"Niet" Tchernenko answered
Mitterand when the latter hinted a word of Sakharov's
case. This "no" was a perfect example of
the principle of non-intervention in a State"s Home
affairs.
What did Pinochet or Sekou Touré do ? What did
some "democratic" countries, for example France during
the war in Algeria or Germany during the time of
"Arbeitverbot" and many other countries do ? Same
answer.
Does this not administer the proof that the wall of
the unconditional national sovereignty which is the
rampart erected for the building of every State,
prohibits any exterior intervention that would allow
control of the respect of human rights ?
Sakharov's family (as today hi is the "sample case"
… but, unhappily not the only one) think of
appealing to the U.N. What kind of intervention can the
U.N. undertake ? Can a meeting be arranged with Sakharov,
for instance ? Certainly not. What real power is the
U.N.'s ? None. But what organizations could be approached
? None. Not one is in existence. About this let us review
a few declaration :
René CASSIN, Peace Nobel prize, declared, on
12.14.1848, that "to limit the monstrous transgressions
of unconditional national sovereignty, the States have
not yet lost the repugnance they have towards
intervention, in their home affaires, of the
international community".
Gaston THORN, then the President of the Luxemburg
government, wrote in the daily "Le Monde" 12.10.76 : "The
final goal of what we undertake is the recognition and
the protecting at international level of the juridical
autonomy of the individual. We have not succeeded until
now because of the difficulty of reconciling the
principle of national sovereignty and the ideals
expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The solution of this delicate problem can only be found
if nations consent to transfer, freely and under precise
conditions, a quota of their sovereignty (until now
exclusively belonging to the Nations-State) to an
international authority".
Kurt WALDEIM, then the General Secretary of U.N., on
9.12.1977, also called into question Art. 2 Para 7 of the
U.N. Charter which stipulates that : "Nothing contained
in the present Charter shall authorize the U.N. to
intervene in matters that are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state".
Hence, how could it be possible to intervene within a
state unless that State accepts some curtailing of
national sovereignty which would allow a Supranational
World Institution to observe, on the spot, the respect or
the lack of respect for Human Rights.
