RE: National Sovereignty

Charles Reid and Pat Gunning are engaged in a debate about national
sovereignty and human rights which, I think, misplaces the real issue.
There's no doubting the importance of both, national sovereignty and human
rights. Both are enshrined in different treaties like the UN Charter. There
has not been up until recently any major conflict between both. What has
changed is the alleged 'right of humanitarian intervention'. This is a new
thing in international law and needs to be analyzed in all its implications
before accepting it. So the basic contradiction here is between that new
'right of humanitarian intervention' and national sovereignty. National
sovereignty presupposes two further precepts: the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and the right to
self-determination.The U.S., for example, has been extremely jealous in the
protection of the principle of non-intervention in its internal affairs,
while disregarding that same principle when dealing with other states.

That national sovereignty (and sovereign equality) should not be tampered
with by the way of intervention is based in a long tradition that results
from the fact that when others interfere in the internal affairs of another
state, it has brought negative results for the countries where the
intervention has taken place. In the past, Cuba, Dominican Republica, Haiti,
Nicaragua, Vietnam, Congo, Chile, have been the object of different kinds of
intervention with atrocious consequences. That is why national sovereignty,
and non-intervention, are principles that should be respected. The new
'right of humanitarian intervention' would bring about the demise of these
principles already established and lead the international system down a road
that would be catstrophic.

Intervention is not something new in international relations. If it has been
rejected in the past and the principle of non-intervention enshrined in
international pacts and covenants it is for very good reasons. The
intervening powers have always alleged a higher moral standard or a higher
principle, but that has not always been the case. Small countries cannot
accept that a new 'right of humanitarian intervention' be established
because it opens the way for the abuse of big powers. It might be alleged
that big powers will abuse small ones anyway, but at least when they do it
they know they are violating international law and the agrieved state can
appeal to the international community.

Best regards,

Carlos Alzugaray
calzugaray@minrex.gov.cu