“Non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be a rule of international law: is it still?” was intended to be rhetorical. There is no doubt that the principle of non-intervention remains well-established in contemporary international law. It is part of customary international law, as the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed on a number of occasions. And it is also reflected in many treaties, such as the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. While not expressly set out in the UN Charter, it is generally held to be implicit in various of its provisions, in particular the principle of the sovereign equality of States (Article 2.1). It was of course included in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration.
The International Court dealt with intervention in its very first case, Corfu Channel. Twenty years later, as we have already seen, the Court expounded on the principle of non-intervention in its 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua case: “The principle of nonintervention [so said the Court] involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference; though examples of trespass against this principle are not infrequent, the Court considers that it is part and parcel of customary international law. […] international law requires political integrity […] to be respected” (para. 202). The Court went on to say that “the principle forbids all States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other States” and that “a prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones. […] the element of coercion […] defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention” (para. 205). The Court also dealt with the principle of non-interference in its judgment of 19
REGARDLESS, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not tolerate anyone getting in the way of Iran’s nuclear program, therefore, he is actively seeking to make sure that PM Netanyahu loses the upcoming March election.
In this warning, the Iranian official introduced two new features: Tehran has never before set red lines for Israeli military action; neither have the Iranians ever admitted to relaying a warning to Israel through Washington – at least not in public.
SIMILARLY, his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia is set in stone, therefore, he sabotages anyone who points out the obvious – its Islamic terror apparatus! Well, too damn bad.
NOT only that, but his full-on shield extends to CAIR, even though it has been designated a terror org by the UAE!
ALAS, America’s Chief Muslim Brotherhood collaborator NEVER takes a break…
The State Department (in the latter part of Jan. 2015) hosted a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders this week for a meeting about their ongoing efforts to oppose the current government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who rose to power following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, an ally of the Brotherhood, in 2013.
One member of the delegation, a Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom in which he held up the Islamic group’s notorious four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.
That delegation member, Waleed Sharaby, is a secretary-general of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and a spokesman for Judges for Egypt, a group reported to have close ties to the Brotherhood.
Sharaby, the Brotherhood-aligned judge, flashed the Islamist group’s popular symbol in his picture at the State Department and wrote in a caption: “Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone,” according to an independent translation of the Arabic.
Another member of the delegation, Maha Azzam, confirmed during an event hosted Tuesday by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID)—another group accused of having close ties to the Brotherhood—that the delegation had “fruitful” talks with the State Department.
Assam also said that the department expressed openness to engagement, according to one person who attended the event.
Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), told the Washington Free Beacon that the State Department is interested in maintaining a dialogue with the Brotherhood due to its continued role in the Egyptian political scene.
“The State Department continues to speak with Muslim Brothers on the assumption that Egyptian politics are unpredictable, and the Brotherhood still has some support in Egypt,” he said. “But when pro-Brotherhood delegations then post photos of themselves making pro-Brotherhood gestures in front of the State Department logo, it creates an embarrassment for the State Department.”
When asked to comment on the meeting Tuesday evening, a State Department official said, “We meet with representatives from across the political spectrum in Egypt.”
The official declined to elaborate on who may have been hosted or on any details about the timing and substance of any talks.
Samuel Tadros, an Egypt expert and research fellow at the Hudson Institute who is familiar with the delegation, said that the visit is meant to rally support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing efforts against to oppose Sisi.
“I think the Muslim Brotherhood visit serves two goals,” Tadros said. “First, organizing the pro Muslim Brotherhood movement in the U.S. among the Egyptian and other Arab and Muslim communities.”
“Secondly, reaching out to administration and the policy community in D.C.,” Tadros said. “The delegation’s composition includes several non-official Muslim Brotherhood members to portray an image of a united Islamist and non-Islamist revolutionary camp against the regime.”
The delegation held several public events this week in Maryland and Virginia, according to invitations that were sent out.
Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter, said the powwow at the State Department could be a sign that the Obama administration still considers the Brotherhood politically viable, despite its ouster from power and a subsequent crackdown on its members by Egyptian authorities.
“What this shows is that the widespread rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East, particularly the largest protests in recorded human history in Egypt on June 30, 2013, that led to Morsi’s ouster, is not recognized by the State Department and the Obama administration,” Poole said.
“This is a direct insult to our Egyptian allies, who are in an existential struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood, all in the pursuit of the mythical ‘moderate Islamists’ who the D.C. foreign policy elite still believe will bring democracy to the Middle East,” Poole said…..
MEMO to all who directly, indirectly or otherwise support Islamic jihad: henceforth, you will be coined “Allah’s Muslim Terrorists” aka “AMT”!
WHAT’S the upshot? Well, as often stated, politicians, media mouthpieces, academics and assorted blowhards (most of whom have zero knowledge base about Islam, Shariah Law, Islamic jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia et al.) keep confusing the public with this and that group name.
NOW, who gives a damn which name they slaughter “infidels” under, after all, dead is dead! But what does matter is they all do it under the banner of Islam, and to satiate their pagan, Allah.
BOTTOM LINE: Obama Inc. IS a terror supporting admin, therefore, they qualify as this site’s first inductees as “Allah’s Muslim Terrorists”.
MIND you, one doesn’t have to mix the bomb ingredients or wield the beheading knife to rate on this newly inaugurated list. Again, one has to lend Islamic jihadists aid, be it material-wise, succor or assistance in covering their tracks – their group name matters not a whit.
HOW many road maps are required to understand that the enemy within is leading America?