Western powers would not feel responsible for the domestic situation of a country. IGO's like the WTO, UN, and IMF were created to break down transnational borders and open the world to the floodgates of democracy. The most powerful nations, found within the UN Security Council, maintain a duty to the interests of all nations including their own, on the issue of world security, not domestic security. It is the issue of how states interact with each other, not what is going on within each respective state. When a domestic issue arises such as a coup de tat or any specific act of political terrorism, the UN addresses the threat to international security, if there is no threat there is no action. This system of checks and balances is in place not to bear responsibility nor act as a world government but a coalition to maintain international peace. When it comes to a specific domestic issue within a state, most Westerner's would agree that any infringement on sovereignty, or self-determination is just as bad as the issue taking place within the state.
The idea of self-determination is especially important to a dependency theorist. They would agree with Westerners on this right, and even the notion of sovereignty. But during a domestic situation, specifically in developing countries, a dependency theorist would place burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the "host" nation or nation. On the genocide in Rwanda, for example, a dependency theorist would argue that the killings were a direct result of the cycle of exploitation that was continually fueled by both Belgian and French interests. The interdependence between the economies of these powerful Western states and the weaker Rwandan state, is a direct link to who bears the burden. It is all a cycle. The foreign investment circulates and contributes not only to the dissent of the people, but it funds their rage. It provides the funds necessary for organization and weaponry thus providing the means necessary...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document