I'm using political concepts to think about a human problem (at least, potentially) that I seem to be seeing. Not going to identify that reservation I have.
1. Is neutrality always a virtue? Or is it better to intervene?
I'm inclined to believe that it's best to mind my own business. But as Balkan films like "Before the Rain" and "No Man's Land" will have you believe, neutrality can be judged as "taking sides" too. It is precisely because the UN practiced utter neutrality in the face of compelling evidence of genocide that saw the "ethnic cleansing" of Muslim Bosnians by the Serbs.
It then, becomes possible to argue that the UN is complicit in the tragedies of the Bosnian wars.
But I'd rather keep quiet. Because it is in my self-interest to do so (and yes I acknowledge that is being selfish, but I make no apologies). That is the classic "conspiracy of silence" among states as argued by Hedley Bull.
2. Even if intervention takes place, what is the rationale for it?
Well, I wonder if Australian change of policy towards East Timor in 1999 was because it was really interested in its self-determination, or it was so to dismember Indonesian political stability, or to project its new-found confidence in the region after the SEA economic crisis? Sounds to me like the latter two reasons.
Again, self-interest and a misguided sense of triumphalism.
Besides, in the realist world, disapproval counts for nothing. You need sanctions and political clout to negotiate a favourable settlement. And I have no carrots, no sticks, and certainly no influence. Well, at least, not much on this issue.
In conclusion, I'll keep quiet and hope that things will turn out fine.