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?
Examples: Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, United States, Japan
One nation that has had significant involvement in the conflict is the United States. Their actions can be critiqued as both justified and unjustified, depending on one's perspective. From a humanitarian standpoint, the U.S. involvement in providing aid, such as food and medical supplies, to conflict-affected regions can be viewed as justified and moral. However, their military intervention and support for various factions, often driven by political motives, can be seen as unjustified and immoral.
The evidence from my sources suggests that the U.S. military intervention in the conflict has escalated violence and prolonged the suffering of the affected population. The indiscriminate bombing campaigns and drone strikes have resulted in numerous civilian casualties, raising questions about the legality and morality of their actions. The U.S. also faced criticism for their support of factions that have committed human rights abuses and war crimes.
Moreover, the U.S. involvement in the conflict can be seen as illegal under international law. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against sovereign nations, unless done in self-defense or authorized by the UN Security Council. The U.S. military intervention in the conflict has not received explicit authorization from the Security Council, making it questionable in terms of legality.
In summary, the United States' involvement in the conflict can be critiqued as both unjustified and illegal. While some humanitarian efforts may be viewed as morally justified, their overall military intervention and support for factions have raised concerns about the legality and morality of their actions. The evidence from various sources supports this critique by highlighting the negative consequences of their interventions and their failure to adhere to international legal standards.
What do you think should be done to solve the territorial dispute in the South China Sea? Using the sources you found as evidence, write a brief action plan that describes who should have control over the disputed territory, why they should have control, and how they should gain or be given control. (3-5 sentences)
Example: I think ___________ should control the South China Sea because.....