Friday, October 27, 2006;8:19 pm **crisis core**
lol
Another essay that i did. enjoy. although i dun think any wld b interested nor wld be even read.
In today’s world, can countries afford to adopt a policy of non-interference?
A policy of non-interference might be beneficial to Switzerland during the Second World War as it ensured the people peace and safety. However, in today’s world where political instability is rampant in the Middle East and nuclear threats from Pyongyang become an issue to global peace, I do not agree that countries can afford to take a neutral stand. Globalization has indeed “shrunk” the world tremendously, leaving us no choice but to get involved in world affairs. Otherwise, the countries will be at the losing end in developing their nations as free trade agreements and financial aid may be reduced with other countries.
The “Global Village” analogy tells us that the advancement in transportation and communication has brought the world closer together. Hence, threats such as production of weapons of mass destruction can potentially result in adverse impacts on every country. The recent October 9 incident by the North Korea has led to a meeting with China envoys to discourage North Korean leader from creating an armament race. This event has also resulted in China, South Korean envoys and even the US secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, to meet up and try to resolve the matter. The President of US, George Bush, has even warned North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, of the consequence of producing and the possibility of selling these nukes to the Middle East countries. In the light of this issue, we can see that no country can afford to adopt a policy of non-interference as it concerns every single country for its safety.
In addition, regarding the health concerns of its people, the government has to response to the countries that caused certain health hazards. For example, the recent Indonesia forest fires have dispatched much denser haze to its neighbours compared to the past few years. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has received complaints from his neighbours and therefore rented two Russians planes, setting aside more than 1000 billion rupiahs on salvaging the situation. So far, Singapore has sent a plane on cloud seeding to alleviate the problem. How can any country not interfere when it is indirectly involved due to its close proximity to the host country? Hence, it is inevitable for a country to interfere with almost any issue as it is of great concern.
However, some critics believe that developed countries can afford to maintain a neutral stand as they have achieved political and economical stability. Opting non-interference policy on the other hand, can preserve the prevailing culture that the society possesses. Nevertheless, this may not be entirely true as a neutral stand does not guarantee the conservation of a country’s heritage. The homogeneity of culture across the world may still occur due to Mcdomination and globalization.
In conclusion, though countries may choose to take a neutral stand to reduce the effects of lost of cultural heritage, the intimidation of nuclear warfare and terrorism as well as the health concerns of the locals leave nations no options but to adopt a policy of “interference” to prevent them from losing out to their neighbouring countries economically and providing political stability to their people.