|
|
| International Human Rights and Political Realism in the 21st Century |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
A deterrence mechanism, which would act to restrain Hussein from violating Kuwait’s national borders, did not exist. As a result, the world witnessed a foreseeable, brutal invasion of a weak, oil-rich country by its powerful, and bankrupt, neighbor. Hussein’s invasion, which in itself violated fundamental human rights of the people of Kuwait, created leeway for a situation, which could be exploited for the benefit of the powerful states, which participated in mounting a military attack against Iraq. The benefit, which will be alluded to here, is what scholars of international relations have referred to as ‘degree of proximity’. This concept asserts that powerful states have decisive interests in attaining, and maintaining a level of geographic adjacency to other states, which are of significant strategic importance. Having this in mind, it is undoubtedly stark that the U.S., which led the coalition against Iraq in 1990, would have an interest in acquiring degree of proximity to Russia, Israel and Iran, through a consequential military presence in Iraq. Scholars such as Goldstein have correctly asseverated that significant political and economic leverage can be exerted upon surrounding states, once degree of proximity has been achieved. It seems clear that such leverages have indeed been exercised upon such states as Pakistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan in light of recent American demands aimed at waging ‘war on terror’. It is important to attribute this to the justification that powerful states, such as the U.S., have employed to account for their actions. To relate this to the point in question, such justifications emanate from the success of international human rights norms in the normative realm, yet facilitate a failure in the empirical realm.
Aside from the case of Iraq, which illustrates an instance of commission, it is noteworthy to allude to the case relevant to Israel, which illustrates omission. The terms used here refer to the action, in the case of Iraq, and the inaction, in the case of Israel, to protect human rights as decreed by U.N. Resolutions. As before, instances of omission need to be carefully observed, keeping in mind the desire of powerful states to actualize their national interests. Between 1955 and 1992, sixty-five U.N. Resolutions have been passed in relation to Israel’s adamant violation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, which it occupies. Amongst these has been Resolution 726, which has strongly condemned Israel’s illegal deportation of countless Palestinians. Israel’s illegal act of deportation unquestionably defies the economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinians, which were deported, and in turn, undoubtedly requires enforcement. However, unlike the case alluded to earlier, Israel’s disregard and defiance of such constitutive human rights have been avoided by omission. Despite Israel’s ignorance of the sixty-five Resolutions passed condemning its actions and demanding that the state conform to universalized human rights norms, no substantial action, which would act as enforcement, has been taken as a response. Once more, this case serves as an example of the politicization of the invaluable concept of the protection of human rights. It would be accurate to conclude that it would be in the best interests of powerful members of the Security Council, such as the U.S. and the U.K. not to act, when a state of strategic significance, such as Israel, has defied human rights laws. This strategic significance, which is owed to Israel, derives from advantageous economic and political ties, which it shares with powerful members of the U.N. The two powerful states, which have been mentioned, have indicative political ties with Israel, and to initiate military action against such an ally would unequivocally jeopardize those ties.
Such ties, which are mutually beneficial, extend into the economic realm as well. Israel remains one of the most valuable of America’s trading partners, and hence plays an influential role in the perpetuation of American interests in continuing a profitable economic relationship. According to credible sources, the U.S. is Israel’s largest single country trading partner, as Israel dominates 23% of its import market. Sources also illustrate that the trade between the two states summed up to $21 billion in 2001. Such figures are indicative of the significant economic relations between the two states, and lay the foundation for explicating blatant inaction, despite Israel’s defiance of international human rights laws. Such explications can be attributed to the political and economic interests in preserving beneficial relations with states, which have strategic importance. Furthermore, an American-led coalition aiming to force Israel to comply to any one of the sixty-five Resolutions demanding “immediate and unconditional” action from the Israeli state would be threatening to the beneficial relations between the two sides. Hence, one becomes witness to omission, or refraining from action, which in turn acts as yet another example of the failure of human rights norms to be administered in the empirical realm.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Nima Shirali
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
