Saturday, July 12, 2008
11:06 AM
Do you think it is ever right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another?
I feel that it is right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another, provided that there are no ulterior motives involved and just purely for the sake of the well-being of the country and her citizens.
It is a known fact to every single human being on earth (except Bush Washington) that the Americans have failed badly in their so-called “Operation Iraq Freedom” which actual motive was to liberate the Iraqis and force Saddam Hussein to step down. However, instead of bringing freedom, hope and democracy to the Iraqis, everything spiraled out of control when the US invaded Iraqis, what resulted were just more deaths and control over them and more misery. Likewise for Yugoslavia, the failure of the European Union (EU) involvement has resulted in a different democracy that was decided on initially. In both cases, war erupted and many hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens were killed. The Americans and EU failed to take moral responsibilities; instead they pushed the blame to the citizens of the countries. From these two cases, it can be seen that it is not always right for one country to become involved in the internal affairs of another as it seems to bring more trouble and misery instead of the intended help. Instead of invading the country to help her, other countries that offer help in other alternative forms, such as aids and funds raised from organizations worldwide. Most importantly, the welfare of the citizens should be put in top priority first.
However, on the other hand, there is an ongoing saga of India’s key roles in Nepal affairs. Recent clandestine meetings in India between leading Nepalese politicians and Maoist leaders have once again highlighted the crucial role India continues to play in Nepal's internal affairs. India's role has been crucial in every major political change and the sustenance of such changes that Nepal has witnessed since the late 1940s. After late King Mahendra sacked the elected government and took control of state power in 1960, the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, made his displeasure public. However, within six months, his government had signed four aid agreements with Nepal and normal friendship resumed. Many believe that the self-serving change in Indian attitude helped the continuation of the monarchy's rule for 30 years. Similarly, many believe India played a crucial role in the collapse of the royal regime in 1990. Nepal has been very dependent on India for these past few decades. Without the constant interference of her internal affairs by India’s government, Nepal might have succumbed to terrorism by the Maoist leaders.
In conclusion, I feel that it is morally right for countries to become involved in the internal affairs of others if they render more help and aid to the country rather than chaos and more casualties.
In response to Melissa’s post:
The British colonization of Singapore is a good example of successful impacts of countries being involved in the internal affairs of others. Without the British, Singapore will not be what she is now. The British has transformed us from a relatively unknown fishing village to a viable business hub in the world today. I agree with Melissa’ stand that 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.
Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4456036.stm
0 comments
