Sovereignty?

Iranian President incumbent, Ahmadinejad, to American president Obama (NY Times, June 25 2009):

"I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian people find out about it."

For those who aren't aware, Iran held Presidential elections on June 12. The projected winner of office, Mousavi, ended up losing by substantial numbers to Ahmadinejad. Since the election results, there have been riots and protests in the Iranian streets (where a woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, was shot to death). President Obama, as well as other European nations (Group of Eight), have rebutted against election results, encouraged lay Iranian dissension, and even suggested a recount of votes.

This scenario brings up an interesting point of discussion. What is sovereignty? Under what conditions is it to be empiritically upheld? Are there circumstances which merit sidestepping its ruling power?


























I'm reminded of our own American 2000 elections when Al Gore requested a recount of the votes cast in Florida, proclaiming it a Bush-red state by a margin of 577 votes. Dignitaries from across the globe recanted and disapproved of our American recount tactic (the Supreme Court later concurred with such opinions). What did we do? We, in brash rags-to-riches pride, ignored any international sentiments. We were just proclaiming and utilizing our sovereignty, right?

If we were aligned with our own acts of history, we wouldn't be abash at Ahmadinejad's blatant cheek-tuning to our requests. If Iran is indeed a sovereign nation, then to what degree must it acquiesce to our American requests? It is said that we aren't infringing, breaking the 'appropriate' line, because we are simply 'encouraging.' We're encouraging voters to exercise their peaceful protest rights despite the death of Nada Agha Soltan. I'm reminded of Hungary in 1956.

The Soviets were encamped within the Hungarian borders, and, beginning with students on October 23, rioting commenced. People were defying the communist regime. It's initiation was nationalistic in nature- songs played over loudspeakers, mantras of freedom floating in the young minds. A '16-point resolution' was read from a crowd of 200,000 in the town square outside the Hungarian parliment; one point requested was the departure of Soviet troops. The rioting was unsurpassingly bloody, and eventually ended with the death of 2,500 protestors, eventual deportation and excecution of 350, and Hungary's birghtest minds fleeing the country in numbers upward of 200,000.
How are we at all related to this uprising? The United States encouraged, just as Pres. Barack is encouraging today, colloquialists to demonstrate their opinions in the streets. We insinuated we'd offer our help if the uprisings did occure. The final 1956 Hungarian outcome: all American talk and no American aid. (I am NOT stating an opinion, just interesting history and supporting facts)

To pull this article together: does a sovereign nation, like Iran, deserve to conduct and secure its own Presidential election if coincident superpowers are reproving the election results and questioning the voting accuracy? Are outside nations entitled to encourage riots, as long as no 'actual' political action is taken? If we simply talk, encourage, and arbitrarily suggest a course of action, are we responsible for the consequences of said action? What level of appropriateness is ignoring, and even threatening,outside countries exerting actual or parleying influence? Is Iran right or wrong in going forward with the election results?...