How much more of a responsibility to the world do more powerful/influential countries have compared to less powerful/influential ones?

[Ether's Bane]

We've never discussed this before, so I thought I would bring this up.

How much more of a responsibility, in terms of global issues, do larger/more powerful countries have compared to smaller/less powerful ones (if they even have more of a responsibility in the first place)?

I'm a firm believer in that, the stronger and more powerful your country is, the more responsibility your country has for global issues.

For example, when Russia criminalized homosexuality, I wrote this. It's about how Russia's criminalization of homosexuality matters more that any other country's (including my own) doing so.

It's also why I believe that the US gets more flak for making bad decisions than any other country that does the same (or worse) - because as a massively powerful country, they have more of a responsibility for this stuff.

I'm not saying that less powerful countries should get off scot-free if they do morally wrong, oppressive, problematic, or just flat-out stupid things, but they certainly have less of a responsibility to avoid these things when compared to more powerful countries.

But that's enough from me for now - I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

 

[Superbird]

I think that countries in general have little right or reason to interfere in the affairs of other countries of the world. That said, when a small country asks a large country for help, the situation changes entirely. When brought into the affair by one of its participants, there grows a reason for the larger, stronger country to step in and do something, and I have no conceptual problems with that. I also do agree that the largest countries do have a ripple effect (as an example, just look at how American culture has leached its way into other countries). I think the biggest thing to be said for this is that a country shouldn't mess with other countries' affairs unless they have a very good reason to do so -- if they have a reason (perhaps that the country thinks that it would be a sin for them not to respond, or they have an economic interest in a certain outcome) then it justifies itself -- but beyond that I don't think big countries should interfere in little countries' affairs. It's just wasting resources to get into a conflict that you're not wanted in in the first place.

 

[Karousever]

Well Ether's Bane did say in global issues, not necessarily just in the affairs of smaller countries. So they're probably bothering the bigger countries more than the smaller countries when it comes to that. I personally think every country has a right to at least sort of keep an eye on every other country, big or small, as long as they respect their privacy and aren't entirely rude about knocking on their door and asking them to stop the sorts of activities they consider wrong. So I think my opinion is the smaller countries have just as much responsibility and shouldn't shrug off important problems thinking that their more important next-door neighbor will take care of it.

 

[sovram]

I think this is simultaneously a simple and complex question

so on the one hand the simple answer is "respect national sovereignty"

but obviously things get really complicated, especially when there are more than a handful of states involved

How much more of a responsibility, in terms of global issues, do larger/more powerful countries have compared to smaller/less powerful ones (if they even have more of a responsibility in the first place)?

I'm a firm believer in that, the stronger and more powerful your country is, the more responsibility your country has for global issues.

I think this idea of "responsibility to protect" is inherently racist and is basically why the US sticks its overly militarized nose into everything

it really depends on what you mean by "global issues" but expecting any of the "great powers" to do anything that helps anyone else is really optimistic because they're all necessarily self-centered, or else they wouldn't be so "great"

for example, the US won't do anything that doesn't further its economic and political domination over militarily weaker states, I can pretty much assure you of that

It's also why I believe that the US gets more flak for making bad decisions than any other country that does the same (or worse) - because as a massively powerful country, they have more of a responsibility for this stuff.

I'm not saying that less powerful countries should get off scot-free if they do morally wrong, oppressive, problematic, or just flat-out stupid things, but they certainly have less of a responsibility to avoid these things when compared to more powerful countries.

the US doesn't so much "make bad decisions" as it does "do bad things intentionally" but yeah

I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of size and responsibility, I think all states should be held equally accountable for these kinds of issues, and I'm interested why you have this idea

 

[Ether's Bane]

I think this idea of "responsibility to protect" is inherently racist and is basically why the US sticks its overly militarized nose into everything

it really depends on what you mean by "global issues" but expecting any of the "great powers" to do anything that helps anyone else is really optimistic because they're all necessarily self-centered, or else they wouldn't be so "great"

I don't expect more powerful countries to necessarily step up to the plate and deliver, but I do think that such countries have more of an obligation to, at the very least, set an example for the world, if not actually take action when needed. Obviously, it usually isn't the case, but my point remains.

the US doesn't so much "make bad decisions" as it does "do bad things intentionally" but yeah

Thus making the choice to do such actions a bad decision (and this is becoming rather tautologist), but anyway, I think you see my point here.

I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of size and responsibility, I think all states should be held equally accountable for these kinds of issues, and I'm interested why you have this idea

Two words: Ripple effect.

Also, I'll give you an analogy.

The world is about to be destroyed, and only one person can save the world. Would you rather have that one person be Superman or Joe Everyman?

 

[Karousever]

Superman could fail. Joe Everyman could have a brilliant idea that saves us all.

 

[Music Dragon]

Superman could fail. Joe Everyman could have a brilliant idea that saves us all.

In fact, this is exactly what happens in Superman & Batman: Generations #3.

 

[Ether's Bane]

Superman could fail. Joe Everyman could have a brilliant idea that saves us all.

The key word, however, is "could".

And to tie the whole superhero theme back to the thread topic, I'd like to post a quote from Spiderman:

"With great power comes great responsibility."

To me, that certainly applies here.

 

[shy ♡]

Do you guys honestly think another country should never interfere? What about situations like genocide?

 

[sovram]

Do you guys honestly think another country should never interfere? What about situations like genocide?

maybe a good thing to do here would probably supply a rebel group with arms, information, training, leadership, et cetera

I just can't see invasion with a military force ever turning out great for anyone except the invader

but every one of these situations is going to have different material circumstances so they need to be considered separately, I think