and Cortright 2004).

Approval from the United Nations is so important because the United States should adopt a multilateral foreign policy. We live in a time when preserving the hegemony of the United States is no longer practical. Hegemony is no longer needed because the world is becoming smaller and the opinion of those outside our nation count more. The United States are no longer fighting nations who work through procedures; the United States is fighting non-state actors who can attack based on their opinions with virtually no ramifications.

Many non-United States citizens believe the United States does not consider the interests of anyone other than their own citizens (Walt 2005: 1). The United States must move towards multilateralism. Franklin D. Roosevelt believed this also. He believed that in World War II the United States needed allies and therefore adopted multilateralism. He knew that the feat of war was too large to take on alone (Gaddis). Today the United States face the same situation against terrorist groups. The United States must retain allies before the other side does.

The United States must start taking a turn towards cooperation, peace, and humanitarianism. The only way to do this is by adopting a foreign policy which considers the world community, and not just the United States. The United States should intervene in a minimal way in humanitarian crises. It should also go through the United Nations before pre-empting any threat. And finally, the United States must do all this, keeping in mind that it is a member of a larger word and must consider its neighbors through multilateralism.