Hi! Thanks for the interesting question.
America has been to some as a keeper of peace or sometimes an
instigator of war. It depends on who looks at it. But its role as a
world peace keeper is indeed crucial to the international arena and to
its own security, whether such reasons are political or economic in
nature. Since your requirements pertains to information that would
help you in your paper as to this topic, the strategy I used was to
collect as much information as I could which discusses such concerns
and that would be of assistance to your work. Some documents are in
PDF file so you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to read them. In
case you haven’t installed it yet here is a link so you could download
The Adobe Acrobat Reader
(http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html).
In a paper entitled “The Destruction of a Nation”, it discusses how
America’s reluctance to take over a peace keeping role and just stay
behind the sidelines had great effects on the nation of Liberia.
“America's refusal to acknowledge its responsibility for Liberia's
civil war is thus not only a denial of its depravity as an
international influence, but more profoundly a rejection of its own
history. When the image of America as peacekeeper and protector of
Democracy clashes with the reality of its neglect--rather, of its
active oppression--of its own people, places like Liberia, grim
reminders of the depths of America's prejudice, are conveniently
defined out of history. How many of our textbooks tell its story in
close detail? Our glorified narratives perpetuate themselves intact,
Liberia devolves into just another hopeless African nation without
infrastructure, and George Bush can pronounce without a hint of doubt
that peace in Liberia is not worth a single American life. As if the
bodies that now line the streets of Monrovia--the bodies of the
brothers and sisters of Americans--aren't, in some real sense,
American too."
The Destruction of a Nation: America Fans the Flames of Civil War in
Liberia
By Alex Zakaras
http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/1996/jun/liber.html
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meanwhile mentions that America
cannot handle the role of peace keeping most of the time. He also
urges other nations to carry their part of the burden in fighting
terrorism.
“US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the effort to restore
stability to Afghanistan must succeed, but he suggested the United
States should not be permanently cast in the role of peace- keeper.”
“Many analysts are urging an even more aggressive US and international
role, worried that the day US and other Western soldiers leave is the
day Afghanistan will again start to disintegrate.”
“But he (Rumsfeld) lamented on Thursday that no one had offered to
help pay for it, including those countries that met at a donors'
conference in Tokyo. While money for humanitarian aid and medical
supplies was raised, the issue of security never came up.”
“'There's not a nickel in the donors' conference funds that is
available to provide for the development, training, sustainment of an
Afghan national army, nor is there money there for the International
Security Assistance Force,'” he said."
“'The US was raising money on its own to support the Afghan army,’ he
said.”
US can't always keep the peace, Rumsfeld warns
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/usattack/story/0,1870,111334,00.html
In case you’re interested the Afghan war is estimated to cost $10.2
billion.
Afghanistan war to cost $10.2B
http://www.phillyburbs.com/terror/news/0413warcost.htm
It is also apparent that some sectors do not adhere to the correctness
of this role the US has bestowed itself as world peace keeper.
“It was clear from the beginning that this conflict provided a welcome
opportunity for NATO and the US to push their role as protectors of
the "peace." Having named themselves international judges, juries, and
police in Iraq and Bosnia, they have now taken on the existence and
future of Kosovo and thus of Yugoslavia. The use of these "sanitized"
weapons that miraculously do not kill real people, but only the bad
guys and their property is meant to pacify any popular opinion that
maybe this is not the right thing to do. Many Americans counting the
millions of dollars in missiles pounding into Yugoslavia wonder about
the usefulness of this enterprise. Those of us who value the earth,
wonder also about the long term effects of this warfare and about the
wholesale waste of precious resources.”
How to Think About War, or A Pox on Both Your Houses by Jean
Grossholtz
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0599/0504.htm
Even when there is no war but its specter constantly hangs on the
horizon, observers always discuss the role America should play in
stalemates like North and South Korea.
“In March, President Bush decided to suspend negotiations with North
Korea until his Administration had conducted a full review of U.S.
policy toward North Korea.1 This cautious step was criticized as
delaying progress on the Peninsula, but the results of the review,
which was completed on June 6, confirm that a careful assessment of
North Korea policy was needed. The review mapped out for
Administration officials the difficulties that lie ahead for the
United States, such as ensuring North Korea's commitment to
reconciliation on the Peninsula.”
The Bush Administration’s Cautious Approach to North Korea
by Balbina Y. Hwang
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1455.cfm
In most instances to keep the peace and possibly to protect American
interests according to most observers, the US has found it necessary
to intervene in internal conflicts of different nations. The political
consequences reflected immediately on these countries. The following
link provides articles of US intervention in different countries and
was actually excerpts from the book “Killing Hope US Interventions in
the Third World” by William Blum.
Killing Hope
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/KillingHope_page.html
In terms of economic consequences, the following paper mentions that
some quarters gives value to the peace keeper role of the US as beyond
trillions of dollars but affects the very concept of free trade and
globalization as we know it.
“America has a moral obligation, they say, to help struggling nations
with peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid. Their reasoning is that
the United States is the only country with the economic and military
ability to provide the necessary leadership for global stability. If
the United States does not play the role of peacekeeper, then civil
wars, ethnic violence and other political situations could turn into
larger conflicts and threaten our interests.”
Page 4 of “International relations of Elec-2000” by Meg S. Duskin
http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/nv/2000/elec2000/IR2000.pdf
As regards to the economic consequences of such peace keeping or
“intervention” projects and relations made by the US as with other
countries, the following collection of articles will be of assistance
to your paper.
“The Costs and Consequences of American Empire” by Chalmers Johnson
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blowback_CJohnson/Blowback_CJohnson.html
Search terms used:
US, America peace keeper role costs
I hope these links would help you in your research. Before rating this
answer, please ask for a clarification if you have a question or if
you would need further information. Thanks for visiting us at Google
Answers.
Regards,
Easterangel-ga |
,
0 Comments
)