No Country Should Intervene in the Affairs of Another

‘The perils of indifference’ was what famous Hebrew journalist, Eidel Wieser, said to describe the blatant lack of regard states had for the ways Jews were treated all across the world. Discrimination, ethnic cleansing and purges were just a few of the atrocities that they were subject to and yet little was done to assist them. This reaffirms the need for countries to intervene in the affairs of another, in terms of economic, political or social instability, because states are not always capable of making the right decisions to maximise the welfare of the society. Indeed there are cases where external intervention is unjustified, especially when global or regional powers try to exert their influence over another country. However, it is not right to assert that ‘No country should intervene in the affairs of another’ as it gives too much power to individual governments. Instead, mediated intervention should be used to ensure that countries are kept in check. The common argument to justify the stand for ‘No external intervention’ is that of sovereignty, where the basic integrity of the state should be respected. This has been encoded in the United Nations charter, as well as that of the ASEAN as a basic guideline to govern state relationships with one another. It has been frequently invoked by countries, such as the Soviet Union and China in the Korean War and even Indian, in the on-going dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. While it is important to acknowledge the view that as the government, they need to exercise their political will and have the right to exert their influence without any interference, we need to realise that this monopoly of power might not be healthy for countries, Case in point, India, who has utilised brutal methods in dumping down on the Kashmiri insurgents and have committed an overwhelming number of human rights violations since the outbreak in 1989, over a territory that has not officially been recognised as theirs. In this case it