Interference in the internal affairs...

This is a discussion thread · 14 replies
1 2
sand:
The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign policies of other countries. But what does it really mean? After all, all relationships between countries must have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity?

Jan Sand
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Don Phillipson:
[nq:1]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign policies of other countries. But what does it really mean? After all, all relationships between countries must have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity?[/nq]
"Validity" means (mainly) correct conformity to the rules of logical inference: which seems unhelpful here as a way of ranking the use of this phrase.

There are real instances of "interference in the internal affairs of another country," most commonly in police matters. An American bounty hunter recently arrested in Mexico another American accused of financial crimes in the USA. This was deemed by Mexicans the arrogation of functions of the Mexican police.

-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) dphillipson(at)trytel.com
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
R F:
[nq:1]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign policies of other countries. But what does it really mean? After all, all relationships between countries must have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity?[/nq]
Sure it does, Sarge. For example, when The Man(hattan) forced Brooklyn to get rid of its lovely white-on-black street signs and adopt the bland Mainlander white-on-green, it was interfering in the internal affairs of the City of Brooklyn. (It should be noted that The Man also forced his own island residents to get rid of the traditional black-on-maize in favor of bland Mainlander white-on-green.)

BTW, Sarge, what color were the street signs in the various boroughs, or at least Manhattan and Brooklyn, back in your day? Based on some photographs I've seen, the nice big signs I grew up with were a postwar development, possibly not established till the early 'Sixties. But the older photos I've seen are all black-and-white.

The white-on-black scheme in Brooklyn was a symbol of racial integration and racial harmony, rather like the traditional New York black-and-white cookie, which I'm sure you remember, Sarge. The grave loss of these street signs, and The Man's imposition of a uniform Mainlander white-on-green color scheme for the whole city, are wounds from which I fear New York city will never recover.

Chicago's street signs are admirably large, but they're the typical bland Mainlander white-on-green so loved by The Man. Sometimes I feel that the US has become a rotten place (in which) to live.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
sand:
[nq:2]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign ... have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity?[/nq]
[nq:1]Sure it does, Sarge. For example, when The Man(hattan) forced Brooklyn to get rid of its lovely white-on-black street signs ... so loved by The Man. Sometimes I feel that the US has become a rotten place (in which) to live.[/nq]
Those eternal feelings of persecution should not be surrendered to. The uniformity of signage may have to do with the economics of a sign shop with no colonizing motivations intended. Relax.

Jan Sand
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Anna Skipka:
[nq:1]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign policies of other countries. But what does it really mean? After all, all relationships between countries must have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity? Jan Sand[/nq]
The UN Charter states that it is not acceptable for nations to interfere in the internal affairs of another soverign state. Such interference, in other words, is illegal, and can be read as a provocative act of war. In practice, this is taken to mean that Nation A can not send troops into Nation B simply because Nation A does not like the way Nation B is conducting its affairs within its own borders. On the other hand, once Nation B extends its nefarious activities an inch over the border, the phrase "internal affairs" no longer applies. For instance, if Nation B elects a homicidal madman who throws all the redheads in the country into concentration camps, this is an internal affair. If President Madman, flushed with his domestic successes, begins to round up the redheads in neighboring countries, this is no longer an internal affair.

Capiche?

-skipka
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Don Aitken:
[nq:2]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign ... to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity? Jan Sand[/nq]
[nq:1]The UN Charter states that it is not acceptable for nations to interfere in the internal affairs of another soverign state. Such interference, in other words, is illegal, and can be read as a provocative act of war.[/nq]
Actually, it doesn't say that at all. States interfere in each others' affairs all the time. The Charter deals with a hierarchy of situations; in order of increasing seriousness they are:

Situations which may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute. Disputes, the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security. Threats to the peace. Breaches of the peace. Acts of agression.

There is a provision (I.2.7) that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State". What this means is controversial (the US takes the view, typically, that what is and what is not within the domestic jurisdiction of the USA is a matter for the USA alone to determine; no other state accepts this). However, it limits the actions of the UN as an organisation, not those of other states.

-- Don Aitken
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Steve Hayes:
[nq:1]The phrase is frequently used by countries objecting to foreign policies of other countries. But what does it really mean? After all, all relationships between countries must have effects to be meaningful. Has the phrase any validity?[/nq]
Funny, I thought it was peculiar to pre-1994 South Africa, when politicians of the governing party were always saying "we will not tolerate any outside interference on our internal affairs."

I thought that since then it was confined to the militant pro-abortion lobby.

-- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Anna Skipka:
[nq:2] The UN Charter states that it is not acceptable ... and can be read as a provocative act of war.[/nq]
[nq:1]Actually, it doesn't say that at all. States interfere in each others' affairs all the time. The Charter deals with ... other state accepts this). However, it limits the actions of the UN as an organisation, not those of other states.[/nq]
While provision I.2.7 does not explicitly state that no nation shall intervene in the domestic (internal) affairs of another nation, it is taken by most member nations to affirm the UN's commitment to that principle. Much as the text of the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people") is taken by many people to affirm the individual's right to privacy in the US.

The fact is that the US insists upon the principle of non-interference in internal affairs when the question arises of other countries interfering in the US. In addition, the US feels it must couch its own acts of interference in a rhetoric of international threat and defense: either the dastards were exporting terrorism, spreading communism, massing troops on the border, pointing missiles, hoarding illegal weapons, or threatening foreigners and seizing their assets.

-skipka
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
R F:
[nq:1]Much as the text of the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, ... rights retained by the people") is taken by many people to affirm the individual's right to privacy in the US.[/nq]
I suppose many people do, but the courts find it in the 14th Amendment.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
Live chat
Registered users can join here