Certainly not. Superpowers should not be the world police, for many reasons. 1-Superpowers are at risk of their own corruption, 2-Morality is not black and white, and 3-Sovereignty means leaving others the hell alone.

1-Superpowers risk corruption. There is no reason to believe that a super power is more ethical than any other country. Take America, for instance, and their intervention in Chile in 1973. They helped the military overthrow a democratically elected leader (Allende) to be replaced by a dictator (Pinochet). Allende, though socialist to an extreme, was not causing great harm to his people. Pinochet, on the other hand, whose people were trained by the CIA in torture, disappeared, killed, and tortured hundreds of thousands of political opponents. He further privatized previously state-run industries, building enormous economic inequality. America’s involvement here had next to nothing to do with Allende’s treatment of Chileans and nearly everything to do with how Allende’s policies affected America’s economy. Not only did America NOT want another successful model of socialism to arise, they wanted an economic system they could make money from.

2-Morality is not black and white. Although we can all agree that killing innocent people is wrong, we must also agree that the world is a complicated place. Let’s take the example of Rwanda/Burundi, where colonial powers divided the people racially and economically, making the “upper class” the Tutsi’s, who had 10 or more cows OR a long nose (a sign of European ancestry). As such, colonial powers would only allow Tutsi’s to be educated or into government, as they considered them the best. Naturally, when Belgium granted the country independence in 1961, there was a backlash from the Hutu’s who had formerly been oppressed. After years of the Tutsi’s enjoying better opportunities, the Hutu’s were angry and made the Tutsi’s the scapegoats for everything. In neighboring Burundi, the Tutsi’s were the primary perpetrators of violence against the Hutu’s, massacring Hutu’s by the hundreds of thousands. In 1994, the Hutu’s of Rwanda killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi’s.

Although tragic, it is clear that many factors were at play in this complicated situation, and it would be beyond difficult to fix the underlying issues that led to genocide.

3-Sovereignty means leaving others alone. Intervention on behalf of “moral duty” disrespects a country’s sovereignty. Some could argue that sovereignty can be ignored in the event of moral duty, but I say no. In the event of oppression, it is the people’s duty to overthrow their governments. France, for example, didn’t get where it is because someone else came in and forced its leaders to change their ways. The French people got sick and tired of the inequalities they suffered and wouldn’t take it anymore. They were so opposed to the way society was run that they were willing to risk their lives to change it. This is the way revolution is supposed to occur. It’s not up to others to determine when it’s right for a change, and although we may not like it, many dictators offer something intervention cannot…stability.

In Iraq, for instance, we stepped in to overthrow someone under the guise of WMD’s. When proof surfaced that there were none, supporters of the war immediately changed their tune to say that it was important to overthrow Hussein, as he was a violent dictator. And maybe he did need to go. But not until his people decided that and came together, against the odds, to fight for political change. Certainly it’s not easy to fight for political change against a violent, powerful regime but neither is it easy for a foreign power to fight that battle either. In the case of Iraq, nearly 100,000 civilians and 4400 US troops had to die in order for us to overthrow that government and install one that is still working on achieving complete stability and independence.

It’s dangerous to give super-powers the moral authority to intervene when they see fit. They are not moral authorities, few situations are black and white, and revolutions ought to be left to the people. It strikes me as silly that people believe America has the right, nay the obligation, to intervene in certain situations, and yet we ignore many human rights abuses around the world because they benefit us or at the very least because there would be no American interest served by helping the people involved. Take Darfur for instance. Where is the outrage over the 20,000-100,000 people killed there?

If anything, I could support an interventionist policy in event of genocide only. But fixing the underlying causes of genocide is even more difficult than ending the genocide itself. And both tasks will require far more than just pressure from one or two superpowers. The entire international community needs to work together to send a message that genocide will not be tolerated.

They don't have a duty to do it per say, but if a tyrannical government is pissing off a super power I certainly wouldn't want to be that country. Even so, super powers are not the law enforcement agencies of the world. If it makes them feel good to stop tyrannies then they can but morally they are not in the wrong by not stopping them.

Not all tyrannies are bad, and they do not all need to be stopped.

So a super power doesn't need to be involved in stopping something that needn't be stopped without any reasoning.

Superpowers have no such thing as a moral duty to intervene in foreign tyrannies because of sovereignty. That country has every right to do as they wish as do we.

A super power should remain isolated. A super power that believes in conquest is an evil empire.