The Responsibility of World Powers

[mmm]

Do powerful nations have the right or the duty to try and bring peace to the world? I certainly believe that intervention in foreign affairs is permissible as long it is for the defense of a nation, but what about violations of human rights?

The Iraqi War is what spawned this topic. America claimed that Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, so invaded to preserve national security. When it turned out that there were no WMDs, the reason turned to spreading democracy. I compare this with the Arab Spring, and can't help but wonder if the same thing is going on.

[Dr Frook]

World powers don't have the right to interfere with the affairs of other nations. However, if they are invited to come in to help in whatever way requested, then that is fine - just as long as the majority in that nation support the foreign intervention.

In the case of Iraq, that was an insanely bad idea, as it has destabilised the place like never before and resulted in the death of 100s of thousands of people - much more than any dictator could have possibly hoped to kill in multiple lifetimes. Imposing democracy on a nation that cannot cope with it is plain stupid and shows complete ignorance of cultural differences.

[Hitokiri]

OMG
You honestly just didn't say that mmm.
Comparing Afghanistan and Iraq with the Arab Spring.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought from the outside, not from the inside.
The Arab Spring is a revolution within those countries, having a wish for change and the will to die for it.

It'll be shaky, but throughout history, many western countries have gone through revolutions, changing their ways of government, mostly those revolutions led to democracies.

It is as fwg says, if they wish to have a democracy, and they want our help with forming one, by all means we should help.
Forcing a democracy has never worked; people wanting a democracy has worked for a long time.
Perhaps in your eyes it's a little difference, but it makes a very big difference, as democracy can only work when a majority of the people want it and support it.

[mmm]

OMG
You honestly just didn't say that mmm.
Comparing Afghanistan and Iraq with the Arab Spring.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought from the outside, not from the inside.
The Arab Spring is a revolution within those countries, having a wish for change and the will to die for it.

It'll be shaky, but throughout history, many western countries have gone through revolutions, changing their ways of government, mostly those revolutions led to democracies.

It is as fwg says, if they wish to have a democracy, and they want our help with forming one, by all means we should help.
Forcing a democracy has never worked; people wanting a democracy has worked for a long time.
Perhaps in your eyes it's a little difference, but it makes a very big difference, as democracy can only work when a majority of the people want it and support it.

That was a bad example, you're right. My bad, I was/am half-asleep when I wrote that. I believe I was somehow trying to connect Western post-reconstruction imperialism (we should annex the Philippine Islands because the people cannot govern themselves) and post-occupation negative attitudes towards Western countries.

FWG, you said that foreign intervention is fine as long as the majority of a country supports it. What if the majority of a country is prosecuting the minority? Intervention in this case would probably be in the form of violent military occupation. I also believe that if the intervening country ceased its occupation, violence between the new minority leadership and majority citizens would inevitably occur. I agree with both of you on the point that forcing democracy is oxymoronic, but leaving the conditions essentially the same will allow prosecution to begin anew.