United States as a Superpower

As we head toward the 21st century, America will be the greatest influence to the rest of the world as being the only true superpower in the post-cold war era. It is the only country with the military, diplomatic, political and economic might to handle any type of conflict or misfortune that may arise. The misconception that because the cold war is over, America should relinquish some of its military forces around the world and let country's deal with their own conflicts and economic adversities. However, there are many problems around the world in which it would affect the U.S. directly or indirectly. These four articles depicts the military, diplomatic, political and probably the most important economic situation of the world in the post-cold war era. The main theme of these articles is about America and its role in the global arena in the 21st century.

What is the role of our nation is the argument of the four articles? The realist would argue to continue its dominance of the world and only be involved in world affairs when it deals directly with national interest. However, idealist would say it is in our best interest to be involved, to help others in need and to keep the world secure.

Krauthammer's view In "Unipolar Moment" seems to come from a realist point of view, he states we are in abnormal times, with conflicts with Iraq and other states trying to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, it is the greatest threat to the world security today. Also, the enemy could be anyone, Iraq today, North Korea or Libya tomorrow. Further, Krauthammer states with an unstable period ahead of us, the best hope for peace is the American strength and will, making the rules for the world and enforcing them when broken.

The U.S. is by far the only major power leading in toward the 21st century, rather we want that burden is another question. By living in an unipolar world, other nations will look to us to deal with all conflicts or look to us for economic support. The main argument in the article is rather the U.S. can support its unipolar status and from all indications it may very well can if by getting domestic support. America in general have to change their attitudes towards foreign policy, it is just as important if not more important then domestic policy. Another argument I agree with is that by withdrawing troops from certain parts of the world or not to give economic aid to other nations it will not translate to eradicating America's economic problems. In fact, our involvement abroad is essential to our economy, we need a stable world environment especially now with global trading and multi-national corporations doing business in other nation's.

There are many disadvantages by being the only big kid in the block. Although the cold war is now over, I feel there is far greater danger ahead in the 21st century. There are numerous nations trying to gather weapons of mass destruction and there has been an increase in nations with biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons. The U.S. has seemed to have alienated some of these nations and the people have blamed the west, especially the U.S., for there misfortunes and that alone puts us in an awkward position. An example would be Iraq, we have bombed them, imposed sanctions to try to destroy there weapons of mass destruction but in the course of acting we have fueled the fire of extremist in that part of the world to act against us. For now we have to embrace our unipolar status, act when our interests are threatened and get support from allies when conflicts arise.

In "Preparing for the 21st Century", Paul Kennedy discusses how the economically developed countries hold all the cards, and will prosper in a more technologic era. Latin America, Middle East, countries in Asia, and especially Africa are in social, political and economical disarray. Kennedy looks to the Far East as an illustration on how to improve economic performance, culture attitudes, education, political stability and to set long term goals.

Since the argument in the "Unipolar Moment" was to impose our will on other nations, that will can be positive as well as negative. We should aid these nations in there pursuit of prosperity. Although, realist would argue that unless there is specific interest in a certain part of the world, it should be up to them to resurrect their misfortune.

The gap between EDC'S and LDC'S is even more prevalent now in the age of better communication and technology; consequently the findings are not encouraging. The LDC'S has major problems some worse in certain nations then others. In order to tackle the problem one of the arguments was look to East Asia as an illustration to a successful transformation. Even though the countries are differently structure the way they approach success, they have many similar characteristics.

Although I agree that East Asia has turned it around from past economic instability and they would be a great road map to lead other nations to success, however, I feel the U.S. is the best example to emulate for LDC'S. The U.S. are a superpower for a reason, obviously nation's won't be able too immense the same power and success as the U.S. but it can follow the same structure. I feel there are 3 areas that these nations must tackle to reverse their situation.

First, education is crucial to success, especially higher education, if you look at nation's that are consider EDC'S, have high literacy rates, more students in higher education and a more educated society will have the better capability to deal with the nation dilemmas. Second, the health of your nation is very important,