Does Any Country Have the Right to Invade Others and Control Them

Why do most countries invade other countries? Is it correct for countries to take responsibility over the affairs of other countries? Truly, no single country should invade another nation and take control over them. Mostly, countries send in armies to the other nations. For example, the US government sends their armies to other countries to protect them, however, the type of protection they offer to other countries often leads to more conflicts. The invaded countries usually retaliate, and it results in more chaos. Countries like Britain, Germany, and the United States of America have invaded nations that are not under their control. In the discussion topic, different people have different views. For instance, opponents of the subject discussed in the paper contend that war is okay in countries and people would solve their problems. Again, they argue that it leads to stability. Moreover, others argue that the invasion is a violation of the international law because the countries invade without the United Nations approval. On the other hand, critics of the invasion claim that it will lead to disruption, deprivation and deaths of innocent citizens in the invaded countries. Similarly, the critics contend that countries have no right to intervene in other nations internal affairs. Another argument is that the invasion damages peace and stability between countries. George Orwell, in his texts about pacifism and war, points out that when an individual impedes war effort of one side, they help the other spontaneously. According to him, pacifist propaganda is helpful to totalitarianism and that it is useful in countries that authorize freedom of speech. On a broader perspective, pacifism is the belief that any violence is unacceptable and people should solve their differences through peaceful means. The paper addresses the reasons nations should not invade other republics. On a large note, there is always a reason the countries have commanders in chief. They should work to protect their countries and not interfere with the affairs of others. Countries should not invade other countries and control them because it is a violation of their rights and privacy.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The first reason no single country should invade other countries is that it damages the peace and stability between countries. Goroncy (1) articulates that according to Professor Henry Reynolds, pacifism should not be anti-patriotic. People can be pacifists for three different reasons. The reasons may be their religious faith, non-religious beliefs in the significance of life, or beliefs that war is pointless. The professor indicates that the best thing a country can do is to avoid war (1). He avows that when countries go to war, victory to any side will only result in more violence. Professor Reynolds affirms that the conflicts between Australia and European countries led to many fatalities. Evidently, when countries invade other countries, it will result in deaths of many innocent citizens as well as military personnel. In normal conditions, when there is a war, pacifists refuse to go into war. Essentially, that is the correct thing to do because the consequences of war are dire. The nations that have differences should look for ways to resolve their issues because there is no peace until reconciliation takes place. The world will never be a better place when countries are at war all the time. Take Syria or Iraq as an example. The wars in those countries have existed for ages. Their citizens live in fear, as the country is a war zone. Besides the recent attacks from Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and its affiliates pose a big threat to the countries. Even so, the US government should not send their soldiers to Iraq, Somalia, or Syria to bring peace.

The second reason is that invasion leads to deprivation, disease, disruption, and deaths. Reynolds (126) asserts that when the settlers invaded the Aborigines, it resulted in many fatalities and injuries, disruption, diseases, and deprivation. On a large note, invasion leads to extreme interference of a countrys stability. Many innocent civilians die prematurely, and they suffer from deprivation of their rights. When individual countries attack others, they will be unable to make decisions for themselves. Similarly, the invaded countries will experience ailments and more deaths. In regards to the topic of illness, the stricken countries will be unable to have access to clean water and medical facilities. Additionally, the economy of the invaded countries depreciates and citizens struggle to make ends meet. Still, a good example of the countries that suffer from disruption is Syria and Iraq. Apparently, the benefits of invasion clearly outweigh the risks involved due to invasion. Moreover, Pai (59) explains George Orwells sentiments on Gandhi and the British colonial rule. As he indicates, Orwell mentioned that Gandhis tactics were non-violent, harmonious and enabled the Britons to complete their British rule as they wished. Every individual has to respect humanity. When they do so, amity and coherence will prevail. As George Orwell notes, the essence of humankind is that one does not look for perfection, they sometimes commit sin for the purpose of loyalty and do not push asceticism to the point that makes friendly intercourse unbearable (Pai, p.60). Cases of deprivation, diseases, disruption, and deaths can be successful when other countries choose to have negotiations and not venture into war. Third party countries should not invade the privacy of other states. Instead, they should hold peace talks, coordinate with the countries and develop a strategy that would lead to sustainable development.

The third reason is that every country has its beliefs, norms, culture, and values. McClintock (291) avows that over 200 years ago, Europe attacked Russia and her citizens migrated to find better lives. The author explains that every country has its culture and analysis of the world. Apparently, cultural differences exist in every country globally. It is unacceptable for other nations to pass a law to the countries due to traditional differences that exist. Culture refers to behavior patterns, perceptions, and assumptions that a country has. In a democracy, the citizens of a particular country choose the leaders that they want. These leaders are responsible for the stability and control of their countries. Consequently, no country has the right to interfere with the common beliefs, culture, and values of any country globally. According to Orwells views on pacifism, people should integrate human decency, and guarantee justice as well as impartiality in the form of real socialism (Orwell 1). On the real sense, human decency refers to the treatment of people, as one would wish to. Orwell (1) affirms that countries such as Britain, Japan, and Germany disallow pacifism. As he explains, no remedy that has military defeat as a chance of the re-establishment of standard stability (1). The author describes Hitlers invasion of Russia as intellectual dishonesty. According to his views, countries invade other countries to spread peace propaganda, which in the real sense is dishonest and disgusting as war propaganda. More to the point, those countries that control other countries should stop the act because it is unfair and illogical. A state that has decency considers the predicament of other nations and does not take advantage of them when they help. As well, human decency implies that countries recognize the strength and intellect of other nations.

In summary, over the past few years, people have different views on the issue of invasion. Opponents continue to maintain their statement that attacks would lead to stability of the invaded country. Some groups assert that it would result in deaths of the innocent citizen and add that countries have no right to intervene in other nations internal affairs. Another argument is that the invasion would damage peace and stability globally. Countries should not attack other countries and control them because it is a desecration of their rights and privacy. The paper presents reasons countries should not invade other countries and control them. The matter discussed in the paper is significant because every country has their values, traditions, and cultures. The issue of invasion has led to global unrest, and it interferes with peace and stability. Unfortunately, most nations that send their troops in other countries are unaware that the military personnel cannot bring sustainable change unless it gets support from their people. More so, human life is important, and when some countries invade other countries, the number of deaths among innocent citizens goes up. It is unacceptable for a country to play a role in another nations fate. Besides, military actions should accompany or precede diplomacy. Owing to the location of areas such as Aleppo, Iraq, and Somalia, the regions have become a battlefield and the nations do not seem to have peace talks. The international law should amend their policies and come up with a law that no single country should hamper with the matters of other nations. Overall, other countries should just help the rest of the nations with economic uplift, strengthen their economic development and avoid invasion of their internal affairs.

Works Cited

Goroncy, Jason. Some notes on Henry Reynolds Archibald Baxter Memorial Peace Lecture.

2014. Jason Goroncy. Web. Nov. 19. Available at https://jasongoroncy.com/category/pacifism/

McClintock, John. The Uniting of Nations: An Essay on Global Governance. Bern: Peter Lang. 2010. Print.

Orwell, George. Pacifism and the War. Partisan Review. 1942. Web. Nov. 19. Available at http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

Pai, Gita. Orwells Reflections on Saint Gandhi. Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies, Vol. 40, No.1. 2014.

Reynolds, Henry. The Other Side of the Frontier: Aboriginal Resistance to the European Invasion of Australia. Kensington: UNSW Press. 2006. Print.