<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/7076981168605062365?origin\x3dhttp://gpissexy.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Thursday, July 10, 2008

9:02 PM


Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?

Countries should practice discretion on the issue of involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. It is only when that country is confident that they can bring about positive changes and improve the lives of people in the other country, should they intervene. Take for example, the involvement of the European Union in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs. Though their intentions might have been good, but their haste in introducing democracy led to ineffective leaders being chosen. These leaders worsened the situation by waging wars. Instead of bringing Yugoslavia out of their problem, the European Union indirectly caused more chaos in the country, causing many to lose their lives and homes. Thus, countries should not become involved in the internal affairs of another if they are unsure of how that countries function and the nature of its people. This is because different countries have different cultures, hence reacting to policies differently.

However, this is not always the case. A country’s intervention in the internal affairs of another can bring about improvements to the standard of living to that country and also diversification of education, the economy and they way of life. One example is the colonization of Singapore by the British before World War 2. Before, colonization, our country was just a backward fishing village with few amenities, poor sanitation and the lack of clean water for consumption. When the British forces took over, our country changed for the better. The British built settlements, schools, and amenities and modernized the whole country. Instead of fishing as a living, people could now take more jobs in the secondary industry with the setting up of factories. These increased their revenue and boost the whole economy. It also left a significant impact on our education system. The British formally introduced the English language into our curriculum, allowing us to better communicate with the rest of the world. Today, our strong foundation in English has made Singapore a viable business hub and a conducive environment for further studies. Thus, I feel that a country’s intervention is not necessarily bad if it helps the country to improve and progress, without affecting the culture of that country.

Hence, it is right for countries to intervene in the internal affairs of another if the reason is validated and if this move can bring about positive changes in that country.

Melissa


0 comments

rewind
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008