An unjust contemporary world

The POST, Sun, Jul,08, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Life of an individual within a state is far more regulated than the case of a state in the contemporary international world. If an individual commits a crime within a state and apprehended, the state awards the punishment after the due process of trial and appeal is completed. Compared to an individual, if a state within the operative international system commits aggression against another state and if it is a powerful state, the chances are that it would be not be punished for the crime it has committed as the incumbent system does not have mechanism to punish the violator of the system. 

We live in a world in which states have to ultimately fall back upon their own strength for their defense and highhandedness. Admittedly there are universal bodies and a network of treaties to regulate the behavior and attitude of states, the hard fact is that no amount of generally accepted legal norms and rules could deter a powerful state from undertaking the course it chooses to follow. 

The sates are governed by individuals whose biases and prejudices against individuals, groups, religions and states are frequently reflected in their attitudes and policies. Even the individuals who are entrusted with responsibilities also rarely hide their preferences. In developed countries such individuals invariably try to portray themselves as principled and balanced. Apart from few individuals, the experiences indicate that a vast majority only pay lip service to principles and balanced approaches. For instance Baroness Emma Nicholson’s extremely biased report on Kashmir is a good example of such individuals. There was a time when members of English nobility were known for their principled approaches but now they have become rare commodities. 

The contemporary world consists of nation states and each state is following what it considers best for its national interests. There is no doubt that the enhancement and the security of national interest is the cardinal principle of international relations. The national interests of two states could be identical or could clash with each other. A third category is in which the interests of the two states are complimentary. If the interests are identical, the states are likely to be friendly and if the interests are complimentary even then the relations would be normal but if the interests are clashing then the chances are that states would be hostile towards each other. 

It really does not matter whether a state is developed and known to be an important active actor in the existing anarchic incumbent international system or a developing country, in the ultimate analysis the state would follow the dictates of its own national interests. Perhaps that is why one frequently comes across policies full of contradictory stances which are often referred by many as double standards. 

By and large almost all states adhere to the generally accepted civilized norms but when any one of them is confronted with a crisis situation irrespective of developed or developing states, the behavior and policy pursuits change and actively brought in line with the requirements of one’s own national interests which may entail double standards. 

Double standards are frequently demonstrated by many western countries. For example the human rights violations are often reported in different parts of the world and if the victim happens to be from one of the western country, all sorts of noises are aired whereas if the victim happens to be from a developing country, the intensity and frequency of critical voices are markedly limited. For example everybody knows about the grave and repeatedly human rights violations in the Indian Held Kashmir by the Indian security forces yet one does not come across sustained criticism from western governments. Admittedly some human rights watch organizations try to project but the official policies continue to remain extremely muted. 

Double standards are also the product of inbuilt biases and prejudices against other religious and ethnic groups. Most European countries have had colonies in various parts of the world and exploited the resources of those colonies during their colonial rule including the import of cheap labor for their own industries. In addition, all of the European colonialists treated the local population more like subordinates and second class citizens in their own countries-an attitude that still persists even long after the attainment of independence by those colonial states. Labor and immigrants from former colonies are still not being accepted as equals though their leaders continuously and consistently pay lip service. 

Another feather in the caps of former colonialist countries is the injection of racism. Racism indeed amounts to introducing caste system within the human beings. While admitting the color of blood is same under different colored skin, many of individuals and groups among the former colonial masters find it difficult to accept the changed environment and blatantly exhibit their biases. 

The tragic events of 9/11 along with the war on terrorism have not only transformed the global environment but also, in many ways, facilitated the inbuilt biases to openly manifest in one form or the other. For example, many Muslims from various former colonies are settled in UK and some of them are probably product of fourth or fifth generation yet when any adverse development or event takes place and if one of the suspect happens to be a member of these long settled immigrant communities, the media projection would focus on the country of origin rather than acknowledging him as a member of deprived British communities. Even the sins that are really the product of their own ill thought out policies are attributed to the immigrants’ original country. 

The environment that has emerged after the 9/11 is pointed against the Islamic countries and efforts are frequently manifest to hold Islamic countries as responsible for terrorism. One does not hear much about Israeli or Indian state terrorism. The American policy pursuits in Iraq and Afghanistan raise lots of questions among the Muslims all around the world. The current denial policy towards Iran with the objective of discouraging Iranian efforts to build their own nuclear capability for peaceful purposes is another controversial issue. 

One can make a long list of Western countries policies of double standards, paradoxes and contradictory stances but this would not help us. Perhaps what needs to be realized is that one should act in accordance with dictates of its own national interests and realize that in the ultimate analysis each country will have to depend upon its own abilities. The alliance and friendship with others is a temporary phenomenon which are the product changing environment. What one needs to recognize is that we live in an unjust world in which each state is looking after its own interests irrespective of accepted principles or guideline of universal organizations. Lip service to high and might principles will continue to be paid especially by the developed and powerful countries.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.