Some people today have argued that countries should interfere less in the affairs of other nations. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

Many feel that national sovereignty is inviolable and therefore interference should become a less common practice. In my opinion, although intervention can engender a peaceful world order to a certain extent, this exercise should still be relevant due to moral necessity. 

Proponents of non-interventionism can point to its critical role in safeguarding peace worldwide. Most countries interfere only when they can gain benefits from their supportive operations, which is often disguised as in the interest of humanitarian reasons. This action generally runs the risk of undermining international security, escalating from endemic skirmishes to full-scale military conflicts when diplomatic and peaceful means of negotiation are inadequate. This can be perfectly exemplified through the American arms industry’s promotion of the war in Ukraine, generating massive profits at the cost of many innocent civilians’ lives. Therefore, external interference is inherently illegitimate, and countries globally should have the right to govern their own domestic affairs. 

However, external intervention still plays an indispensable role in preventing crimes against humanity. Other countries should be morally obligated to intervene in the affairs of others to avert humanitarian crises, especially in cases of mass atrocity crimes being perpetrated. These can range from genocide to ethnic cleansing, which should not be disregarded as they not only undermine regional stability but also endanger peace all over the world. As a result, a nation’s formal consent can be overridden under these circumstances and other countries’ forceful intervention is justifiable, even with the use of military means. A pertinent example of this is in the second world war, when the allied forces intervene in the anti-Semitic policies of the Nazis to partly remedy the irreparable damage caused by the Holocaust. 

In conclusion, despite the importance of non-interventionism in keeping peace, interference should still remain an acceptable practice to prevent systematic violations of human rights. Countries globally should consider peaceful means of diplomatic negotiation before resorting to violence. 

Sample 2:

The role of nations in interfering in the affairs of other countries has long been a contentious issue. Some argue that such interventions often cause more harm than good and advocate for minimal interference. While there are valid points on both sides, I largely agree that countries should reduce their involvement in the internal matters of other nations, except in specific situations where intervention is morally or strategically necessary.

One of the primary reasons to avoid interference is respect for sovereignty. Every nation has the right to self-determination, and outside interference can undermine this principle. For example, external involvement in political disputes often exacerbates tensions, leading to prolonged instability and resentment among the local population. Historical events, such as conflicts fueled by foreign interventions, have shown that such actions often fail to achieve their intended outcomes.

Moreover, interference can have unintended consequences for the intervening country. Financial costs, loss of human lives, and damage to international relations are common repercussions. For instance, military interventions in the Middle East have not only strained the resources of the countries involved but also fostered anti-interventionist sentiments worldwide.

However, there are exceptions where interference may be justified. In cases of severe humanitarian crises, such as genocide or widespread violations of human rights, international intervention may be necessary to protect vulnerable populations. Similarly, collaborative efforts to address global issues like climate change or terrorism often require coordinated involvement across nations.

In conclusion, while non-interference should be the default approach to uphold sovereignty and avoid negative consequences, exceptions can be made in dire situations where the global community has a moral obligation to act. A balanced, case-by-case approach is essential for fostering international peace and cooperation.