No Country Should Intervene in the Affairs of Another

‘The perils of indifference' was what famous Hebrew Journalist, Idle Wiser, said to describe the blatant lack of regard states had for the ways Jews were treated all across the world. Discrimination, ethnic cleansing and purges were Just a few of the atrocities that they were subject to and yet little was done to assist them. This reaffirms the need for countries to intervene in the affairs of another, in terms of economic, political or social instability, because states are not always capable of making the right decisions to maximize the welfare of the society.Indeed there are asses where external intervention is unjustified, especially when global or regional powers try to exert their influence over another country. However, it is not right to assert that ‘No country should intervene in the affairs of another' as it gives too much power to individual governments. Instead, mediated intervention should be used to ensure that countries are kept in check.The common argument to Justify the stand for ‘No external intervention' is that of sovereignty, where the basic integrity of the state should be respected. This has been encoded in the United Nations charter, as well as that of the SEAN as a basic deadline to govern state relationships with one another. It has been frequently invoked by countries, such as the Soviet Union and China in the Korean War and even Indian, in the on-going dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir.While it is important to acknowledge the view that as the government, they need to exercise their political will and have the right to exert their influence without any interference, we need to realize that this monopoly of power might not be healthy for countries, Case in point, India, who has utilized brutal methods in dumping down on the Kashmir insurgents ND have committed an overwhelming number of human rights violations since the outbreak in 1989, over a territory that has not officially been recognized as theirs.In this case i t is not right to allow India to invoke the rule of sovereignty as a meaner to justify their actions for it would allow the continuation of such actions towards the Kashmir, to render conflict even more intractable, rendering the argument for sovereignty limited as it should not absolve them of such actions. ‘The Great Satan', as the Islamic fundamentalists often describe the Americans would be another case to support this rule of non-intervention. This occurs when regional powers or international superpowers attempt to exert their influence on another country through state intervention.There were many blatant incidents of this, especially during the Cold War era. The USA ; in trying to counter the Soviet communist influence, funded Islamic extremist rebels and provided then with huge amounts of arms and today, these fundamentalists constitute the Unexamined, a transnational terrorist organization. Egypt, in trying to assert its regional leadership as the forefront of Pan-Rabb is, encouraged the Yon-Kipper war on Israel that instead had devastating impacts on the Arabs and the worldwide economies through oil crisis of 1973 that saw oil prices spike from $2. 50 per barrel to $12 per barrel.The list goes on and on with conflicts from Somalia, to Vietnam and even Shove. On of malfeasances and committing of arms should under no circumstances, be allowed. Indeed the pursuit of interests might not always harm countries, as in the case of Japan and Western Europe, whose economies were rejuvenated by western intervention, but these are the anomalies. Too often we see that states descend into rather chaos due to the polarities nature of intervention to pursue one's interests, which then highlight the dangerous potential that intervention in another's country has on society.However, these cases in which authoritarian regimes attempt to consolidate control, or governments that resort to committing atrocities to pursue their interests within the country. For example, the conflict in Syria has blown up in present day, where hundreds are killed every day by Sad, who is trying to re-assert his control in a climate of growing dissent. Human atrocities are also not limited to the ways in which countries try to assert control, but in the practices carried out as well.For example, in Afghanistan, woman are often abused ad have strict laws imposed on them, such that if they are seen in public without the permission of their husband, they could be subject to ‘acid attacks', or have their body part mutilated. Under such circumstances, it would be undesirable to continue to persuade the power of such merciless regimes Just because ‘one should respect the territorial borders of another country. This is evident in the amount if progress that has been made around the world with regard to the atrocities being committed.In the Middle East, the interference of human rights groups have helped woman earn greater rights and in 201 5, some states have a llowed women to take part in local elections. External intervention has also helped in the acquisition of independence from regimes that attempt to clamp down on the dissidents without giving them equal rights. In East Timer, the Indonesian government had tried to gain control over the territory and utilized force to dent the locals any chance of freedom. However, through UN intervention through the MUTANT and economic sanctions, East Timer was able to reek free from Indonesia and gain independence in 2002.These happenings definitely provide impetus for us to accept external intervention when we know that governments are carrying out blatant human rights violations and should be limited so as to prevent the perpetuation of such atrocities. International intervention could also be important in providing the necessary humanitarian and economic aid to countries that require help, Many countries, especially the third world, are recipients if aid from international organizations, such as the I-IN, or the Red Cross.These occur when countries are plagued by unfavorable conditions for economic growth, such as natural disasters that wreck crops and homes. Here, governments are incapable of promoting the appropriate conditions to secure the welfare of their states and in recognizing such dismal conditions, international organizations and countries extend their capacity it assist these states to promote development.This was seen clearly in the tsunamis that wrecked Thailand coastal areas in the 2004 and also in the Hurricane Strain that killed many and destroyed infrastructure in New Orleans, which sea the timely espouse if the World Red Cross in providing humanitarian aid for reconstruction. Then again, detractors argue that doing so would not benefit the economy because it aid. However, I contend that such a counter is limited by the fact that these are wrecked economies that need recovery before they can go on such pursuit for growth.Moreover, there are programmer tha t help to ensure self-sustenance in countries through aid. In example, the UN Work for food' programmer in Ethiopia, is a programmer that encourages the villagers to work build infrastructure beneficial to their society like houses in exchange for food to feed their families. Theses have the two-pronged effect of providing aid and infrastructure, while ensuring that an over- reliance is not developed. There are also critics that argue that such intervention could compel state sot impose stricter measure and refuse the aid.However, I think that the focus should be on making such states accept the aid, as opposed to chiding external intervention. Thus was evident in the Congo crisis, in which the Strangest secessionists under Toothsome refused UN aid, but after talks with the Secretary General, aid was quickly secured and eventually, the situation stabilized. Thus this enforced the idea that external intervention can also make up for what the government in not able to provide for its people.Lastly, external intervention could also be useful in states marred with civil disorder, such that control is no longer within the hands of the government. In such cases, external intervention could be useful in helping to reach a compromise between the rivaling factions so that stability can be re-established into the state. The necessity for such intervention was highlighted in Somalia, in which rivaling factions caused the country to descend into a period and chaos and disorder. In Somalia, the government was incapable and asserting its influence and when they were overthrown, civil in fighting rendered help necessary.This once again highlights that in cases that are beyond government control, external intervention should be a tool to engender a climate of stability so that peace and progress can be pursued. Some may argue that civilians are not always receptive to external intervention ad hence, external intervention and hence, external intervention could be redundant and instead, detrimental to those countries kind enough to extend aid and troops. However, I blame this reluctance on the fact that the notion of ‘non-intervention' is constantly emphasized, denying any legitimacy to bodies that attempt to help countered in need.Psychologically, the idea of non-intervention leads the majority of them believe that no mandate, regardless of who issued it, is capable of preventing them from pursuing matters that pertain into one that has impartial, peace-bringing peace-bringing connotations, I trust a much greater degree of confidence, I trust that a much greater degree of confidence will allow constructive aid to be delivered to countries that require it. Frequent and informal diplomacy' as advocated by proponents of SEAN in building trust and confidence between stated to help dissolve the myriad of interstate tensions.That should be the key adopted to allow us to break away from the notion that one's integrity is violated through external interven tion. By establishing and ensuring the impartiality of intervention and governing the usage of aid extended, I am confident that the negative effects of external intervention can be mitigated. By establishing and enforcing norms that are able to ensure monitored not tolerated, intervention will become a helpful vehicle to drive towards the plopped global society that many are after.Therefore, I conclude that the notion that ‘No country should intervene in the affair of another' should be an invalid one and I strongly disagree with such an absolute. External intervention can be a very useful tool to help society attain its political, social and economic goals of stability. Even when considering the negative effects of intervention, it would be more accurate to modify the hypothesis to assert that ‘No state that pursues its vested interests in a destructive, blatant manner should be allowed to intervene in the affairs of another'. Hence, I disagree with the statement.