Realists, Liberals and Anti-Imperialists: The US Military Intervention in Wakanda - Essay Sample

Introduction

Realists are a group of people whose primary interests are in themselves, and for this reason, they would strongly oppose the interventions by the US military in Wakanda. The liberals, however, since they are in support of universal human rights, they would support the intervention by the United States military and the claims by Trump; lastly, anti-imperialists would oppose the intervention since they are opposed to the US power exercises. Most people would, and I am for the idea of the non-imperialists who oppose the US intervention in Wakanda. My reason for supporting this perspective is because history holds it that the United States always makes claims that shows an outer picture of being moral, but their response to foreign affairs usually indicate that the US acts on their economic interests.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Throughout history, the United States has been involved in several interventions whenever other countries experience war. Whenever the US engages in military intervention in foreign countries, the outcomes are usually positive in most cases. Two sides must always be expected from such interventions, either the US to gain from such interventions or to lose from the same. However, the latter is usually dominant as such interventions by the US in most cases end up in criticisms and sometimes fightbacks from the victimized countries. Such interventions have sometimes led to the United States and their allies and or enemies being in danger. The current military interventions by President Trump in Wakanda is not an exemption. When President Trump decided to bomb Wakanda military troop in a move he termed as intervening for human freedom, many Syrian lives were put at risk. Therefore, in as much as the US president claimed that such a move was motivated by the desire to solve the world's challenges, this was an inhuman move and against humanitarianism.

The anti-imperialists would disagree with the claims made by Trump that their bombing of the Wakanda was to bring peace to avowing the conflict from growing in the future. The anti-imperialists believe that the united states usually act for their interests, to increase their economic and military power. They believe that a nation should serve the interest of all human beings and not just a section of the people. Looking at World War II and the rise of the US to hegemony, it is clear that the United States is indeed in pursuit of its own economic and military interest in whatever action they take. After the war had ended, the United States emerged as the dominant political, economic, and technological power. The war came to an end with the order from the United States, which used the greatest naval orders the world has never witnessed before. After the war, America became the home of International Monetary Funds, United Nations, and the World Bank, and of course, it had the bomb. In every sense of the world, America was a hegemony. The United States was among some of the major driving forces in the Nuremberg and the drafting of the precise laws on how to treat prisoners and civilians of war (King, 656). Today, the principles of the Nuremberg have been enshrined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military field manuals. However, the United States is committing the same crimes as the ones committed by the rogue nations by violating the Geneva Convention when it treated captured combats by detaining them indefinitely and torturing them without trial. Looking at this example by King, it is clear that the United States is at the realm by pursuing its dreams, and most of the claims it makes in connection with humanitarianism are vague and baseless. If America could have been acting based on humanitarian motives, then it would have not again violated the laws in the long run. Humanitarian reasons are to care for the members of the society and not to harm them like the United States later did to the combats. The Nuremberg gives us a lesson by revealing the interests that America has in all the endeavors it participates on.

The cold war reveals the intentions of the nation in their fight for peace in every battle. According to Leffler (66), in 1945, the Soviet Union was weak compared to the United States. However, it managed to loom very largely in the minds of political leaders and the imaginations of the US officials. Contemporary policymakers knew that it was not the intentions of Stalin to initiate a war, and neither did they expect Soviet troops to march across Europe. American economy demonstrated severe vitality during World War II. However, contemporaries were doubting whether the US could be made to effectively function in a time of peace (Leffler, 66). In the wake of the cold war, communist parties decided to portray themselves as agents of socio-economic reforms, leaders of the resistance against fascism, and advocates of national self-interest. However, in a real sense, these nations were fighting for power, and the United States was in the realm for it. It is for this reason that I back up the thought by anti-imperialists that America is in pursuit of its interests and not the interests of the people.

Another example is The Korean War that took place from 1950-1953. The war majorly arouses as a result of some North Korean soldiers pouring across the 38th parallel, which was the boundary between the pro-Western Republic of Korea and the Soviet-backed Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The invasion by these soldiers became the first military action of the Cold war, and American troops had entered the war by July on behalf of South Korea. The anti-imperialists perspective on this issue of the cold war is appealing to a greater extent. The actions of the US had significant consequences, and the following are some of the three areas that the US practiced violence during this war. Firstly, the US supported South Korean repression or violence, something that is totally out of order. The US also did an indiscriminate bombing and selling of North Korea. Lastly, the US killed a lot of civilians during this war. Looking at these series of events by America during this war, it becomes tough convincing anyone that these actions were aimed at achieving humanitarianism. The US, therefore, just like claimed by anti-imperialists, be fighting for its interest during this war, and not for the interests of the people. The US used the following strategies in the bombing of North Korea: the destruction of hydroelectric plants and dams, destruction of villages and towns claimed to host or sympathetic to their enemies, and use of napalm bombs on Pyongyang. The anti-imperialists would argue against the claims made by Trump that the US has historically promoted freedom around the world through its intervention in several ways. According to the anti-imperialists, the objectives of the US interventions is to have access to resources in the countries where there are conflicts. Another reason is that the US has a fear that if they fail to "intervene" then, there could be independent nationalism by the states that are engaged in the war.

Another example is the case of the NATO bombing of Kosovo in 1999. According to Clinton (451) in his address to the nation, he states that they acted with resolve for several reasons. Among his significant goals is to protect the thousands of innocent civilians whose lives are at stake in Kosovo. He also states that they are acting to prevent a wider war from arising from the already existing one. "By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace" (Clinton, 451). Many questions remain unanswered on objectives and motivations of NATO attack on Yugoslavia. There are questions as to why it is NATO that was deployed but not UN to go and intervene in Yugoslavia, and why the troops in Kosovo would be responsible for the supervision of its implementation. The attacks by NATO was not authorized by the Security Council, and it had no objective or self-interest in protecting any of the members of NATO. The use of force is burnt by the UN charter except for cases where it is used explicitly for self-defense. Therefore, the departure of NATO from the UN and the subsequent attack on Yugoslavia raises a lot of questions. It is clear that NATO. The US being part of it, is not acting for the interest of the people, but rather for its interest to remain powerful politically, economically, technologically, and in all other spheres. Just like anti-imperialists would argue, the US is acting for its benefits. Following the speech by Clinton, there is much justification of their attack on Kosovo linking it to humanitarianism. However, in the real sense, these are just mere propaganda that the US is always good at, proving herself good in the eyes of the people while in real sense, it is hazardous to humans. In reality, the operationalization of Kosovo by NATO was a political mind game aimed at create political and economic supremacy through a divide and rule policy as it has always been the custom of the United States. The bombing was not the best way to counter the war that was existing in Yugoslavia. In line with the policies and laws of the land, the force used by the US could have been lower or equal to the one used by the Yugoslavia military, but the US did not adhere to this.

In A Problem from Hell by Samantha Power, we look at how the United States reacted to the instances of genocide. According to Power (1) in her plot summary of the book, the US officials were responsible for the alteration of the language the civilians used in giving their accounts of the genocide so that they could come up with doubts concerning the nature of the violence. In several instances, the United States branded the violence that occurred as a civil war and not a genocide, and this is what they did in other countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia when they encountered the same kind of tragedies (Power, 60). At some point, the United States officials also made arguments that such conflicts could not be avoided or were inevitable. For instance, when there were three sets of genocide in Yugoslavia, the United States officials ascertained that such violence arouses from ancient conflicts and that its eruption was inevitable and had to occur at some point which is unknown. As a result of such alternative versions of events produced by the American officials, there was a hindrance on the activists and policymakers in their efforts to come up with the action plan to help the genocide situation and help the victims of the case.

This makes it clear to conclude that the United States has no country at heart in its interventions. In fact, in almost all its activities, the United States is acting to protect its political supremacy, economic power, and technological dominance. The anti-imperialists perspective concerning the United States is indeed the most appropriate one that I could support as it brings out the motive of this superpower country backed up with evidence from almost all the sources. America has managed to give people the right image that it is striving to ensure peace all over the world, yet this is not the case. The claims by President Trump could be a continuation of what America has been doing for the past hundreds of years. It is, therefore, not true that America has been historically engaged in ensuring peace all over the world by intervening in wars. However, America has been using the instability in other countries as an opportunity to grow itself and remain the world's economic superpower, something it has managed to do quite effectively.

Works Cited

Clinton, William J. "Address to the Nation on Airstrikes Against Serbian Targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 35.12 (1999): 516-518. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp...