Pariah state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
A pariah state (also called an international pariah or a global pariah) is a nation considered to
be an outcast in the international community. A pariah state may face international
isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or its very
existence unacceptable.

Contents

 1Background
 2Etymology
 3Definitions
 4Criteria for pariah statehood
o 4.1Subjective designation
o 4.2Objective designation
 5Common characteristics
 6See also
 7Notes
 8References

Background[edit]
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., "the Ottoman Empire for example
was regarded as an outcast by European States" since the Treaty 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:
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.[3]
By some criteria, nations can be considered pariahs within their own neighborhood of surrounding
states. By others, an international body (such as the United Nations) or perhaps a consensus
among certain nations may govern the meaning or use of the term.[3]

Etymology[edit]
The word "pariah" derives from Paraiyar, a large indigenous tribal group of the Indian
state of Tamil Nadu. Under the caste system, the Paraiyar were members of the lowest caste,
which were called the "outcastes" by the English Imperial rulers of India.[4] Since its first recorded
use in English in 1613, cultures worldwide have accepted the term "pariah" to mean
"outcast".[5] The etymology meanings of the word " para" and "paraiah" in Tamil and the Sanskrit
are the highest, noble, great[mahaa], etc.

Definitions[edit]
A pariah state, defined in its simplest terms, is an outcast state.[3] This is not a new term in the
lexicon of International 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 the lack (or disadvantage) the pariah state
objectively suffers from, and definitions focusing on the political justification - 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 significant soft 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 that violate international norms."[1] Similarly, Harkavy offers, "A
Pariah State is one whose conduct 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 whose domestic 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 with provocative policies or expansionary territorial ambitions, measures of the absence
of diplomatic relations with neighboring states or the situational harm posed to other states if the
state in question acquired nuclear weapons."[10]

Criteria for pariah statehood[edit]

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 of soft power,[6] while The Penguin Dictionary of International
Relations requires that the pariah states also "suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread
global moral opprobrium".[7]
Subjective designation[edit]
No universal standard exists to prevent nations, organizations, or even individuals from referring
to nations as pariah states. For example, political commentator and activist Noam
Chomsky declared in 2003 and again in 2014 that the United States had become a pariah state.
Both declarations were based on results from Gallup polls showing that only 10 percent of people
around the world supported the US war in Iraq 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 they fly in the face of at
least one academic standard put forward by Geldenhuys, 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]
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 international consensus. Such was the case, according to Lawal, when the United
States used its strength within the Western Bloc to impose pariah status on Fidel
Castro's Cuba instead of acting unilaterally through foreign 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
the political spectrum than the Soviet Union was at the time, but the Soviets had attempted
to establish nuclear missile launch facilities in Cuba, within 99 miles (159 km) of the United States
coastline.[3]
Objective designation[edit]
Many schemes have been proposed to apply objective criteria to the designation of pariah status.
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]
International law can serve as objective criteria. For example, nations who violate the Nuclear
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]

Common characteristics[edit]
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 strong identity as a nation.
Geldenhuys cites Iraq as an example. Iraq is a relatively young nation state with "artificial
borders." Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'ath party denied that Iraqis formed a nation. Rather, they
maintained that Iraqis were part of a larger Arab nation.[9] (Iraqi Kurds are not Arabs.[13]) The
second characteristic is that, although they are not necessarily small, pariah states cannot be
"regarded as a major power in world terms." Geldenhuys says that status as a major world power
renders a nation "virtually untouchable" in global politics and in the global economy. This,
according to Geldenhuys, is why China is not a pariah state, despite its "appalling human rights
record." Certainly there are individuals who disagree with this second characteristic, such as
Noam Chomsky (cited above) and author-journalist Robert Parry,[14] 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 a siege
mentality. Similar to the "push effect" (described above regarding sanctions against nations
developing nuclear arms), this siege mentality can motivate pariah states to develop costly and
ambitious arms programs. Finally, pariah states tend to develop resentments against the West
and the kind of world order that Western powers have maintained. They may seek to subvert the
international status quo. These characteristics are presented as generalizations, and not intended
by the author to apply to every pariah state.[9]

See also[edit]
 Failed state
 Rogue state