Should States Ever Interfere in the Affairs of Other States?

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

To understand the impact of humanitarian crises and how international politics play a role, a common definition of such crises must be understood. In his book “Humanitarian Crises and the International

American involvement in humanitarian intervention is one of the most controversial issues in contemporary US foreign policy. The definition of humanitarian intervention is a military intervention; entering into a country for the purposes of saving lives and protecting citizens from the violation of their human rights. As in all debates, there are always two sides. One side disputes that military force should only be applied when, in the words of former Secretary of Defense Weinberger, ‘a vital national interest is at stake.’ ¹ The opposing side disputes that the US should apply military force to mediate when in the words of former president Clinton, “someone comes after innocent civilians…and it is in our power to stop it, we will stop

For many years people have argued whether or not the U.S. should intervene in situations where people are suffering. Some people say we should be cautious of intervening in foreign countries. While some people say intervention could help change the world. After reading multiple sources, it is evident that the U.S. should intervene in situations where people in other countries are suffering, even if it means going to war. The U.S. should intervene in these situations because it can help influence our principles of democracy and it will overall help all of humanity.

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

The United States has a very long history of intervening within other countries, whether it is for political reasons or otherwise. U.S. intervention started along with the establishment of the United States. This long history still continues strong up until today. Although the U.S. often intervenes, the justified reasons for these interventions are often very unclear, but there are a few repeating trends. First, the idea that it is America’s responsibility to spread democracy to developing nations is a very repeated tendency. The goal of these interventions is to set up an American style government, whether the country likes it or not. The second ideal is to bring freedom and safety to the civilian population of the intervened

In his acceptance speech, Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel said, “When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant,”. Intervention is not the answer. Civilized people should not interfere when people are suffering because it can cause tension amongst the countries involved, lead to huge accumulations of debt, and prevent the countries involved from addressing their own problems. How do we as a civilization distinguish what justifies getting involved in situation or conflicts? The simple answer is that this is impossible to do.

The parties involved in many civil wars are often not just limited to the country in which the war is actually taking place. Often, other countries will give aid to one side of the conflict or even involve their own military forces. Recent examples of such occurrences include Russian, American, and Turkish involvement in the present Syrian Civil War and the NATO bombing campaign during the Kosovo War. These countries expend massive amounts of resources and lose great numbers of troops in these conflicts often to uncertain ends. This begs the question: Why do foreign powers involve themselves in the civil wars of other countries? It is possible that such interventions occur because the intervening party believes that they could make strategic gains by doing so. Another theory is that countries intervene when they feel that there is a moral obligation to get involved in the conflict (Kim 2012, 19). However, even when circumstances seem to be in favor of a foreign power intervening, they do not involve themselves. This paper will test these hypotheses by examining the intervention by the United States and Russia primarily in the current Syrian Civil War and attempt to discern their motives for

Up to the start of the Second World War, Europe kept on choosing the subject of war and peace on the planet. A couple of European States decided the fates of the entire world. These States included Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and so forth. Universal legislative issues at the time was not just Europe-dominated, it was additionally Europe-focused.

Humanitarian intervention was by no means a new topic—its rhetoric has been around since the mid 1800s. However, in trying to codify the “right to intervene” there was a controversial

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

The USA has a lengthy history of foreign intervention when it is convenient for them rather than for the benefit of the country being converged upon. Regimes and dictatorships breed with practiced ease in developing—or even recovering—countries, and foreign policy is a highly disputed topic for the world’s most powerful nations. Specifically, in the US foreign intervention should not be implemented as of late, for they have proven their incapability to actually be beneficial to a nation without benefiting form it. Often armed with selfish notions, America intervenes in foreign affairs—to garner some sort of profit—before withdrawing from the country entirely. By reading political declarations and historical recounts of these dictatorships it

In cases such as Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military assumed a huge role for the distribution of disaster and humanitarian assistance alongside their military objectives. If foreign militaries are carrying out humanitarian aid alongside military objectives, then there is no way that aid can be supplied to whoever is in need in ways that are impartial, neutral and independent. This new system whereby foreign militaries are responsible for supplying aid has created huge security problems for not only the military, but for the people who are receiving aid. Opposing factions to foreign military time and time again in Afghanistan and Iraq have targeted civilians receiving aid to further their own agenda. 7

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will