In what Circumstances is the Invasion of one Country by another Justified?

In what Circumstances is the Invasion of one Country by another Justified?

Invasion is never justified if there is a possibility of resolving disputes by diplomatic means. The U.N., drawn up by the San Francisco Conference in 1945, in succession to the League of Nations exists to maintain international peace and security.

Its Security Council can urge members to take economic or military sanctions, or can provide a peace-keeping force drawn from member -. nations. Its powers however amount to little more than those of the old League, since the two world-power centers remain NATO and the Warsaw Pact association.

This having been said, invasions do occur. Recent examples include the invasion of Iraq by Iran, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and that of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. Motives for invasion vary how cynical they are being a matter of minion. There is national pride; the desire to annex territory which rightly belongs to a country’ but which has either become independent or’ has- -become the dependency of another.

There is the instinct to expand, or not to% become encircled, or to gain strategic territory, or to gain access to minerals such as oil, or to food. The naked aggression of Hitler in Europe was totally unjustified, so the Second Front invasion of Europe by the allies in 1944 can be amply justified. Sometimes, assign the case- of Afghanistan, the ostensible reason. was to establish a stable government in a country which, bordering on the USSR was claimed to constitute a threat through instability. That invasion was not justified.

The ground for military invasion is usually prepared by other means. If there is instability and national discontent, or even two extremist parties each claiming the government, infiltration is much easier. An actual invasion becomes a mere formality when a government accepts perhaps thousands of military advisers, massive war equipment, and no doubt. extensive economic aid from one of the great powers. A physical take-over can sometimes be achieved without shedding a drop of blood. What is certain is that after such a takeover a large section of the population will remain discontented. Future troubles, as in Afghanistan, are inevitable, and lead only to further repressive measures.

The guiding principle governing the justice of invasion is surely this; do the majority of the people want such a take-over? A case in point is the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina, which country was at the time suffering internal troubles and needed a famous victory abroad. The Falklands, close at hand and regarded as an easy number, were an obvious choice, particularly since Argentina regarded the `Malvenas’ as their historic property. However, the islanders wanted to remain British, so the British armed forces had to throw the Argentines out. That particular invasion by the British was justified, particularly since, in fact, the Argentines were refusing to negotiate. However, realistically it becomes another matter to retaliate when the major powers become involved. Nobody wants to risk a full scale war for the sake of a principle. Nobody forgets Vietnam. So to invade or not to invade involves a crucial balancing of factors.