Quote:
Originally posted by Webby
theking:
Taking one step backwards. Why is it ALWAYS the US that is under some threat that there is a need to "take down" anyone??
(Of course... I forgot the world is jealous of the US!  )
|
It's a function of pecking order, not the country itself. Because the US has the most influence on international affairs. Every nation that has ever been in the position the US is in acts similarly (usually more extreme actually). The British Empire, the Japanese Empire in the Pacific, the Spanish, the French, Germany, Prussia. Many more examples.
The behavior of such nations makes perfect sense to them and little sense to anyone else.
If nations act in what they believe is their best interest, and I argue that they almost always do, weaker nations will band together into pacts, leagues, organizations and any number of other alliances both formal and informal. Such nations call for increases in power of international bodies and law as a counterweight to the prevailing powers.
This has always been so. It is a common story in history.
What has changed is the function of imperialism. Up until World War II, the dominant world powers were traditionally empires.
Find an old map of Africa up until World War II. It was carved up by the imperial powers. There were hardly any African nations at all that were free from the world's imperial powers - if there were any at all.
Is the US the cause of the decrease in Empire or simply following a new international paradigm as to what dominant powers should be? We don't know the answer to that. It may very well be that the US is the cause f the decrease in Empire. After all, Empire was the name of the game until after World War II when the US came out as one of the world's two dominant powers. The USSR continued to annex countries and the US did not.
Some people like to say "The US isn't the world's cops". But the US is in many ways. That's just the way it is. So was Great Britian for many years. Powerful nations have always acted this way in accordance with their ability and the information and technology of the time.
You can say "What right does the US have to do such and such ..." but it doesn't mean anything. When has there ever been a time when might is not the sole determining factor in such things?
The more globally influential a country one lives in, the more likely one will be interested in the concept of international law. Those who live in countries that are weaker militarily and economically tend to see the world in terms of international bodies and laws, alliances, pacts, and leagues. Those who live in powerful countries tend to not.