Threat to World Peace

In our readings this week, John Ikenberry wrote an astute quote that I feel summarized how the U.S. approaches international involvement.  “The United States may want to renegotiate rules and institutions in some global areas, but it ultimately will want to wield its power legitimately in a world of rules and institutions.” This desire to use power legitimately can be seen in appeals to values and justification for action that are made prior to military interventions to gain support both domestically and abroad.  

Despite this desire to use power legitimately, it appears as though U.S. actions over the past decade have been interpreted by the international community a little differently.  In January of this year, a Gallup poll named the U.S. as the most dangerous threat to world peace, receiving 24 percent of the international vote.  In comparison, the second and third countries were Pakistan and China, which received 8 and 6 percent of the vote respectively.  

In 2006, a similar Gallup poll result was found.  The blame in 2006 largely went to the Bush administration.   Calls for military intervention overseas were recognized as unsubstantiated by the international community, and are reflected in the Gallup Poll results.  Despite negative international reception, these claims were asserted as justifiable reasons to intervene regardless.

If U.S. international involvement were to be perceived as legitimate by the international community, it probably wouldn’t be seen as an overwhelming threat to world peace.  Clearly, there is some disagreement amongst the global population regarding the necessity of U.S. intervention abroad and whether or not these actions are maintaining peace, or damaging it.