Model UN: Iran on Sovereignty and Right of Intervention

In the name of the Iranian government, we would like to declare our standpoint in response to the motion about national sovereignty and the right of intervention of a country; we do not, in most part, agree with the idea of external intervention in one country’s domestic affairs.

            First of all, the sovereignty of each country should be strongly respected. In this regard, no country can intervene in another country’s internal issues, including ones of Iran. The respect of one’s sovereignty is also clearly stated in international law, as well as domestic law of most states. The Charter of UN stated about the respect of sovereignty in the article 2, Chapter 1 as, “The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.”  The constitution of all countries in the world always values the sovereignty of their own; therefore, sovereignty has to be respected all over the world, and the right of intervention should be very limited.

            Indeed, one of the most obvious reasons why sovereignty of each nation is given such importance is that people in a country is certainly the ones who best know and understand the internal situation and thus are capable of creating the most appropriate resolution for their country’s benefits. Accordingly, foreign agents, who do not even have any profound experience in the country, can never be as good a problem solver.

            In addition, we Iranian government believe that intervention has never been the most viable approach to problems in a country in crisis. It may do more bad than good, as seen in the history of some countries, two of which are Iraq and our country herself, Iran. Several decades ago, in Iran, the Shah, which was given the military support by the CIA of the US, was a horrible government; it was “oppressive, corrupt, and extravagant.” The Shah’s regime was so bad that it led to the Iranian Revolution by the Ayatollahs and was finally overthrown in 1979. After the revolution, maybe because of the support of CIA to the Shah, Iran became later the strongly anti-US country. This opposition against the US is what most probably led to many acts of terrorism against the US, which have brought about considerable amount of trouble to the welfare of the world. Supposing the US had not got involved in the Shah, these brutal acts of terrorism against humanity, such as one taking place in 9/11, might not have arisen. Besides, regarding the current bitter war in Iraq, in which the US military intervetion has played a big part, over 5 years has passed but the war is still going on, without any peaceful end in prospect. This plainly proves the US intervention to be such a wrong act, which should never be allowed by the UN again.

            Anyway, we do not agree with imposing economic sanction policy on a country. Economic sanction does not profoundly figures in putting pressure on the government of that country. In contrast, economic sanction can be really harmful to the citizens of that country because, with such sanction, the poor could not get benefits from, for example, domestic economic operations, such as international trade, and financial support to the country, while high ranking people in the government are still living in luxury.

            On the other hand, in some circumstances, intervention may be used as the last resort for the welfare of general people. For example, a country is being attacked by another country in a way that lives of the citizens are badly threatened. In this case, while many people are being killed in the combat, international intervention may be required to prevent the right to live of the people. In addition, if the government of that country commits a serious crime, transfering its country into a killing field like the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, the United Nations may use military intervention into that country and protect the life of the people there. However, this intervention should only be done by the international organization, which is not controlled by any particular country. We support only necessary intervention from the United Nations—the intervention that is really indispensible to the survival of the people.

            We can see that even though both the invaded and the invading countries can suffer from the impacts of intervention. For example, the war in Iraq does not result in a better condition of both the United States and Iraq. The social security of Iraq is not in control and there are a lot of bombings in Iraq. In other words, many American people are tired of war and get to hate their own government. The US and other involved nations have wasted a lot of money on war, and many soldiers have lost their lives. Hense, these past intervention and violation of a nation’s sovereignty were the precious experience to learn from in guiding us, all nations in the world, away from the same mistakes, in order for a more peaceful and prosperous future. The right of intervention must certainly, without a shadow of doubt, be limited.             

Reference:

The Charter of the United Nation.

­­­

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Iranian Revolution. 16 July 2008, <http://en.wikipedia.org>.

By: Luu Tu Anh, Samrith Kuch Vutha, & Yi Longdy