Opinions are divided on whether less global interference is needed the relationship between countries. Personally, I agree with this viewpoint, although some exceptions should require concerns of different nations.
Opponents of the given perspective argue that some emergency situations like armed conflicts or wars between countries need multinational efforts to solve. This is because if these incidents are prolonged without any preventive measures from other countries to ease the tension, not only citizens of the countries in the war but also the global economy will suffer. A pertinent example of this is the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, where thousands of innocent people were killed in both countries. Not to mention, one of the most obvious impacts of this war to the world is the shortage of fuel exported from Russia due to complete shutdown of oil manufacturing factories here, causing a fuel crisis in other countries including Vietnam. Had it not for the timely intervene of neighboring countries to hinder the escalating tension, these few aforementioned consequences would be more serious and irreversible.
Notwithstanding the above argument, I contend that in most cases, it is better to remain neutral to other countries’ affairs. The reason for this is that each nation upholds distinctive historical backgrounds and cultural values, underlying the inevitable conflicts between some countries. As a result, if an outsider nation excessively interfere to these affairs or express biased attitude towards a party, it will exacerbate the tension and create the undesirable animosity between countries in the world. Therefore, respecting the diplomats of other nations can help a country avoid political issues or misunderstanding, strengthen a positive multinational bond for economic development and cultural exchange.
In conclusion, although global intervene is crucial to counter dire situations, I contend that nations should hold a neutral attitude in the affairs of other countries for the aforementioned reason.