The rise in the number of conflicts since the end of the Cold War and the rarely smooth establishment of a 'new world order' have meant 'the international community' more often considering intervention in situations which generally have their roots in decisions taken too late, sometimes in haste, and often rendered acceptable by media pressure. Intervention after the event is costly, all too often ineffective and in some cases leads to funds initially set aside for development being withdrawn for humanitarian aid, which is quite absurd in the context of resolving conflicts. Prevention means intervening before the streets are strewn with bodies and littered with cameras, which causes a public outcry. Prevention means persuading uninformed ministers to bring pressure to bear quietly, the ministers in question being, of course, ill-suited to the job, having no troops available, nor even a study of their own departments.
Successful prevention means seeing that nothing happens.
It is a guarantee that there will be no public commentary and consequently no political point-scoring. Since such scenarios are common, the European Union and its member governments are currently striving to improve their prevention record. This principle is underlined in Chapter I of the United Nations Charter. For this reason, the only avenue open to a particular state or international organisation wishing to bring about some effect inside an independent state is bilateral negotiation. The trick is to exert pressure on the country in question during negotiations in which the troubled or crisis-hit state is seeking some profit or advantage.