Non-interference does not mean non-concern

Oct 05, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Non-interference in the internal affairs of a state is a principle of international law. It prohibits foreign states from interfering or intervening in the domestic affairs of another state either through the use of force or through direct influence.
This principle, unlike what was suggested in a recent editorial in another newspaper, is not unrelated to the concepts of territorial integrity and sovereignty. In fact, non-interference is sourced to those concepts.
State sovereignty, as understood in international law, refers to the unchallengeable authority, which a state has over its geographic space and the people who reside in that space. In terms of states, the area covered by that jurisdiction is the same as that that which is considered its official territory.
Non-interference means that a foreign state must not become involved in matters, which fall within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. Non-interference is thus is related to the exercise of sovereignty and also to the concept of territorial integrity.
Non-interference prohibits other states from using force over another state or any part of its territory of its people. It also prevents an external state from seeking to influence internal conflicts within that state such as taking sides during times of civil strife.
Non-interference implies that no attempt should influence a state’s choice of its government, political, economic or social systems or its foreign policy.
If a foreign state raises concerns or imposes sanctions on another state for what is perceived to be lack of constitutional or democratic conduct, then that foreign state is not breaching the principle of non-interference.
The United States Embassy breached the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of Guyana when it sought to influence who would win the 2015 elections. It was interfering directly in deciding which party would exercise sovereignty over the territory of Guyana.
The US Embassy did not use force. It used covert measures, as it did in the 1960’s to topple the PPP. It was directly involved in seeking to influence the youth vote through the use of non-governmental organizations which it had a hand in establishing. The US also interfered through campaigns which it launched and which vanished after the APNU+AFC won office.
The United States embassy actions, in calling for the APNU+AFC government to comply with the Constitution and to hold free and fair elections, do not constitute interference in the internal affairs of Guyana. The United States is laying down an important principle which guides democratic behaviour and which determines its recognition and relations with other states. That principle is that the government must abide by democratic norms. Compliance with the Constitution is part of democratic governance.
This insistence by the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States does not constitute interference in the domestic affairs of Guyana. Guyana itself subscribes to those very principles as a signatory to a number of international agreements by its membership of international organisations.
Democracy is one of the core values of the Commonwealth. Member states are therefore obligated to respect constitutional rule and the right of their citizens to uphold free and fair elections.
The principle of non-interference does not prohibit a foreign state from imposing sanctions of condemning a state, which violates the human rights of its citizens. A foreign state has a right, on humanitarian ground to sanction or condemn such a state.
It is therefore necessary for foreign powers to make known their objection to the absence of constitutional rule in Guyana, especially if such a situation could have been avoided but was not. It would not be unconstitutional if sanctions were imposed on Guyana. It happened before, it is happening at present and it can happen again.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Latest News

Non-interference does not mean non-concern

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

National Indoor Recurve Archery tournament to shoot off from January...

GDF ‘A’ crowned GFF/Maid Marian Women’s Cup...

Harpy Eagles to bowl off practice games ahead of...

Former British Guiana footballer Alvin Geronimo...

Guyanese MMA star Harris set for octagon return...

GCF Calls Urgent Extraordinary General Meeting to...

Features/Columnists

Boxing should be banned

Forget Begging Rich Nations: Caribbean Countries Should Act to Save Themselves

2024 – more reflections

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Non-interference does not mean non-concern

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]