Beijing backs HK government, opposes 'foreign interference'
Click HERE
Interference in the domestic affairs of another country is mostly a matter of perspective....
FOR:
-it is the duty of BIG countries to look beyond its own affairs into the affairs and well-being of others, esp the weakers countries or the weaker lot in another country. In short, it is a moral duty of the Big Brother, the strong and powerful, towards the weak and the oppressed
-political agenda to contain a growing threat. The US may see it as a convenient way to contain the growing influence of China by helping dissidents in China, much like how perhaps the US aided the rebels against the autocratic Syrian govt
AGAINST:
-collusion with external countries undermines stability of country (riots, scares off tourists and investors...)
-undermine sovereignty of country (fate of country should not be decided by outsiders
-if external interfering countries are small and weak, such interference is futile and might even incur the wrath of the BIG country one is meddling with. EG: Singapore's 'interference' in the South China Seas disputes resulted in the freezing of relations with China and our army vehicles being detained at the Hong Kong port, allegedly on China's orders
-domestic affairs of another country should be left to the country to deal with itself as we may not be privy to the cultural and historical settings of that country to judge the events....
-it is not a serious issue where lives are lost and people are tortured, i.e. not a crime of humanity, esp if conflict arises out of a difference of opinions which can be subjective, as opposed to a clear cut right vs wrong issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Consider also the example of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Russian marched troops into Crimea on the justification that the security of the ethnic Russians in Crimea was in jeopardy. The Russians may argue that this is not meddling as they are safeguarding the welfare of their own people.
The international community retaliated with sanctions against Russia. Such 'meddling' is on the justification of protecting Ukraine (of which Crimea is a part of it) from the bullying and aggression of Russia, much like how the US marched troops into Kuwait to save it from Iraq during the Gulf War.
Qns:
1.To what extent is it acceptable for one nation to meddle in the affairs of another? (CJC J2 Midyr 2019)
2. ‘Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out their own problems.’ How far do you agree? (Cam. 2016)
Interference in the domestic affairs of another country is mostly a matter of perspective....
FOR:
-it is the duty of BIG countries to look beyond its own affairs into the affairs and well-being of others, esp the weakers countries or the weaker lot in another country. In short, it is a moral duty of the Big Brother, the strong and powerful, towards the weak and the oppressed
-political agenda to contain a growing threat. The US may see it as a convenient way to contain the growing influence of China by helping dissidents in China, much like how perhaps the US aided the rebels against the autocratic Syrian govt
AGAINST:
-collusion with external countries undermines stability of country (riots, scares off tourists and investors...)
-undermine sovereignty of country (fate of country should not be decided by outsiders
-if external interfering countries are small and weak, such interference is futile and might even incur the wrath of the BIG country one is meddling with. EG: Singapore's 'interference' in the South China Seas disputes resulted in the freezing of relations with China and our army vehicles being detained at the Hong Kong port, allegedly on China's orders
-domestic affairs of another country should be left to the country to deal with itself as we may not be privy to the cultural and historical settings of that country to judge the events....
-it is not a serious issue where lives are lost and people are tortured, i.e. not a crime of humanity, esp if conflict arises out of a difference of opinions which can be subjective, as opposed to a clear cut right vs wrong issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Consider also the example of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
Russian marched troops into Crimea on the justification that the security of the ethnic Russians in Crimea was in jeopardy. The Russians may argue that this is not meddling as they are safeguarding the welfare of their own people.
The international community retaliated with sanctions against Russia. Such 'meddling' is on the justification of protecting Ukraine (of which Crimea is a part of it) from the bullying and aggression of Russia, much like how the US marched troops into Kuwait to save it from Iraq during the Gulf War.
Qns:
1.To what extent is it acceptable for one nation to meddle in the affairs of another? (CJC J2 Midyr 2019)
2. ‘Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out their own problems.’ How far do you agree? (Cam. 2016)
posted by Dark Shadow | 1:31 PM
<< Home