Should more powerful states look after the interests of less powerful states? Question #2 Week of Sept 1

What a powerful state should do and what it actually does are often two different things. “Should” implies a need for a less powerful state to have the aid of a more powerful one. An example is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan or the killings in Rwanda in the late 1990’s. Every powerful state in the world should be outraged and come to the aid of these countries, but the moral obligation or the “should” in this case is not a strong enough reason to look after the interests of these less powerful. But the way the world works today is that the powerful state will usually only look out for the less powerful state if it has a vested interest in the less powerful state for some reason or in some way. Let’s look at the Russian/Georgian conflict. Russia invaded Georgia in an attempt to defend what Russia considers its own people in the southern breakaway province of South Ossetia. The US, although not getting involved militarily, has been working diplomatically with the Russians and sending aid shipments to the Georgians. The US is doing this is because this country has a vested interest in Georgia. Georgia has been an ally in the war on terror. They have sent troops to Iraq and have had troops in Afghanistan. They have been cooperative with the US in areas such as investigations into suspected terrorists. One reason the US is working to look after the interests of Georgia is because the US doesn’t want to lose the troops in Iraq or the cooperation of the Georgian government, which would most certainly be lost if the US stood by and did nothing.

A historical example of the US rendering aid only when it is in its own best interests comes from World War II. When Hitler came to power in Germany, he started systematically wiping out a whole race of people as well invading other counties in Europe. At first the United States vowed not to get involved. After the Japanese led us into the Pacific theater, with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we went to war against Hitler in Europe. While WWII was a horrible war, it was actually in our long term interest to go to war with Hitler. We didn’t go to war because we “should”, because it was the right thing to do, we went because it was in our best long term interest to not let Europe turn into one big hostile state. The US joined forces with European Armies and eventually this led to the downfall of Hitler. Even back in the 1940’s the United States had one of the best, if not the best military in the world, so the European forces most likely needed our help and probably couldn’t have defeated Hitler alone. Once again the US was serving its own interests here. Since the US fought Hitler, there are many countries in Europe, instead of just one. We also have many allies in Europe instead of one possible unfriendly or hostile state. So in closing, maybe a more powerful state such as the US should look after the interests of less powerful states, maybe it even has a moral obligation to look after the less powerful states, but that isn’t the way the world works. Instead the more powerful state seems to intervene only when it has a vested interest in who they are looking after.