2 Answers | Add Yours
Such an argument would rest more on ideas of liberalism than of realism in the international relations field.
Such an argument would essentially say that realists are wrong and that states do not have the right to pursue power at the expense of other states. It would argue that international relations should be conducted at least partly on the basis of morality, not just on the basis of power. According to this argument, the US would not have the right to intervene in another country to protect our interests any more than another country would have the right to intervene in the US to protect its interests. We could argue, for example, that we would not want China telling us what sorts of budgetary policies to pursue simply because China holds so much of our debt and wants to protect its investment.
The way to argue this, then, is to say that no country has the right to meddle in the internal affairs of another country simply because it is able to and wants to do so.
There is no need for an argument. This issue is of common sence. A country must not interfere in the affairs of an independent country. This is been done when the rulers have nothing to do for their own country. This is not only in the case of USA. This is for all the countries.
We’ve answered 333,889 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question