Is it inteference?

[asian malaysian]

The situation in Zimbabwe with Mugabe accusing the West of interference has got me thinking. Where is the line when a foreign nation can intefere into the affairs of another country? Even in Asia, there are countries like Myanmar where the government has made the peoples lives a living hell. The thing is neither of these countries have invaded or attacked any outside country. Does this mean that all the proposed sanctions etc are wrong and you can never punish a country for what it does to its own people?

[attonbitus]

Pretty much. Threats with no meaningful enforcement is what most countries do to regimes that have a history of human rights violations.

Unless a country literally goes into another country to claim "something", they really don't have a right to police other countries. On one hand some countries would praise the interloper as a great humanitarian (until there was more infighting) on the other, countries would get nervous that someone out side their country would try to impose their will on them. Which creates a public relations backlash about suppressing other countries sovereignty/freedom,

[asian malaysian]

When people look back at what happened in Rwanda, they say "Why didnt people act sooner?" In my own asian example, we had pictures of monks' bodies floating down the river. This is to say nothing about the Myanmar's government incredible reaction to foreign aid during the cyclone that caused tens of thousands of needles additional deaths. Back in the day of the Khmer Rogue, it was so much eaiser to claim ignorance about whats going on right next to you so to speak. Its a lot harder now that anyone with a cell phone camera can effectively be an online reporter. Of course youre right in the sense that all the western country's are threatening to do is create an economic sanctions on Zimbabwe but as the foreigh minister of South Africa points out with undeniable authority lent by his country's experience, foreign sanctions often cause despotic regimes to dig in their heels even deeper and carry out even worse crimes on their own people. Its all very frustrating. We are in the 21st century. There must be a point when people can say enough is enough and that national soveriegnty isnt worth it.

[CountessRachel]

Just my personal opinion:

But the reason the US doesn't interfere in many particular countries is because we'd lose money. U.S. makes so much profit from underground weapons sales to poor countries in social upheaval. But to say that the US doesn't "interfere" with unstable countries is not entirely true. For the last century, we've been going into unstable countries with the purpose of "helping out" so long as there was something in it for us or they were a direct threat: mainly southeast Asia, Cuba, and parts of the Middle East. We have so much invested in "special interest countries" that it would be cost-ineffective to try and help out the even poorer countries that don't really have anything to offer.

The UN has tried sending troops to certain areas in Africa, but that hasn't been all that effective for current situations now. The ultimate reason why helping out doesn't work is because of an endless supply child soldiers, drug/weapons sales, and corrupt government systems.

[asian malaysian]

^ I think America should be given props in that Americans do contribute humanitarian aid even to countries and governments it doesnt approve of. Still, no country ever acts out of charity.Maybe the thing to do the next time they complain about American inteference is not to be involved in any manner whatseoever which would mean washing your hands of all those starving people who were just unlucky enough to be born under a messed up regime.