Why should western nations intervene with civil conflict?

Question

Why should western nations intervene with civil conflict?

Why should western nations (rich countries) and the UN intervene with civil conflict, some examples would be nice to suppport your answers

Thanks in advance ^-^

Answer 1

To bring the will of the people from under a tyrannical govt

to bring peace in wartorn countries

but it need to be a UN type democracy to prevent

something like the weapons companies from encouraging wars or a powerful country from manipulating a poorer country for resources

Answer 2

Because us liberal nations know what is best for everyone . According to us they are to dumb to Handel their own problems.

Answer 3

Good question :]

Actually, I don't think they should. European countries, but mainly America, think that all nations should be like them. However, countries are developed socially and culturally different. What works for one area might not work for another. Civil issues are the same.

For example, America likes to bash China for being "un-democratic" and "oppressive." The thing is, America is fundamentally different from China, or Asia, in general. America was able to built from European successes and errors, and was able to keep only the best traits. However, China can't do that.

The culture is over 6000 years old, and it is irrational and dangerous to change over night. What would happen if the Chinese were allowed to vote? Great, an American might say. BUT, 80% Chinese are peasants and farmers! Do you think that the uneducated class would be able to produce an efficient president? OR, would they just elect someone who promises a full dinner pail?

That's just one example. Policies work differently with different nations. Therefore, I think all countries should try to mind they own business :]

Answer 4

A very good question. I think that (in addition to the 1st answer) there is an expectation that the Western Nations have a 'moral' obligation to prevent massive casualties. In the civil conflicts there is always a stronger and weaker side. The weaker side ends up with a genocide and thousands lives are lost in the cruelest of ways. By intervention it is expected that the conflict will ease and a further loss of live will be prevented. A forced peace or treaty is imposed under severe threats. To be honest, I think this is just a temporary solution as the problem that caused the conflict is rarely ever resolved. The hate that exists between the ethnic or religious groups is hushed and the moment an opportunity arrives the war re-ignites, it will. An example is Iraq where even though Sadam Hussein is gone (who controlled this religious intolerance with an iron fist), the different sects are at war and our troops are stuck in the middle of the conflict. Another example is  Bosnia, where the religious intolerance was never resolved but the country has been subdivided into 3 cantons so that the three sides are effectively separated from one another, still hating one another. Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia face similar issues.

The Western World possesses power to dictate the outcomes, unfortunately these are always done through force as 'talking' really does not achieve anything - they all say what the other wants to hear and do whatever they want because they believe they are right. Should the Western nations intervent - I wonder if sometimes they would be better not to.