Intrusion In African Affairs

There are some parts in Africa, some tribes and some location that are living among the bloodiest and violetn conflicts till date. In Rwanda, for example there was genocide on an unprecedented scale. There was a article on CNN (I can't find it now) about how hard it is for villagers in the part of Africa to travel from one village to other and how children are being abducted and kept as slaves for years and how they are made disabled. In recent years we have seen some strong criticism from international organizations such as UN reacting about crises in Rwanda and Somalia.

However, do you think that non-African organizations and countries like Britain, France, US have no legitimate role to play in African politics and African conflicts? Do you think that intervention from other nation is not need by African nations and people?

I would like to debate that should African disputes and conflicts be handled by African countries themselves or it is ok to have external international organizations? It could be any other country's intervention in other country's affair. Like US is playing big role in establishing democracy in Iraq....my question is it ok for one country to interfere in other country's internal affair and policy? or should that country be left alone and locals should be left to handled their situation by themselves.

I believe on humanitarian grounds International organisations need to show interest to war ravaged, or lawless countries where human right violations are taking place. They need to offer support of all kinds, whether its sending in troops or food , medicines or any other services to bring peace and law back.

I don't believe its right to turn your back on a county just because its part of another continent and we aren't familair with the culture there. It becomes our duty as a human to help another.

I think that countries should be left on their own sometimes with their internal disputes, unless it becomes harmful to other nations. Yes, I agree Abhijit… UN hardly does anything….well they criticize on how slow some countries are on to responding to the situation... if that counts and not speaking against some countries when they do things legally which are illegal. Yes, I saw interpreter and infact was thinking to put debate about assassination as well. I also saw movie this weekend "Lord of War" and how there is no boundary about legal and illegal business in weapon. Picture you see about Africa in that movie is just dreadfully sad. I agree Aparna as for humanitarian cause you definitely feel like doing lot and speaking up and intervene. But politically and to have less war I think each country better stick to their own home when it comes to internal policy. If you watch this movie "lord of war" you can see how hard it is to help some nations..so much corruption so much failed bureaucracy some parts and some community and people are shown like literally beast. It is hard to even imagine for people like you and me what and how they could slain the whole community and government who politically try to help the country is involved somewhere or other in the weapon trading too. It is just beyond imagination and I think it is just hard to even help people who really need help. Also, most of the time when one country try to intervene other country it is seen as suppression and big oppose from citizens. This is almost like suppression even when intention is to help the same people. However when you see 8 year boy holding weapon and town that looks like cemetory with no tree and barren grounds it just gives me shiver. I would really suggest watching this movie "lord of war" and as abhijit said, interpreter is good one too, but i would stick more of helping as social service and orgnaizations rather than country getting involved politically.

yup Soumya and Abhijit seen both interpreter and Lord of war. I especially loved the Lord of War. I wish i could get a copy of the classic dialogues that film had. 😊

Originally posted by: sowmyaa

I think that countries should be left on their own sometimes with their internal disputes, unless it becomes harmful to other nations. Yes, I agree Abhijit… UN hardly does anything….well they criticize on how slow some countries are on to responding to the situation... if that counts and not speaking against some countries when they do things legally which are illegal. Yes, I saw interpreter and infact was thinking to put debate about assassination as well. I also saw movie this weekend "Lord of War" and how there is no boundary about legal and illegal business in weapon. Picture you see about Africa in that movie is just dreadfully sad. I agree Aparna as for humanitarian cause you definitely feel like doing lot and speaking up and intervene. But politically and to have less war I think each country better stick to their own home when it comes to internal policy. If you watch this movie "lord of war" you can see how hard it is to help some nations..so much corruption so much failed bureaucracy some parts and some community and people are shown like literally beast. It is hard to even imagine for people like you and me what and how they could slain the whole community and government who politically try to help the country is involved somewhere or other in the weapon trading too. It is just beyond imagination and I think it is just hard to even help people who really need help. Also, most of the time when one country try to intervene other country it is seen as suppression and big oppose from citizens. This is almost like suppression even when intention is to help the same people. However when you see 8 year boy holding weapon and town that looks like cemetory with no tree and barren grounds it just gives me shiver. I would really suggest watching this movie "lord of war" and as abhijit said, interpreter is good one too, but i would stick more of helping as social service and orgnaizations rather than country getting involved politically.

I partly agree and partly disagree with Sowmyaa di... i am on the side that International organizations like UN should come and help those countries where there is a crises on Law and order situation.. But they should be left with their issues and most importantly decisions… I also think that ANY OTHER COUNTRY'S intervention is like the example of an outsider in a home unless and until the affected country requires and invites others… If any other country just says that I wish to establish peace in country "XYZ" without XYZ's will then it is purely an INVASION.. Not help!!!
Ok now abt UN… well I think we are underestimating UN tooo much… I totally agree that it is a complete FAILER as a third party or a political issue solver in the world… it has disastrously failed itself in this respect which is very sad… But we shouldn't forget the fact of "Peace keeping forces of UN" … Truly speaking I have seen the documentaries of the troops and I salute them for serving not only a country but the humanity as a whole..they are patriotic for humans… the soldiers who lose their lives don't die for their homeland .. but for the sake of humanity –something which is quite extinct these days… the Doctors in the the UN troops do all the operations in such miserable situations … they even have to walk miles and miles to reach remote villages and provide medical care for people they have got only one connection – they are humans..
If I only highlight UN then we have World Health Oraganization… which we always look upon at the hour of crises .. recent case : Bird flu…. UN AIDS… UNICEF. UNESCO. Etc… the people working for UN are devoting their lives for people in trouble.. at least at the time of a Natural Calamity (God Forbid)… we can look towards UN with the hope that it will not let us down and serve humanity for the sake of serving… So if we talk abt only UN, then to me it is not completely useless as failure in one sector doesn't mean to bulldoze the diligent efforts of people belonging to UN.

Well interfering is not wron but the level of interference ant the attitude of the country matters..

If left to itself, there are chances for the help ti become an invader by itself.. SO that way it is always better to have more then one country represented..

When two groups of people are fighting over a topic, you need a mediator to proceed with peace activities....
otherwise the fight will go on and on and on....

Involvement by other countires in the horrendous scenarios of Rwanda and Somalia (to name only two) is unavoidable, indeed essential.

No country is an island entire of itself. Any nation's sorrow diminishes another because each nation is a part of the ocean called Mankind ... whether in Rwanda or in Angola, the bell tolls for thee

(with apologies to John Donne)

This is a nice topic Sowmya. I always argue with myself regarding intrusion and prolonged presence of US troops in not only these African countries, but also in many other lawless places. One must help them, but at the same time, one must learn to fight one's own battle to some extent.
Seems like I am on everyone's side in this debate with no useful INPUT! Just speculating.. 😆I should be awarded the golden IF member of the UN 😉

Joke apart, I love what all of you have said. Will come back for more. 👏

Originally posted by: mermaid_QT

I should be awarded the golden IF member of the UN 😉

LMAO!!!😆😆

Qt di.. have you started taking classes from Kofi Annan??😛

[quote=soumyaa]I would like to debate that should African disputes and conflicts be handled by African countries themselves or it is ok to have external international organizations? It could be any other country's intervention in other country's affair.[/quote]

It's just too late now to stay ignorant about their affairs and do nothing! When the Socrates, Plato and rest were debating the human conducts and ethics of western civilization, Africans were still trading their fellow humans like cattle and living the wild herd lifestyle. But when the east African coast was invaded in the spirit of colonialism, some of those values of civilized world were shove down their throat and suddenly they were expected to behave like trained, well mannered animals. 300-400 years is quite a shorter time period for them to absorb the concept of humanity and democracy. Look at rest of world and see how long it took to reach today where we are. Meanwhile gotta do what we gotta do, even if those countries have no oil or any other natural resources (😆). In fact, after the unfortunate '94 Rwandan Genocide, where about a million people were butchered in just span of 100 days, UN and allies' peace keeping force have been doing quite commendable job even with ever thin resources. 👏