In one of Professor Stark's lectures this week, he asked us when it is okay for a country to intervene in another country's affairs. Professor Serrata essentially asked this same question by giving us the reading assignments by and about Roosevelt. I know I have written a blog similar to this already, but I believe it is an important subject to talk about, so I am going to expand upon my thoughts on the issue.
I first would like to point out that generally, any country that acts like it cares about another country, is lying. Most of the time the country that feels it is helping out is really being selfish, and pretending to help for reasons that are going to benefit it in some form. Take the U.S., for example, and pay attention to the countries it intervenes most in, and you will see that the U.S. rarely helps out a country if there is nothing to be gained. Rather than getting into the politics of the situation, I would like to ask a few important questions:
1. Is it morally right for a country to intervene in some other country if it will gain more from the intervention than the country being helped?
2. If a country such as the U.S. intervened less in other countries, do you think the U.S. would have less problems in its own country (with things such as crime, poverty, etc. that it claims to be helping other countries with)?
3. How bad does a humanitarian crisis have to be before a country should intervene?
I think from a moral standpoint, you can't really help a country out if you are benefiting more from the intervention than it is. To me, it seems like you're taking advantage of the country and its resources, and giving little back in return. I also believe that the United States should focus more on its own country than other countries, and maybe more problems would be solved. I also believe that it is okay to intervene on another country for humanitarian purposes, but only of the country cannot handle the problem itself. Just because a country fixes a problem differently than how the U.S. would fix it, it doesn't mean we should step in and change everything for that nation.
I also think that when a country intervenes in another nation's business, it shows the insecurities of that country. It kind of reminds me of when girls are mean to other girls, and people say it is just because they are insecure. When the U.S. points out the problems of other countries it makes us feel better about the problems we have ourselves.
I don't know. This is the best I've got for this week. My mind is all worn down from writing my paper and its one in the morning and I'm still adding the finishing touches. I hope everyone's weekend went great!
I really like the points you made in this blog and these too are questions I struggle with and ask myself. I feel like we think we have good intentions and believe we are "helping", while acutually we are kind of being selfish. I think a lot of whether or not intervening is right depends on the situation. As your third question states, I feel intervening with a humanitarian crisis is necessary, but that is a good question. How bad does it have to be?... I do not know... All your questions are really good and they make my brain hurt! I agree with you that the US should focus more on its own problems, because we probably have the same problems as other countries if not worse yet we think that our problems are solved and other countries problems are worse. However, we have so many issues it is not even funny. I also really like your point that us intervening and pointing out the problems of other countries really just makes us feel better about ourselves and that our problems are not that bad. These are extremely good questions that need a lot of thought. Thank you for bringing these questions up!
ReplyDelete