Should the USA work together with the UN to prevent the collapse of third-world states?

Question

Definitions vary, but a failed state is usually thought of as one where any government has broken down to the point where it can no longer provide any services to the people. Most importantly, this means that law and order has collapsed, with the government losing its monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Often large areas of the country are in the control of non-government forces, perhaps through civil war but often as a result of lawlessness and banditry. Recent estimates by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (see web links) suggest that up to 2 billion people worldwide live in insecure states where government has either failed or is fragile, and are exposed to varying degrees of violence as a result.
The most complete example of a failed state is perhaps Somalia, where no government has been able to take effective control of the country since the death fifteen years ago of Siad Barre, its dictator.

Answer 1

Very well thought out question. I commend you for putting some brainpower around framing the question.

The answer, in my humble opinion, is complex and multi-dimensional.

Let's start with the underlying intent of your question which is really whether the USA has a MORAL obligation to work with the United Nations to prevent the collapse of third-world states.

The preliminary and qualified answer is; "NO"; the USA is not morally obligated to save poorly governed states. At least not by virtue of being a world superpower nor by virtue of having the means to resolve violent conflict with powerful military.

Nor is it always best served to promote its' self-interest by working with an amorally neutral world organization such as the United Nations which cloys to its' own narrow ambitions and realities of global politics. Remember, this is the same organization that put Cuba and Libya in the chairman's seat of their Human Rights Commission. And as the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown, no less susceptible to corruption. Generally, it is not wise to put American lives in the hands of such people (the Kuwaiti liberation, certainly being a notable exception).

But here are some hard realities...

Lawless states are prime breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists to grow and strengthen their organizations. This is as true in the day of the Barbary Pirates as it is with Al Qaeda today. Afghanistan and Iraq stand as certainties on this model. Sudan and Somalia qualify as well.

By ignoring these situations, we do so at our peril and national self-interest and security. It is a truism, that democratic states are more peaceful than despotic ones. The great democracies of the world evolved from values generated during the Enlightenment which threw off the tyranny of religious and the rule of monarchs. In general, we refer to these as Western values. India, Japan and South Korea are "eastern" countries which have successfully embraced Western values.

For third-world peoples to overcome the plight, they must be willing to embrace Western values and willing to make great sacrifice for them. Sending in troops can only serve to keep the peace temporarily until there is a national resolve and interest in succeeding as a nation-state.

The reality is that many small third world nations cannot expect help from the West unless it is in the national interests of their own countries. Iraq gets focus because of oil; while Darfur suffers further. Rwanda and the Hungarian Rebellion were great moral failings of the West and the United States.

The US can't fix everything and should focus on its' national interest and security, but it should be willing to help when others are willing to make the same moral sacrifice.

Answer 2

We, the United States, already donate more in money, food and military support to third world countries than any other in the whole world.

The problem is corruption in those poor, failing countries. The aid does not get to the people who need it, due to that corruption by their "leaders."

As for the U.N., it is just as corrupt as those countries' leaders I mentioned before. I'm not sure, but I think the U.N. was once a great organization, but has eroded into corruption.

Any time the United States intervenes militarily, we are accused of "nation building" and "imperialism." We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I don't mean to sound like a crusader, but Democracy DOES need to take hold around the world and allow the people their God-given rights as human beings. I know President Bush is loathed by so many people for his desire to spread democracy, starting with Iraq. I know it is very difficult to instill democracy in such a place where religious ideologues reign, but I am of the belief that ANYTHING can be accomplished. Democracy is contagious. If we can succeed with our campaign in Iraq, not telling what could happen next.

There will always be corruption and crazy, brutal dictators in this world, but I don't see why we are condemned for trying to instill democracy, peace and human rights.

Answer 3

Opinions truly vary; while everyone agrees that lawlessness, anarchy and poverty are not enviable states in which to live, there isn't agreement on how much any one nation, even the most prosperous, should involve itself in the affairs of others. Personally, I think that all nations with surplus food and the economies to support at least limited charity work should do so, to lift the average standard of living worldwide by helping those without the means to do so. However, you run into two problems: 1) not all nations are willing to lend a helping hand, and of those who are, none agree on a percentage of GDP or flat dollar amount that should be dedicated by each nation toward the support of other countries, and 2) even in nations that do tend to donate goods and money toward humanitarian efforts, there area good number of people who believe that these goods and services should be provided to the poor in their own countries first, and only once homelessness and unemployment is completely solved at home should they then turn toward helping others, mostly because restoring order and public health in Somalia or Indonesia or Croatia has no direct benefit to the donors other than a wam and fuzzy feeling of having done something nice for somebody. The government does arrange to help other nations, both through the UN and through international civilian organizations, but its involvement is tempered by the voices of those who think we already give too much for little or no return -- it's charity, not an investment in the future of America.

Ultimately, therefore, it comes down to the involvement of individuals to do what they can to help out. Check out charitable organizations that work in the areas you're interested in helping and either volunteer your own services or donate what you can afford to. Multiplied by tens of thousands of other volunteers and donors, you CAN make a difference, even if you don't have your own private peacekeeping forces or billions of dollars in liquid assets you don't need.

Answer 4

Third World states should be allowed to collapse if there is not sufficient popular support within the country to sustain it. From the collapse there may arise a new state, providing it has sufficient following. The difficulty with many Third World states is that they are based on warlords and genocidal dictators. I don't believe that any of this should be supported by any outside forces. Let it all collapse in upon itself. If a large number of people die, so be it. If the mass of people are not willing to rise up and defend themselves, why sould some foreign power come in to do so?

The picture becomes cloudy with the addition of the element of desire for natural resources by outside governments, for strategic advantages, and economics. In these cases outside powers often cut deals with warlords and genocidal maniacs, we see it all the time, and this only serves to exacerbate the problem.

A state without a government is not a true state at all. Palestine has been like this for a thousand years.

Answer 5

that is the UN's job, but lately, the US has been straying away from them and working alone. i actually think we need a more precise organization to help us with foreign affairs. we need an organization that brings countries together and simply talks about peace and how we can rebuild the world, together. that would definitely help prevent the collapse of these third-world countries

Answer 6

Yes, the US should work with the UN. Not only should aid (like food and clean water) be provided, but we must make sure it gets to the people. We definitely shouldn't start a war like that in Iraq though. The government should also encourage and help non-government programs to aid countries.

Answer 7

This was a good doctrine in 1948 when we were the only industrialized nation not too significantly war-ravaged to deploy diplomatic and military means.

Now, I say the rest of the world needs to pull their weight. We're decried for our actions and our prowess. Fine. Let someone else be den mother to the world.

Answer 8

The third world states should first stop killing each other i.e.Somalia, Ethiopia,Chad, Zimbabwe etc.

Answer 9

that's like throwing money at welfare...the more you do the worse it gets...so the answer is NO...

Answer 10

No.