 | This articlecontainstoo many or overly lengthy quotations. Please helpsummarise the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations toWikiquote or excerpts toWikisource.(May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Apariah state (also called aninternational pariah or aglobal pariah) is a nation considered to be an outcast in theinternational community. A pariah state may faceinternational isolation,sanctions or even aninvasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence unacceptable.
Until the past few centuries, the authority to designate a nation as an outcast, or pariah state, was relatively clear, often resting with religious authorities (e.g., "theOttoman Empire for example was regarded as an outcast by European states" from theTreaty of Westphalia in 1648 until the nineteenth century on a "religious basis.").[1][2] In more recent times, however, the criteria for and attached implications of pariah statehood, as well as the designating authorities, are the subject of much disagreement. For example, the Nigerian scholar Olawale Lawal has stated:[3]
There are so many open questions on the issue of Pariah State. For instance who determines a Pariah State and how a nation becomes a Pariah State... This becomes more profound when one realizes that a nation that is an outcast in one region, has diplomatic and friendly relations with others.
By some criteria, nations can be considered pariahs within their own neighborhood of surrounding states. By other criteria, an international body (such as theUnited Nations) or perhaps a consensus among certain nations may govern the meaning or use of the term.[3]
The word "pariah" derives fromParaiyar, a large indigenous tribal group of theIndian state ofTamil Nadu. Under the Indian caste system, the Paraiyar were members of the lowest caste, which were called the "outcastes".[4] Since its first recorded use in English in 1613, cultures worldwide have accepted the term "pariah" to mean "outcast".[5]
A pariah state, defined in its simplest terms, is an outcast state.[3] This is not a new term in the lexicon ofInternational Relations, nor is it a new historical concept.[3] What is new, however, is what Lawal refers to as "the basis for Pariahood appellation."[3] Other definitions have been advanced that expand this basis (see next section below), or perhaps add more academic nuance, which may vary by author or the author's field of study. These definitions are here grouped into two categories: definitions focusing on thelack (ordisadvantage) the pariah state objectivelysuffers from, and definitions focusing on the politicaljustification - given by other nations - for why that pariah state "deserves" their extraordinary attitude towards it.
The first type of definitions is well exemplified by Bellany's definition, according to which a pariah state is "A state lacking any significantsoft power."[6]Similarly,The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations defines the pariah states as "international States/actors which, by virtue of their political systems, ideological postures, leadership or general behavior, suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium."[7] This definition, as the previous one, does not indicate what kind of political system, ideological posture, leadership or general behavior, is ascribed to the pariah state by the other nations.
The second type of definitions is most simply exemplified by Weiss's definition, according to which pariah states are "states thatviolate international norms."[1] Similarly, Harkavy offers, "A Pariah State is one whoseconduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior."[8] Geldenhuys gives a more detailed definition of that type: "A pariah (or outcast) country is one whosedomestic or international behaviour seriously offends the world community or at least a significant group of states."[9] Marks's definition elaborates more: a pariah state is "a state withprovocative policies orexpansionary territorial ambitions, measures of the absence ofdiplomatic relations with neighboring states or the situational harm posed to other states if the state in question acquirednuclear weapons."[10]
As of August 2014, no internationally accepted criteria exist for designating a nation as a pariah state, nor is there any single accepted authority for doing so. Some criteria are proposed in the definitions offered in the previous section. For example, Harkavy and Marks make reference in their definitions to the international behavior of a nation in order to qualify it for pariahood.[8] Marks goes one step further and includes the question of nuclear weapons in his criteria,[10] while Weiss adds "a state’s defiant existence in the face of international non-recognition.".[1] However, Bellany's sole criterion is a lack ofsoft power,[6] while thePenguin Dictionary of International Relations requires that the pariah states also "suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium".[7]
Left-wing political commentator and activistNoam Chomsky declared in 2003 and again in 2014 that theUnited States had become a pariah state. Both declarations were based on both the United States's leading violation of international laws and results fromGallup polls showing that only 10 percent of people around the world supported theIraq War and that 24 percent of people in the world believed the United States represented the greatest threat to world peace.[11][12] Such poll results are not listed among objective criteria advanced by academic sources, international authorities or NGOs, or any governing bodies as criteria for designation as a pariah state, and Geldenhuys argues that major world powers by definition cannot be pariah states because they cannot be isolated or harmed politically or economically, or brought into compliance with international norms by pariah designations, whether by individuals or international governing bodies.[9]Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at theUniversity of Notre Dame, explains that there has been a decline in the respect towards international law in the United States from our highest government officials to the person on the street because of the misunderstood belief that the laws are in practice not enforceable.[13]
Lawal distinguishes between subjective and objective designations. Subjective designation can also exist on a national level, according to the interests and values of the designating nation. If the designating nation is powerful enough, the designation of pariah statehood can become objective based on the amount of pressure the designating state can apply to gain internationalconsensus. Such was the case, according to Lawal, when the United States used its strength within theWestern Bloc to impose pariah status onFidel Castro'sCuba instead of acting unilaterally throughforeign policy, with no objective need to impose international pariah status. Lawal explains that the United States' problem with Cuba was geographical more than ideological, as Cuba was no further from the United States on thepolitical spectrum than theSoviet Union was at the time, but the Soviets had attempted to establishnuclear missile launch facilities in Cuba, within 99 miles (159 km) of the United States coastline.[3]
Lawal has summarized four primary categories often used for qualification as pariah states: 1) nations that possess or use weapons of mass destruction in contravention of existing treaties, 2) nations that support terrorism, 3) nations lacking democracy, and 4) nations with a record of human rights violations.[3] To these four criteria, Geldenhuys adds another two: 5) nations that promote radical ideologies at home or even abroad (clarified as "exporting revolution"), and 6) nations that commit acts of military aggression abroad.[9] In addition to these six categories of state conduct that can result in objective designation as a pariah state, Geldenhuys suggests a seventh category that might gain international consensus: nations that are involved in international drug trafficking.[note 1]
According to Lawal,international law can serve as objective criteria. For example, nations that violate theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are often sanctioned for their actions. Such sanctions can include designation as a pariah state, as has been the approach used by the United States.[3][note 2] However, international law can fail in this regard, as under the current international system, most nation-states recognize their own legal supremacy over the laws of any international governing body. Thus, according to Lawal, consensus under international law can be problematic. In the case of nuclear arms development, international isolation can have a paradoxical "push effect" on a pariah state, motivating accelerated development of nuclear weapons.[3] As of 2012, there was no provision in international law for pariah status.[3]
Geldenhuys has identified four common characteristics shared by many pariah states that are unrelated to any actions of international deviance that might have qualified them as pariahs under the various criteria.
The first is that pariah states tend to lack a strong national identity. Geldenhuys cites Iraq as an example. Iraq is a relatively young nation-state with "artificial borders."Saddam Hussein's rulingBa'ath Party denied that Iraqis formed a nation. Rather, they maintained that Iraqis (excludingKurds[14]) were part of a largerArab nation.[9]
The second characteristic is that, although they are not necessarily small, pariah states cannot be "regarded as amajor power in world terms." Certainly there are individuals who disagree with this second characteristic, such as Noam Chomsky (cited above) and author-journalistRobert Parry,[15] each of whom has applied his own personal criteria to describe the United States as a pariah state.
The third characteristic noted by Geldenhuys is that pariah states tend to develop asiege mentality. Similar to the "push effect" (described above regarding sanctions against nations developingnuclear arms), this siege mentality can motivate pariah states to develop costly and ambitious arms programs.
Finally, pariah states tend to develop resentments against the established world order. They may seek to subvert the internationalstatus quo. These characteristics are presented as generalizations and are not intended by the author to apply to every pariah state.[9]
Some countries have been described as pariah states in various publications and analyses due to numerous factors, including human rights abuses and violations of international laws.[16]
People's Republic of China (1949–present): China is sometimes regarded as a pariah state by some countries, especially for its human rights abuses particularlly inTibet andXinjiang as well as an authoritarian approach to government, especially underXi Jinping's rule.[17][better source needed]. There is also concerns of its aggressive foreign policy, such as with its ongoing disputes withHong Kong andTaiwan as well as its support for isolated regimes (such asNorth Korea), and furthermore for its lack of transparency and global cooperation (especially during theCOVID-19 pandemic) and as a result had been accused of widespread espionage.[18]
Union of South Africa (1961–1994): South Africa was widely regarded as a pariah state during most of the latter half of the 20th century, stemming from itsapartheid policy. Upon seceding from theCommonwealth and ending its status as a realm in 1961, South Africa came under wide-ranging economic and trade sanctions alongside a mandatory United Nations arms embargo from 1977. Following the release ofNelson Mandela, the legalization of theAfrican National Congress and the firstdemocratic elections in 1994, South Africa's status as a pariah state gradually faded.[19]
Islamic Republic of Iran (1979–present): Since its formation following theIranian Revolution, Iran has been described as a pariah state due to its confrontationalforeign policy towards Western and Gulf countries. This policy led to an international isolation campaign by the United States and Gulf countries against the Iranian government. One particular concern was the possibility that theIslamic revolution could be exported toSaudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies.[20] Attempts by Iran to rehabilitate its international reputation following theIran–Iraq War, including restoring relations with several Arab countries and releasingWestern hostages held by Iran-backed militias inLebanon, were shelved due to several diplomatic crises, including the relapse of a territorial dispute between Iran and theUnited Arab Emirates regarding theAbu Musa andGreater and Lesser Tunbs, as well as theSatanic Verses controversy in whichAyatollahRuhollah Khomeini issued afatwa calling for a bounty against British novelistSalman Rushdie.[21]
Israel (1948–present) has been regarded as a pariah state by some analysts due to the ongoingGaza war withHamas. TheIsraeli invasion of the Gaza Strip during the Gaza war faced international condemnation, including from several Western allies and international organizations,[specify] and was accused of committingwar crimes andgenocide and producing ahumanitarian crisis. According toThe Economist and Australian journalistLaura Tingle, Israel risked becoming a pariah or arogue state due to its military actions in Gaza.[22][23][24] Similarly, theSix-Day War followed strained relations due to thePalestinian refugee issue and Israeli involvement in theSuez Crisis in Egypt.[25]
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977–2011):Muammar Gaddafi'sforeign policy led to international sanctions against Libya due to its support for left-wing and separatist militias and its alleged involvement in the bombing ofPan Am Flight 103.[citation needed] An oil embargo was also imposed in 1982 by theadministration of Ronald Reagan.[26] In 1986, the Reagan administration accused Libya of funding theWest Berlin discotheque bombing, which killed two American service members stationed in West Berlin and subsequently fostered abombing campaign against Libya.[27] Gaddafi later normalized relations with major Western countries during the early 21st century amid thewar on terror, pledging todismantle Libyan weapons of mass destruction.[28] His pledge was subsequently hyped by Western governments as a model of disarmament forSyria, Iran, and North Korea.[29][30]
Myanmar (1962–present): Since 1962, Myanmar has been ruled by severalstratocracies beginning with that ofNe Win, who imposed martial law and nationalized many companies operating in the country. Ne Win also imposed a policy of self-isolation from the outside world, which later backfired as the isolation bankrupted the country and saw the rise ofblack market andsmuggling operations.[31] After the8888 Uprising, GeneralSaw Maung led another coup and cracked down on democratic opposition figures, leading to strained relations with the United States.[32][33] The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, which was passed by the US government and signed in 2003 by PresidentGeorge W. Bush, imposed broader sanctions against Myanmar and froze junta-linked assets, while theEuropean Union also imposed sanctions with the exception ofhumanitarian aid.[34][35] Relations with Myanmar'sASEAN neighbours were also strained during this period.[36] International sanctions were eased following a series of democratic reforms in the 2010s and the release of pro-democracy leaderAung San Suu Kyi, but they were reimposed after the2021 coup d'état.[37][38][39]
North Korea (1948–present) has been widely described as a pariah state due to its international isolation and authoritarian governance.Kim Il Sung pursued cooperation with otherEastern Bloc countries such as theSoviet Union,China, andCuba during his leadership of North Korea.[40] After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, North Korea experienced afamine which was also exacerbated byinternational sanctions imposed during theKorean War.[41] AfterKim Dae-jung launched theSunshine Policy, theClinton administration began to ease sanctions and sent humanitarian aid.[42] International sanctions were reimposed after North Korea began conductingnuclear tests underKim Jong Il and his successorKim Jong Un.[42][43][44][45]
Russia (2022-present): Widely regarded as a pariah state, especiallysince its war with Ukraine and eventual invasion and as a result had faced several sanctions and diplomatic ties cut[46] along with itsannexation of Crimea in 2014 and claims of repeated electoral interference and that as long asVladimir Putin remains in power, the country will always be considered a pariah state.[47][48] Even before that (and during theSoviet Union era), Russia had always been isolated and distrusted by Western countries, with this dating back for over a century.[49]
Ba'athist Syria (1979–2024): Since the1963 Syrian coup d'état that brought theSyrian Ba'ath Party to power,Hafez al-Assad instituted a repressive regime that attempted to make Syria a leading actor in theArab world and take a hardline stance against Israel. Syria's support forPalestinian militant groups andHezbollah and itsmilitary occupation of Lebanon caused it to be placed on the US list ofState Sponsors of Terrorism in 1979.[50][51] Following the outbreak of theSyrian civil war in 2011, Hafez's son and successorBashar al-Assad employedchemical warfare and brutal suppression, leading to a growing international coalition against Assad and support for theSyrian opposition, withTurkey, theArab League, theEuropean Union, theUnited States, and severalWestern nations recognizing theSyrian National Coalition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.[51] Following thefall of the Assad regime in 2024, the US, UK, and EU lifted all sanctions on theSyrian transitional government.[52][53]The failure of the International Atomic Energy Agency, South Korea, and the United States to resolve the crisis in a timely manner and the tightening of sanctions against the country constituted an important background condition for the famine.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)