Should countries be given a right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs?

WRITING TASK 2 (A country's internal affair)

Topic:

Should countries be given a right to interfere in other countries' internal affairs?

Whether "to intervene" or "not to intervene" remains a nagging question when considering a nation's long-term political blueprint. Intervention in other nation's internal issues has always been practiced ever since time immemorial, either directly or indirectly, to a good cause or for a bad end. In my opinion, whether or not a nation is entitled the right to execute external forces upon a nation's domestic affairs hinges on the multilateral viewpoints about the nature of such interference.

It stands to reason that a nation in the throes of multiple matters that are against its prosperity and its citizen's welfare could consider foreign intervention as a means of financial or humanitarian aid. In this respect, such an act clearly is not against the law from a global perspective and should be given ample support to make itself come to fruition. The Thailand cave rescue in 2018 is a case in point. Without extensive foreign support of rescue personnel and financial funding for needed evacuation equipment, perhaps we would not ever see all the ill-fated boys again. Such an act of external support could also come in the manner of treaty or memorandum, which requires mutual reciprocity between "the givers" and "the receivers", thus stands no ground for hostility and fresh ground for sustainability.

However, not all affairs could be subject to foreign external forces. Some matters, such as a nation's long-term development blueprint, are often classified and sidelined from public attention, let alone from foreign observation. There are some acts of intervention violating the international laws that entitles a nation to their utmost right of independence, self-regulation and sovereignty. Any attempts to intrude in these matters would bring a breach of such rights, and are riven with opposition. The recent invasion of the US into Afghanistan, even though labeled by the US itself as a crusade to spread democracy and take it to extreme, is explicitly a violation of universal law. Since then, Afghanistan has come under war cripples and bloodshed conflicts, which plunge itself further into the abyss.

In short, whether a nation should be entitled the right to intervene in other countries' domestics depends on the moral aspect of the intervening acts. At one end of the spectrum any attempts to improve a country's welfare and promote its prosperity should be welcomed and sufficiently supported, while against-the-morality undertakings must be totally banned from fruition. (388 words)

There is no need to overstate the discussion topic in the task 2 essay. The examiner is just looking for a quick interpretation of the topic and an even quicker combined opinion and thesis sentence. The emotional or analytical discussion should not be contained in this paragraph. The overstatement in this case went into an expression and explanation of the writer's opinion already. It is misplaced.

A thorough discussion was provided to the point of the simple discussion getting lost in the essay. The writer has not provided an everyday opinion, which is the requirement of the task. The words used are not that of everyday consideration either. Though the words used are intellectual, it does not apply to the task expectations. This is just an everyday conversation, it was turned into a UN speech by the writer. Totally forgetting his target audience and expected word usage.

Task 2 essays have simple requirements:
1. Keep it short and clear between 250-300 words
2. Use conversational English
3. Write for the target audience