No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation. Discuss.

No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation. Discuss.

“No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation.” From an objective perspective, the statement given above is considered one that is absolute and biased. This is because that there are other instances whereby nations should intervene in the affairs of another nation. In the subsequent parts of the essay, I will briefly elaborate on various scenarios whereby nations should and should not take part in the affairs of another nation, and why should nations not intervene in the affairs of another nation.

First of all, nations should intervene in the affairs of another nation, when the security or sovereignty of the intervening nation is at stake. It is every nation’s responsibility to be fully in charge of its own defence. When another aggressor nation has the idea of invading its own nation or increasing its own military power inconsiderately, one should stand up and retaliate, instead of sitting back and allowing the aggressor to do things at its own will. By intervening the aggressor’s motives and evil intentions, peace may be ensured, and the sovereignty of the intervening nation will be protected. One solution to intervene in the aggressor nation’s intentions is to impose economic sanctions on it. One such typical example is the ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) launch by North Korea in 1998. This has actually resulted in economic sanctions by Japan, since the missile trespasses Japan’s territories, in which Japan has regarded as a form of insult. However, critics may argue that such a move may force the aggressor nation to push forward its invasion plans for resources, as seen in World War II.

Secondly, nations should take part and be involved in the affairs of another nation, when the intervened nation, especially neighbouring ones, affect their neighbours environmentally, for example, pollution. As the saying goes, “pollution knows no boundaries”, since humans live together on Earth, all the more we should put in effort in protecting our own planet. By allowing neighbouring nations to pollute at their own will, the surrounding nations will suffer, especially those dependent on agriculture and tourism, as pollution affects these two aspects greatly. One example is the 1997 South East Asia Haze. About 70% of the tourism industry has been badly affected as a result, worsening the economies of tourism-based countries. One way to intervene such affairs of other nations is to provide aid and technologies, to curb pollution from spreading. And also, nations can also send educators across the borders to educate the neighbouring citizens about the harmful effects of pollution.

Thirdly, nations should be involved in the affairs of another nation, when the intervened nation is in trouble. By intervening in terms of sending financial aid and manpower to the troubled nations, relationships may be maintained, or even improved among countries in need and aiding countries. Moreover, from a more altruistic perspective, more lives will be saved since most of them will benefit from the help given. One instance is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami Attack. Most unaffected and well-to-do countries sent financial aid and machinery to badly-hit nations, such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka. By doing so, help has managed to arrive for those who have to live in fear and agony after the disaster.

However, there are cases whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of another nation. Sometimes only nations know themselves what is right for the growth of their own nations. From their point of view, by intervening into the affairs of other nations, the involving nations are undermining the sovereignty of the nations whose matters are being intervened. This actually sours the relationships among these nations, which may lead to conflicts and unrest, affecting the lives of civilians.

One instance whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of other nations is when the security or sovereignty of the intervening nation will be threatened if it intervenes. It is often the best not to take sides in sovereignty issues of other nations, because the involved nations may view those taking opposing sides as their enemies. As a result, relations among these countries will deteriorate, resulting in conflicts, or even social unrest, on a greater scale. One typical example will be the Israeli- Palestinian territorial issue. Most nations actually took a rather neutral stand over this, due to the fact that they do not want to be dragged into the conflict.

Another case whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of another nation is education. Every nation has their own viewpoints and plans in educating people of its own country, according to each of their needs. By intervening in education systems of other countries, it may be seen as a form of insult by the intervened country, whose government may feel that the intervening nation has the impression that it is more “able” to guide the intervened country. As a result, souring of relationships among these countries occur. This will affect the economic and social ties among them in the long run as well.

Overall, nations can intervene in the affairs of other nations, based on the condition that the nations involved are treated with due respect. As the saying goes, “no man is an island”, diplomatic ties, to some extent, is essential to every country. By respecting other countries, one has already achieved the basic building block in establishing good relationships among countries. If every country is able to do so, peace will be ensured in the long run. However, as what I have mentioned above, there are instances where nations have to step in to take control of the affairs of other nations. Ironically, this will also ensure peace, only if the matters are being taken care of in a sensitive and careful manner. All in all, I disagree to the given statement to a large extent.

Do you agree that it is the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems?

Do you agree that it is the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems?

Global environmental problems have been a great concern among countries. In order to tackle such problems, countries have to cooperate and come up with solutions to tackle them. As the saying goes, “pollution knows no boundaries”. This shows that it is not only the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems. In fact, all nations that exist on this planet are to be involved in this issue, as we have got only one planet, one home. However, it is to be noted that in some areas, richer nations are able to take the lead and curb global environmental problems, as seen in the subsequent paragraphs.

It is rather absolute and biased to state that it is the sole responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems. In this case, richer nations only take a major share of responsibility in dealing with such problems. Richer nations have better financial resources, and hence more able to spend a considerable amount of money in controlling pollution within countries. With better financial resources, nations tend to hold greater power, and therefore having more say in global environmental issues. Richer nations also have the capability to provide poorer nations with necessary resources to help curb pollution within poorer countries, especially neighbouring ones, since pollution knows no boundaries. However, certain richer nations may argue that such an initiative by richer nations may adversely affect their economy. For example, the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitting nation, USA, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to cut down the amount of greenhouse gases emitted globally. USA defends its stand by stating that such a move may have a negative impact on its economy.

Again in this paragraph, we are able to notice the need for richer nations to take a large share of responsibility in dealing with global environmental problems. Industrialisation and the rising affluence have seen the rapidly burgeoning rich and middle classes owned a large number of cars. Since the majority of cars still work on fossil fuels, the amount of greenhouse gases they emit altogether is considerable. Given that the fact that industrialisation takes place mainly in richer nations and requires the burning of fossil fuels, it can be said that richer nations do contribute most of the air pollution and greenhouse gases around the world. In order to reduce such forms of pollution, richer nations must do something to negate the problems. One of which is to cut down in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, as seen in the Kyoto Protocol. Another solution is to introduce more electric cars or hydrogen-fueled cars, which are more environmental friendly. However, critics from richer nations may rebuke that poorer nations also contribute a great deal to pollution of other forms, such as deforestation in the Amazon forest. However, they have to note that deforestation for timber and space for crops will ultimately benefit the richer nations, since they are the main importers of timber and food-based products. Without consumers, will there be deforestation? I doubt so.

However, there are other factors whereby actually both the richer and poorer nations should come hand in hand in dealing with global environmental problems. About 50% of the food market is dominated by poorer nations, since most of the poorer nations depend on agriculture to boost their revenue. Global environmental problems such as air and water pollution occurring in poorer nations may result in a decrease in yield and quality of crops. As a result, the exports of food-based products will be affected negatively, hence decreasing the revenue of agricultural-based nations, eventually seeing deterioration in their economy. In this case, both richer countries and poorer countries should do their parts to tackle pollution. Richer nations may introduce newer technology such as purification of water for crops, and also educate farmers in the importance of ensuring a clean environment for crops growth. At the same time, poorer nations should devise a system whereby food-based products are tested thoroughly for pollutants and toxins, before being exported overseas. And also, poorer nations should educate its own civilians on the importance of a pollution-free environment.

Poorer nations must also do its rightful part in tackling global environmental problems, since pollution knows no boundaries. Most of the poorer nations, in fact, are using conservative ways of energy production, such as burning of fossil fuels. This actually contributes to air pollution and greenhouse effect. What can be done actually is to learn from certain richer nations, such as Japan and Russia, whereby they use cleaner sources of energy, such as biogas, and nuclear energy. Here, critics may rebut that poorer nations do not have the resources and knowledge in importing technology and making use of them. Again, richer nations come in to play a role by imparting knowledge to them, and probably providing them with the necessary technology, with some trade incentives in return.

From above, we can see that both the richer and poorer nations should own the responsibility in tackling global problems. It is necessary to note that everyone must do his or her part, regardless of nationality, race or language, since we share a common home, Earth. Richer nations can introduce newer energy-saving technologies to poorer countries, along with the knowledge required. Education of the importance of saving our environment is crucial, especially in poorer nations, where illiteracy rate is high. Punishments can be meted out to those who damage the environment, and at the same time, incentives may be given to those who protect the environment. However, with all these, we are not really able to tackle global environmental problems, unless all the nations work hand in hand and consider the seriousness of the problems.