In a paragraph of 5–7 sentences, describe another nation’s involvement in the conflict and critique their actions. Are their actions justified or unjustified? Legal or illegal? Moral or immoral? How does the evidence in your sources support your critique?

Question

Examples: Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, United States, Japan

Answer 1

In analyzing another nation's involvement in the conflict, let's consider the actions of Japan during the conflict. Japan's involvement in the conflict can be seen as both justified and legal. During this time, Japan sought to foster stability and security in the region, primarily due to its own national security concerns. Japan's actions were legally justified under international law, as it cooperated with multiple countries and the United Nations in addressing the conflict. However, some argue that Japan's involvement was immoral due to its historical actions in the region. Critics argue that Japan should not have inserted itself into the conflict due to its militaristic past and potential lack of objectivity. Nevertheless, Japan's evidence of involvement lies in its contribution to the peaceful resolution of the conflict, as it provided humanitarian aid and actively participated in diplomatic negotiations. These actions, coupled with its adherence to international law, support the argument that Japan's involvement, although controversial, was ultimately justified and legal.