There is a strongly-held belief among many people across the world that the United States acts like "the world's policeman" in regards to it's interventionist foreign policy, which constantly sees the US interfere in the affairs of foreign nations in order to benefit it's own agenda and expand it's sphere of influence. For many people, this moniker is derogatory; something to be ashamed of. It is an insult and a criticism. What I have to wonder is: should it be?
The problem with this line of thinking--that being the 'World Police' is inherently a bad thing--is that I would argue it's either totally inevitable, or that the alternative is worse. Many NS users are old enough to remember the Cold War; the time before America was the "World Police" and instead of just one side of an international feud with the Soviet Union. This was a highly violent and politically unstable time period in modern history where these two great nations regularly butted heads in foreign nations in order to fight for supremacy. The Third World, the poorest and more undeveloped countries on Earth, were the primary battleground for these ideological skirmishes and thus are where most of the suffering and chaos took place. When the Soviet Union was officially dissolved in 1991, the Cold War was brought to an official end and the United States was left the sole superpower in the world - a title it still holds and likely will for the foreseeable future.
There are of course nations that have the potential to one day challenge that status--most notably the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China--who are not exactly on friendly terms with the United States. In the event one of them should garner the necessary power to outright challenge America's supremacy, it could very well lead to a return to the antics of the Cold War era which devastated so many nations and led to countless bloodshed. Indeed some could argue that the groundwork for a Second Cold War--this time between America and China--have already been laid out and will only further escalate in time. Thus, it seems, that with the end of the Second World War there exists a new duality in global politics: World Police and Cold War. If there is not one, then there must be the other. This trend, it could be argued, was born inherently out of globalism and that in spite of such international organizations such as the rather useless United Nations, will persist perhaps indefinitely until either space aliens invade and humanity has to unite under the banner of an action hero to kick their slimy butts back to the Andromeda Galaxy or Mankind blows itself up with it's own bombs, sets back our progress by 5,000 years, and gives rise to a new civilization of free-thinking machines. Neither sounds like a very pretty outcome (unless the aliens are hot blue chicks, in which case you can consider me a collaborator. Sorry, fellow humans).
But of the two states of international geopolitics--that of an overbearing world policeman superpower or a chaotic hotbed of a saber-rattling cold war--I would argue the former, not the latter, is more preferred. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the post-Cold War world is far more peaceful and stable than that of the Cold War era, aside from that brief period from the 1990s to the early 2000s where the Soviet Union's demise left a bit of a power vacuum that sort of left more than a few places in the proverbial shitter. I would argue it's better to have one, single superpower running the show than having two superpowers (or, God forbid, three or more) waving their nuclear dicks around at each other and toppling foreign governments at the drop of a hat. Not to say that doesn't still happen, but maybe less so nowadays. But then, if we must have this superpower world policeman simply because it's the lesser of two evils (which I believe it is) then who should it be but the USA? Now of course you're going to think I'm biased, being an American myself and a patriot to boot, but those of you who know me will also know how critical I am of the current state of the American government and it's foreign (and domestic, for that matter) policy and so should know better than to assume I'm not just saying this out of some blind, nationalistic fervor.
The simple fact of the matter is that of the potential superpowers in the world, they are either pipe-dreams at best (Brazil, the EU, India) or undesirable for the position (China, Russia, and India... again). If the status of world police is necessary--or at least unavoidable--then I would wager that it's best that the title be held and kept by the United States for the time being. While there are undoubtedly many who would salivate at the idea of a European world police let's be honest: they can't even police themselves, let alone the world. Brazil, meanwhile, pretty much threw out it's chance at becoming a superpower when it decided a an annual, international football game was more important than a space program. Whereas India... well, the less said about India the better. China, meanwhile, is the literal modern day Third Reich (no, I'm not kidding) and nobody needs that. Russia is just barely better than China and, honestly, they already had their shot and they fumbled big time.
Bottom line? The status of 'world police' is unavoidable. An nation with the power to project international influence is going to try and hold onto that, because if it let's go for even a moment then another nation will rise to the strength necessary to challenge their supremacy leading to another Cold War scenario which I would argue is much, much worse. If there is to be a world police, perhaps it's for the best that it was America that obtained this title and not the USSR. But what do you think, NSG? Is the world police unavoidable? Necessary? Both? Or is a Cold War a preferred state? Or is OP full shit and can both situations be avoided?
