Countires have been interfering in other countries affairs since the idea of a nation was first proposed. In the 21st century however, this inteference has greater consequences than ever before, particularly in matters of war. The retaliatory attacks on Syria by the USA, UK and France this week are just one example of countries becoming involved in another county's conflict.
When should a country step in to anothers war? When are governments morally obligated to take action against a country? Is there ever a moral obligation to take action? These questions split political parties ans governments across the globe. In the UK Jeremy Corben stated that "The government needs to act as a restraining influence in this crisis, not a camp follower". On the other side of politics Theresa May "says the government had to act urgently to deter the use of chemical weapons" (The Guardian).
The US government in contrast is prepared to take action against groups in other countries who are using weapons or tactics that and morally or legally wrong, without extended debate. "The United States continues to use all efforts available to hold those who use chemical weapons, in Syria and otherwise, accountable" - Department of State spokesman April 7th 2018
How far can countries go before they should be stopped? The Rwandan genocide and the actions of the Nazis before WWII are just two examples of atrocities that could have been prevented by the world.
Some very important points have been raised by you - I extremely like the question, " When are governments morally obligated to take action against a country?"
This is an extremely insightful paper you can read about partisan electoral interventions described as a "situation where a foreign power tries to determine the election results in another country, can have significant effects on the election results in the targeted country as well as other important influences. " It is written by Dov H. Levin a Post Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie-Mellon University and "it provides data on all such interventions by the United States of America and the USSR/Russian Federation between 1946 and 2000."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0738894216661190
Please do let me know what do you think about it
What are your opinions on The Treaty of Versailles? Do what extent do you think the Treaty was an important factor in shaping Germany post world war I, and the rise of Nazism? Do you think that if international powers would've treated Germany differently post-World War I, the rise of Nazism could've been limited?
I'd love to hear your perspective :)
Hi Khushboo, thanks for checking out my post!
I tried to read the article but you need to have a paid account. It sounds fascinating though, and I'm glad someone is investigating the effect of foreign powers interfering in other nations elections.
The Treaty of Versailles is one of the most interesting case studies involving strict foreign sanctions on a nation. The confiscation of Germany's territories and demand for reparations crushed Germany spiritually and economically. I am not an expert on the Treaty but from what I have read it is quite apparent that had the Allies been less severe on Germany the country would have experienced much better economic conditions, and the Great Depression would have had less of an impact. The economic poverty in Germany following WWI became a fertile ground for the rise of Nazism. The Treaty was not a peace agreement- it was forced on Germany, and literally achieved the opposite of what the Allies had hoped- enough anger and resentment to drive Germany into another world war.
It's really good to learn your perspective! I understand it's a paid account, maybe perhaps if I come across a more interesting article about foreign intervention, I will be sure to forward it to you
What's your stance about the war in Syria?
That would be mad!
Honestly I don't even know what I think about the war in Syria anymore- it has become so complicated between the rebels, the government, ISIS and foreign powers. I don't agree with Russia and Iran's involvement, but I am not sure if their actions in Syria require the military involvement of the US and its allies.I think Syria should be left to its on devices politically and military, and countries should focus on aid and peacekeeping, notably the continuing refugee issue. However I am not an expert on the war, so I can't really give a sound opinion! What do you think? Should other countries get involved? Of course the recent response to the alleged chemical attacks brings us back to my original post- when should countries step in?