3 ms·
> not a single country should interfere with this I'd rather say "a single country should not interfere with this". IF we have a "simple" internal conflict bet
by martopix 3y ago
> not a single country should interfere with this
I'd rather say "a single country should not interfere with this". IF we have a "simple" internal conflict between local factions, then it should be an international community (the UN, or an agreed conference of major international and local powers) that steps in and ensures mediation. However, this happens very rarely. The reasons it happens very rarely is that major powers such as US, China, Russia, pretty much always have some opposing interests even in local conflicts. When there are no interests, conflicts just end up forgotten and nobody cares, but that's not good either.
So my take on "should the rest of the world interfere" is - yes, but only if the rest of the world does so by agreement.
- _8j50 3y agoWhat authority does "the rest of the world" have over a sovreign country? The people or the land are not subjects of some world government. It is because of this post-colonial interference they are still having this war. Sudan was a product of europeans drawing lines on maps. Also, when you say the rest of the world, what that means in reality is rich and poweful countries and everyone else who aligns with them to avoid their displeasure because that is worse than giving a shit about Sudan's sovreignity.