Morals vs Sovereignty: Where's the Line?
Sovereignty and Morals are two concepts that are valued throughout the world. They show restraint and respect in a species where where its nature leans more towards catering to itself. These two concepts are not without problems. Sovereignty and morals have seen its fare share of clashes especially in a day in age where sovereignty is more and more respected and valued. This coupled with a world force created for peace like the UN. The real question is, is it a responsibility to violate someone's sovereignty because of morals. What is the circumstance needed to violate sovereignty without consent. As a global community when evaluating a potential humanitarian crisis a state an or group of states …show more content…
United States should not be responsible for the uncountable humanitarian crisis the manifest globally. There has been a trend of the United States being the, so called, police of the world. We have seen this in areas like Afghanistan where the United States has taken the brunt of the work. Each country should be proportionally responsible, by carrying his or her own weight based on capability. If a country has added connections to the affected area such as Belgium did with Rwanda, added responsibility should be …show more content…
Though the evidence of Human rights violations and genocide were overwhelming the UN was mostly inactive on the issue. UNAMIR was prevalent in the area, but became less and less effective when time went on. The only time that the world community was effective at sending troops , and logistics support was when it was evacuating foreign nationals and embassies early on in the crisis. Though, the UN did take a stab at the situation by sending in a few hundred Belgian, and Bangladesh troops it turned out to be quite a blunder due to the peacekeepers being poorly equipped and violence against the peacekeepers. The inaction of the UN was due to endless security meeting mulling over the same ideas because the world didn’t know how to react to a situation like this. Does the world have the right to send in a large force to stop this madness. Because of the UN’s inaction it led to almost 1 million Tutsis dead 70% of Rwandans population of Tutsis. The evidence shows that the Hutus majority government along with other hutu elites were the perpetrators of the genocide and armed the Hutu population to go out and kill their neighbors. At that point the world should have seen what the state government was committing and denounced their recognition as Rwanda as a state if
Sovereignty and Morals are two concepts that are valued throughout the world. They show restraint and respect in a species where where its nature leans more towards catering to itself. These two concepts are not without problems. Sovereignty and morals have seen its fare share of clashes especially in a day in age where sovereignty is more and more respected and valued. This coupled with a world force created for peace like the UN. The real question is, is it a responsibility to violate someone's sovereignty because of morals. What is the circumstance needed to violate sovereignty without consent. As a global community when evaluating a potential humanitarian crisis a state an or group of states …show more content…
United States should not be responsible for the uncountable humanitarian crisis the manifest globally. There has been a trend of the United States being the, so called, police of the world. We have seen this in areas like Afghanistan where the United States has taken the brunt of the work. Each country should be proportionally responsible, by carrying his or her own weight based on capability. If a country has added connections to the affected area such as Belgium did with Rwanda, added responsibility should be …show more content…
Though the evidence of Human rights violations and genocide were overwhelming the UN was mostly inactive on the issue. UNAMIR was prevalent in the area, but became less and less effective when time went on. The only time that the world community was effective at sending troops , and logistics support was when it was evacuating foreign nationals and embassies early on in the crisis. Though, the UN did take a stab at the situation by sending in a few hundred Belgian, and Bangladesh troops it turned out to be quite a blunder due to the peacekeepers being poorly equipped and violence against the peacekeepers. The inaction of the UN was due to endless security meeting mulling over the same ideas because the world didn’t know how to react to a situation like this. Does the world have the right to send in a large force to stop this madness. Because of the UN’s inaction it led to almost 1 million Tutsis dead 70% of Rwandans population of Tutsis. The evidence shows that the Hutus majority government along with other hutu elites were the perpetrators of the genocide and armed the Hutu population to go out and kill their neighbors. At that point the world should have seen what the state government was committing and denounced their recognition as Rwanda as a state if