The Earth is the collection of human beings national boundaries are more of the product of political control but we as humans are always one also these boundaries will keep changing over time but humanity will remain same. So if it is being observed at some part of the world their is indeed a humanitarian crisis then there should be formed an international body to defend the basic rights of a human.
The international community can (and in many cases should) act in ways that protect human rights. If a government is oppressing or endangering its own people, the collective will of people everywhere should be able to act in the defense of the oppressed. Other forms of pressure (like economic sanctions) can be useful in altering a government's policies, too.
This debate comes down to not just a moral responsibility, but an evolutionary one. Have humans evolved to a place of heightened integrity, to where we can forget "survival of the fittest", and allow ourselves, as citizens of countries of wealth and health, to help our fellow humans when crisis strikes? I think so. Not only is it right, it is just. And, it is exactly what our cultural, moral, and religious beliefs have been based on for centuries now.
The international community should help, in times of a humanitarian crisis. One such example is during the recent devastating earthquake in Haiti. Haiti did not have the means to shelter and feed its population and countries, like the United States and England, helped to provide temporary shelter and economic aid to ease the transition back to a somewhat normal life for the people of Haiti.
While common humanity dictates an interference, it should not be a decision a group of nations or a nation takes lightly. Every disaster and crisis is different and unique, and intervention and the scope of it may not always be the answer. However, if a person looks back at history, a lot of humanitarian crises were made worse by ignoring them. Rwanda is a prime example.
Many domestic affairs become civil wars, and large groups of people are killed due to their race, religion, and other factors. These wars devastate populations and the nation, but, they can be lessened with international involvement. When a country knows that the whole world is watching and will intervene, then they are less likely to slaughter a whole group of people.
NATO's recent attacks on the Libyan government were taken in response to a humanitarian crisis perpetrated by their leader and military. The reason for this intervention was to save the lives of innocent civilians who were being harmed by their government.
While the international community should not intervene at all times, it should intervene during humanitarian crisis, because such actions are often necessary to prevent genocide and/or other horrible events. For proof of this, we only need to look at the genocide that occurred in Rwanda during the 1990s, where the international community took a long time to respond, and the result was hundreds of thousands of people massacred. This is not something any community can or should tolerate.
A good example of when the international community should interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries is happening now in Libya. The leader of that country has ordered parts of his military to fire on innocent civilians because they are protesting for freedoms against their government. I think it is time for the United Nations to send troops to that country to stop the unnecessary bloodshed and to protect the people of Libya.
A humanitarian crisis would involve significant loss of life and property. When such crises occur, the domestic government will find it very hard to deal with a huge loss. A human life should not be lost because of the government's inability to deal with a crisis. Even countries that are highly developed are not able to cope with a crisis, as seen in the ongoing flood in Australia. However, an interference is necessary only when there is a significant loss. That would mean a very large scale disaster, like The Haiti earthquake in early 2010. A country's sovereignty must be respected, but not at the cost of a thousand innocent lives.
It is my belief that the international community has a moral obligation to see that fellow human beings around the world receive the help they need from humanitarian disasters. Those who can afford to do so need to send food, medical supplies and people to help victims of disasters such as floods, hurricanes and earthquakes. The international community has the ability to help these people with shelter, medical care and other things vital to life.
This is a tough question, but sometimes it's necessary to interfere when it's the right thing to do. In general, I would agree, other countries should get involved if it's a humanitarian issue. If it is a true crisis, as fellow citizens of the planet, there are times when the world should get involved to help.
Certain international coalitions such as UN or UNICEF can provide much needed relief to nations in crisis. Why shouldn't they become involved? It isn't interference if much-needed resources are being provided to these nations. The questions arise when certain nations have domestic issues of their own and then go out of their way to make a gesture of support to another struggling nation, when their own nation is also in a sort of crisis. It does seem to be the right thing to do when a nation (such as Haiti) does not have the infrastructural resources to help itself. It becomes an obligation of the more fortunate to help the needy in that case.
It is justified and I agree that the international community should interfere in domestic affairs at the times of humanitarian crises. There may be situations where many countries might not be able to handle the humanitarian crises. In these situations, it is necessary to take control of the situations by international communities in order to provide security to individuals and also to maintain the global peace around the world.
While I am not an advocate of taxing the rich to feed the poor, I am an advocate of the rich feeding the poor voluntarily, and feeling obligated to do so. When a country, like Haiti for example, is in dire need of aid and their own government can't take care of the mess then I think that other countries that can are absolutely obligated to do so. This is another example of an application of the golden rule, wouldn't we want their help if we needed it?
The international community can interfere when people are being imprisoned and put to death. We saw what happened during the holocaust. But nations ignored the signs and would not interfere. When we have evidence, it is up to good nations to stand up for the poor and enslaved people. This is just good moral behavior on the part of free. Nations. However, our main objective should be to free people, not change their religion or culture.
Haiti is a perfect example of a country that can not take care of itself in normal day to day affairs, and is a complete mess when disaster strikes. Haiti should never again be sovereign. The World should always help humans in horrible circumstances when they are acts of nature, but have no responsibility in man made problems. The answer to this is colonialism. Not a popular word, but the World would be a better place.
In lieu of recent a perfect example for this would be the telethon that George Clooney just held, The Hope for Haiti project. It raised 60+ million dollars to help that country rebuild. Another thing that the community is doing is the text messages that you can send from your cell phone that will add 10 dollars to your phone bill and it will go to Haiti.
An international entity, like the United Nations, should step forward to help a given nation facing a humanitarian crisis if member nations are in agreement. The recent earthquake in Haiti has resulted in a flood of international aid and is a strong example of the global community pooling it's resources together. Additionally, the poverty of Haiti and it's inability to help its own people in crises is the result of years of western, mostly American, interjection in its government. The Western world owes Haiti and many other nations facing humanitarian crises because the underlying causes are a result of Western interaction.
I do feel that a country that is in crisis needs all the help it can get. It's great if the global community was there to help. While certain countries can provide more aid than others, any bit helps. We never know when disaster will effect our country and it would be nice to know that aid and other humanitarian resources will be available for the country.
I think the international community should interfere in domestic affairs at times of humanitarian crises. The international community can provide support and logistics necessary for the country to resolve its issue. For example, when the earthquake struck Haiti's capital, the international community came together to provide food, water and security for the people and its government. Because of this support, Haiti is able to provide basic necessities to its people, when otherwise they could not. The international community can provide support and relief during a domestic crisis and that is why I think they should interfere.
As a global community we have a moral obligation to interfere in the world's humanitarian crises. The offer of aid, expertise or even military intervention may be required in order to protect innocent women and children. We cannot sit back and knowingly allow atrocities to occur without trying to participate in a resolution.
The recent earthquake in Haiti is a prime example of this. The earthquake has created a huge humanitarian crisis - hundreds of thousands of people are homeless, hundreds of thousands of people have died, and thousands of people require medical attention. Without international intervention, the country of Haiti would not be able to help its people in their current situation.
When there is a humanitarian crisis going on, it doesn't matter where it's located. The fact is, there are people suffering and who need help. A person in one country suffers just as much as a person in another country. Whether or not we know them personally or like their government is beside the point. If there are people who need help, it's our job as compassionate beings to be there for them.
Not many countries want to regularly intervene in other countries' affairs, but if that country is having trouble meeting the most basic needs of its people, it is wrong for the more stable countries to just stand idly by. The unstable countries need help, even if they can't ask for it themselves. It doesn't mean you're colonizing a country to make sure its citizens have the basic necessities.
The international community should definitely help out with a domestic crisis because America has become the "Act of God" insurance for so many other nations and we should have that same comfort awarded to our people should anything bad happen here. For example, in Haiti, President Obama immediately gave 100 million dollars in aid and sent the military to help. Since America gives so much, we should receive as much, should we need it.
At times of humanitarian crisis, it may be necessary for the international community to involve itself in domestic affairs. For example, the earthquake in Haiti destroyed the infrastructure of the country. The government could not deal with the every day domestic affairs. It is necessary for international intervention in order to keep order, allow planes to land, feed the people, provide health care, etc. Without international interference, the crisis would become worse.
Because it's their issue - nobody's business. We need to stop interference in other countries social issues. Nobody can impose on someone to do the way he likes. Every country has own mentality and issues and they are adult societies to solve them on their own. Stop nanny states and international interfering when it is not your problem.
We should not interfere with any countries because before you interfere, one side looks up to you (the ones being killed) and the other fears your unseen power. Yes, every life is precious, so are lives of soldiers of countries not involved in barbarism. Why should non-native lives be sacrificed to protect a foreign nation's population, a population who, under different circumstances, would inflict exactly the kind of behaviour it is suffering from upon its enemies? I'm all for sanctions and/or embargoes and other passive resistance means of stopping such crises, but the line must be drawn at sacrificing human lives in a misguided attempt to `help' people who neither appreciate that help, nor will hesitate in the slightest to knife your back once their lives are safe. Just like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
Just mind your own business America. All America wants is the resources in the country it is invading, not to help the people. Take Afghanistan. The only reason why America invaded them is because of the oil, gas and money, not to help the people.
Just mind your own business America.
Before you interfere, one side looks up to you (the ones being killed) and the other fears your unseen power. Yes, every life is precious, so are lives of soldiers of countries not involved in barbarism. Why should non-native lives be sacrificed to protect a foreign nation's population, a population who, under different circumstances, would inflict exactly the kind of behaviour it is suffering from upon its enemies? I'm all for sanctions and/or embargoes and other passive resistance means of stopping such crises, but the line must be drawn at sacrificing human lives in a misguided attempt to `help' people who neither appreciate that help, nor will hesitate in the slightest to knife your back once their lives are safe. Just like Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
Allowing other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries for any reason will provide aggressive nations with a pretense to invade their neighbors. History abounds with examples of one nation invading another on "humanitarian" pretexts from the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany to the invasion of Grenada by the US in the 80's.