Rebecca Morton's Humanitarian Interventionism Has Shaped World Politics

To intervene or not intervene will always be a subject of intense debate all around the world due to the fact that interventionism has shaped world politics since the beginning of known history. Interventionism encompasses the justification of a nation or sovereign state to invade, attack, support militarily, support economically, politically, or aiding a sovereign state for any reason. In any case, all arguments comes down to two perspectives: (A) there is no reason for intervention, (B) intervention is only acceptable under certain circumstances. In addition if historical evidence shows us one thing it is that intervention has always been a means to an end. One example of this is America’s annual 3 billion dollar grant to Israel from 1985

“This type of intervention at times may be the only way to prevent mass killing, and it can have a positive outcome.”3 One instance of this would be when Australia claimed independence from Indonesia when a “pro-Indonesian militia launched a bloody campaign of fighting, looting and arson throughout the country.”3 As a result, the United Nations sanctioned an international coalition to fight this militia that had, at this point, displaced over half a million citizens from their homes. They called it INTERFET with the sole purpose of restoring peace and stability to the region. Eventually, the UN suppressed violence in the region while enabling the reconstruction of the newly independent nation. Due to situations like this, many believe that humanitarian intervention does more good than harm. Due to the fact that that this perspective comes from Rebecca Morton, a professor working in the department of politics at the University of New York implicating obvious expertise regarding intervention

I take this approach for a number of reasons such as free range intervention can cause great political turmoil due to the fact that a nation that has support form other sovereign states can be coerced by using their own instability against them forcing them to becoming part of the intervening nation shifting the balance of power and influence in the international community. Another Reason I hold this belief is due to the fact that if nations were to intervene in others it could possibly amplify the severity of a situation as shown by the anti-American sentiment in the middle east as well as various terror group who originated through the help of third party intervention in the Syrian civil war. This resulted in terror attacks that have killed thousands perpetrated by terrorist groups around the world. In addition it is my opinion that each individual nation has the responsibility to look after themselves thus any problem originating within their own nation is their problem and should be dealt with internally. Plus, intervention can put a strain on international community by jeopardizing the peace between two sovereign nations as shown through the proxy war currently going on between Russia and the United States of America. In which Russia supports the