Winter 2012
THE GLOBE International Affairs Journal ---A Publication of The Elliott School of International Affairs and The International Affairs Society
THE GLOBE International Affairs Journal v A Publication of The George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs and The International Affairs Society Winter Issue SPRING SEMESTER 2012 Volume 3, Issue 1 Mission The Globe aims to engage the George Washington University
academic community in responsible global citizenship through the promotion of undergraduate international relations scholarship. The articles in The Globe offer a rich diversity of thought and conviction. All George Washington University undergraduates are actively encouraged to submit their original academic work for consideration. We hope the clarity, honesty, and accountability of these pages encourages dynamic leadership on a communitywide level. THE EDITORS
---The Contents Winter Issue SPRING SEMESTER 2012 Volume 3, Issue 1
From the Desk of the Editor-in-Chief
1
-- Allyson Brown ’14 --
---Essays Signing International Human Rights Treaties
2
-- Lauren Farello ’14 -An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action
13
-- Rose Wilson ’13 -Kazakhstan: Emerging Global Superpower
23
-- Jeremy Iloulian ’12 -Truman’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb
28
-- Alexandra Stambaugh ’14 -Misguided Modernization
-- Emily Russel ’13-THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
32
THE GLOBE EDITORIAL STAFF: Allyson Brown ’14 Editor-in-Chief Alexandra Stambaugh ’14 Chief Assistant Sara Tehrani ’12 Head Editor Thomas Barry ’15 Content & Formatting Editor Molly Seltzer ’15 Content Editor Linnea Turco ’14 Publicity Editor Virginia Wei ’12 Publicity Editor
OFFICIAL WEBSITE: http://gwias.com/newsroom/publications/the-globe INQUIRIES & SUBMISSIONS should be directed to Allyson Brown at globegwu@gmail.com. MAIL correspondence should be directed to the main office: The Globe c/o The International Affairs Society George Washington University Marvin Center, Room 428 800 21st Street, NW Washington, District of Columbia 20052
Copyright © 2010, [The Globe]. Unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any content, in whole or in part, without the express permission of the Chairman of the International Affairs Society is strictly prohibited. Violations are subject to legal action. The Globe is a production of the International Affairs Society and is a registered student organization of The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of The George Washington University, its entities, or the International Affairs Society.
From the Desk of the Editor-in-Chief:
A Unique Publication Dear Readers, I am proud to present the Winter 2012 edition of The Globe, the only undergraduate journal at the George Washington University devoted entirely to International Affairs. True to its mission, the journal promotes academic scholarship and aims to inspire responsible global citizenship. The Globe provides a forum for undergraduate scholars to publish their academic papers in a professional manner. In this issue, Lauren Farello offers an in-depth comparative analysis of human rights issues driving U.S. and Jordanian foreign policies. Rose Wilson presents a welldeveloped thesis on U.S. foreign policy regarding self-determination movements through multiple theoretical frameworks. Jeremy Iloulian researches the rapidly emerging influence of Kazakhstan and Central Asia on the world stage. In her essay, Alexandra Stambaugh provides unique, thoughtful insights into a popular topic, Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb. Finally, Emily Russel’s piece on the headscarf politics of Turkey presents the reader with academic analysis on women’s political issues in a culture often thought of as misogynistic. With this collection of intellectually stimulating papers, I hope all of you enjoy this issue. I want to personally congratulate the talented authors featured in this edition. I also want to thank the hard working Globe editorial team. Without their unwavering dedication, this issue would have not been possible. Sincerely, Allyson Brown Editor-In-Chief
Alllyson Brown is an Political Science major with a double minor in French and Statistics. She is, also, a team captain for the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life. 1
1 2
Essays
Signing International Human Rights Treaties A Comparative Examination of Jordan and the United States’ Approaches to Human Rights Treaties
Lauren Farello ’14 Introduction & Puzzle
and the power of ideas to argue that the
Since the end of the Second World War,
newfound norm of universal human rights is why
the planet has become increasingly concerned
two countries, Jordan and the United States,
with the idea of human rights and how countries
chose to sign two international human rights
can help protect them. One way countries have
treaties.
been able to ensure the preservation of human
When
states
do
sign
human
rights is through treaties written by the United
treaties, they willingly allow other countries, and
Nations (U.N.). According to Oona Hathaway
collective governing bodies such as the U.N., to
(2007), the goal of treaties “is to define and
scrutinize
protect the rights of individuals against abuse by
(Simmons, 2009, p. 58). Additionally, when
their own governing institutions” (p. 592). These
countries sign treaties, they give up some of
treaties range in size and power, but all of them
their sovereignty and bind themselves to certain
have the same underlying goal—to protect
terms, which, in turn, gives other actors power
human rights. Fortunately, over the last 40 years,
over them. It is puzzling that many states choose
the number of participant states and treaties
to sign human rights treaties when there are not
created by the United Nations that specifically
any obvious material or hard power-maximizing
reference human rights has increased (Wotipka
benefits (Hathaway, 2007, p. 589). This paper
& Tsutsui, 2008, p. 724). With the existence of
provides
these
global
argument by comparing the United States and
acceptance of the idea that human rights are
Jordan’s decisions to sign human rights treaties.
universal, the question arises: Why do states sign
Despite the inherent cultural and geographic
human rights treaties? This paper utilizes the
differences,
constructivist theory of changing social norms
International Covenant on Civil and Political
treaties
and
the
increasing
their
evidence
both
human
for
rights
the
countries
2
practices
constructivist
signed
Lauren Farello is an International Affairs major with a concentration in Contemporary
rights
Cultures and Societies. She is, also, a member of Sigma Iota Rho, the National Honors Society for International Studies.
the
4 3
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the
without taking legal steps to enforce the treaty.
Elimination
Signing and ratifying are not only distinct
of
All
Forms
of
Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW).
analytically, but their differences are empirically
The paper begins with an explanation of
important (Goofliffe & Hawkins, 2006, p. 360).
important definitions and a concise review of the
While
present literature before thoroughly explaining
constructivist
constructivist
the
theory can arguably
research question. The paper then discusses
be applied to why
Jordan and the United States’ history and
states
decisions to sign human rights treaties. Finally,
ratify treaties, this
the paper discusses some critiques and gaps in
paper
will
only
the theory in reference to human rights and
focus
Jordan
and
treaty signing.
the U.S.’ decision to
arguments
that
apply
to
the
sign
The United States did not always believe that human rights had a place in foreign policy
and
sign the ICCPR and Definitions
CEDAW.
Before explaining the reasoning behind why states sign human rights treaties, it is
Literature Review
necessary to define a few words that will
International
relations
scholars,
reappear throughout the paper. Although there
sociologists and philosophers have directly or
are various human rights treaties with different
indirectly
regulations in existence, this paper describes
question in a number of articles. While there
human rights treaties as “juridically complex
have been studies about why states sign, a
[documents] covering a broad range of rights
number of articles have explored whether states
which…states agree to protect and accord to
change their behavior after signing and if treaties
the individuals or groups covered by each
actually
convention” (Bite, 2002, p. 9). After these
scholars (Hathaway, 2007; Heyns & Viljoen,
treaties are created, there are two ways in which
2001) explore why states sign human rights
countries can support them: by signing or
treaties if there will be domestic costs imposed
ratifying. Although signing a treaty signals to the
on the signers. They argue that states commit
world the country is willing to support the treaty,
based
it is only “a declaration by a state that it intends
enforcement of the treaty. Another way of
to be bound by the treaty” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 5).
answering why states sign human rights treaties
The next formal step in the process is when
is by looking at regime type and seeing who
countries ratify these treaties. This is the process
signs in order to determine why states sign
by which the treaty is “acceded to according to
(Vreeland, 2008; Cole, 2009; Sachleben, 2003).
the constitutional procedures of that country”
These articles examine patterns of signing in
(Donnelly, 2007, p. 5). Signing is most pertinent
democracies
to this study because it effectively demonstrates
various treaties by focusing on one or a variety
how countries can informally agree to a treaty
of treaties in existence. This paper, however,
(therefore, signaling its concern about the issue)
uses
addressed
help
on
the
improve
the
the
human
strength
and
of
authoritarian
normative
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
aforementioned
rights. Some
the
domestic
regimes
argument
from
for
a
3
6 5
Lauren Farello
Eleanor Roosevelt, an influential contributor to the UDHR, November 1949
constructivists’ point of view to explain why
important actors in the decision-making process,
states sign human rights treaties, as Wotipka &
but they also
Tsutsui (2008) and Goodlife & Hawkins (2006)
international organizations and nongovernmental
have done. These analyses will add to the
organizations.
existing literature by focusing on two seemingly
asserts that the interests and identities of actors
different countries and by providing historical
in world politics can change and so can states’
facts to defend the argument.
interests (Ba & Hoffman, 2003, p. 20). Both the
describe the importance of Additionally,
constructivism
idea of social norms and changing states’ Constructivism Before choose
the
rights
why
states
treaties. The idea that state interests can change
description of constructivism. The constructivist
is important because it helps explain why
approach focuses on the role of ideas, identities,
countries
and norms to help explain changes in world
concerned with human rights and then suddenly
politics
p.15).
focused on them after the war. These countries
Constructivists acknowledge that states are
were no longer solely focused on domestic
Hoffman,
treaties
human rights became more important over time
answered, it is important to look at a brief
&
human
of
and why states choose to sign human rights
(Ba
sign
question
is
4
to
interests can be used to accurately identify why
2003,
before
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
World
War
II
were
not
7 8
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
protection from the war; their interests changed.
extremely
Sikkink (1993) explains this phenomenon by
socialization.
stating
started
order for a norm to be accepted by society, it
questioning the idea that a country’s internal
must first be socialized. Risse and Sikkink (1999)
human rights policy was not a legitimate foreign
explain socialization as “the process by which
policy topic (p. 140).
norms
that
policy
makers
first
This paper posits that these newfound
applicable
are
is
the
Constructivism
internalized
idea
argues
and
of
that
in
implemented
domestically” (p. 5). It is through this manner that
ideas have led to an increased concern about
states
human rights, which in turn, has augmented the
human rights; the idea of universal human rights
number if human rights treaties in existence and
emerge as standard. The process of socialization
has increased
has
the
number of signers and
become
numerous
accustomed
steps,
the
to
fourth
international
of which
ratifiers. Wotipka & Tsutsui (2008) support the
specifically states that states internalize these
constructivist argument by stating:
norms and sign human rights treaties (Risse &
The international human rights regime has
Sikkink, 1999, 29). This paper argues that
evolved out of social/normative processes rather
constructivism can be applied to why states sign
than out of governments’ concerns about power
human rights treaties. Countries internalize these
or economic interest…[the] international society
human rights norms and later decide to sign
does
human
not
interest.
always
operate
on
power
and
Ideational and social factors play a
rights
treaties
because
of
their
importance in society.
major role…in human rights. (p. 750) Constructivism not only explains the presence of human rights in the international
Rights
sphere, but it also directly applies to the question
Human rights have only recently been
of why states sign human rights treaties. Wotipka
considered a major part of foreign policy. After
& Tsutsui (2008) specifically asserts that global
the Second World War, the United Nations was
human
more
created in order to unite countries of the world
prominent after the 1960s, which has had the
and prevent the destruction from the war from
effect
ratifying
occurring again (Wotipka & Tsutsui, 2008, p.
international human tights treaties (p. 733). Once
729). The U.N. created the Charter of the United
human rights treaties came into existence, many
Nations in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of
countries realized that it was socially acceptable
Human Rights in 1948 in order to “apply
to participate in these treaties. Cole (2009)
universally to any social and political contexts
argues specifically that countries are guided to
and… override states’ sovereign rights” (Wotipka
sign international human rights treaties by norms,
& Tsutsui, 2008, p. 730). The Charter and
culture and ultimate values (p. 570). They
Declaration were the predecessors to the two
recognized the positive connotation associated
human rights treaties that will be discussed in this
with signing these treaties, which helps explains
paper. Not long after the creation of the U.N.,
why over one hundred countries signed both
the International Covenant on Political and Civil
international human rights treaties.
Rights (ICCPR) of 1976 was created to ensure
rights of
norms
socializing
have
become
states
into
Another idea of constructivism that is
International Covenant on Political and Civil
respect for individuals “without distinction of any
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
5
90
Lauren Farello
kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion,
articles in the constitution portrays the nation’s
political or other opinion, national or social
changed ideas of how a country should treat its
origin,
status”
people. In addition, Jordan’s introduction of their
(Sachleben, 2003, p. 46). A few of the main
constitution was a way for the nation to
articles of the treaty mention both positive and
demonstrate their adherence to the international
negative rights, such as Article 9 that states the
norm. Their domestic norm was changing to
“right to liberty, security of person, and the
reflect those of the international community
prevention of arbitrary arrest or detention”
after World War II. In his book published 1962,
(Sachleben, 2003, p. 46). The significance of this
King Hussein states, “Jordan seeks to play only
treaty, and this article in particular, lies in the fact
one role, that of a model state…We propose to
that it was signed by 147 states (Wotipka &
devote… our full time and energy to the creation
Tsutsui, 2008, p. 727).
The majority of the
of a way of life that we hope in time all Arabs will
international community has accepted this treaty
achieve” (p. 99). By trying to be leaders in the
and what it stands for, which legitimizes its
international community, they focused on the
existence and essentially gives the document
idea of human rights in their own domestic
(and the human rights norms) power.
sphere. Knowing the newfound importance of
property,
birth
or
other
human rights, Jordan showed its desire to be Jordan
part of this international community that values One of constructivism’s main tenants is
the
argument
that
social
norms,
although
The idea of human rights in Jordan is
powerful and important, can change over time.
directly related to their choice to sign the ICCPR.
This idea can be applied to the case of Jordan in
Constructivism’s idea of the power of social
the sense that the norms pertaining to human
norms is directly applied to the case of Jordan.
rights in general, and the 9
them.
th
Article of the
In 1972, exactly twenty years after Jordan
ICCPR, were not always socially accepted norms
ratified its constitution, Jordan signed the ICCPR
in
transformation
(United Nations, 2011). Over the twenty year
occurred in 1952, when the nation liberalized and
period, the society fundamentally changed to
ratified
Hashemite
accept human rights as the social norm, in that
Kingdom). This constitution was a turning point
they internalized and socialized human rights as
for the nation, because along with an extensive
well. The norm had been implemented and was
description of how the country’s government
now widely acknowledged domestically. King
would work, it also included articles that focused
Hussein’s
on the people. Article 6i states, “Jordanians shall
Jordanian commitment to human rights, citing its
be equal before the law. There shall be no
encouragement of human rights organizations
discrimination between them as regards to their
and ratifications of a number of treaties on
rights and duties on grounds of race, language
human
or religion” while Article 8 reads, “No person
Jordan’s push to prove that this was part of their
may be detained or imprisoned except in
history proves the significance of human rights
accordance with the provisions of the law” (The
in the nation and around the world. It was socially
Constitution, art. 6i, 8). The introduction of these
acceptable for them to sign the ICCPR in 1972,
6
Jordan. its
Jordan’s
political
constitution
(The
Official
rights
(The
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
Website
describes
Hashemite
the
Kingdom).
1 2
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
because that is what many other nations were
United Nations created the ICCPR around this
doing in order to grant their people more rights
time, which had an effect on the way the U.S.
and provisions. In addition, President Nixon went
viewed human rights. Over the next ten years,
to the Middle East and visited Jordan in 1974,
the general public and President Carter realized
two years after the signing of the ICCPR. In the
how significant human rights were becoming in
published remarks after the trip, President Nixon
its own country and around the world. Not long
“expressed his gratification over the efforts
after, Congress required U.S. foreign policy aid
which Jordan is making…to raise the standard of
to consider human rights practices of recipient
living for all its people” (Nixon & Sadat, 1974).
countries (Donnelly, 2007, p. 9). The United
The U.S.’ praise for Jordan’s transformation
States’ ideas of how it should treat people and
accounts for the international idea that existed
what it should do to maintain this image of a
(and continues to exist) concerning human
powerful, yet moral, country caused them to
rights. Jordan signed knowing that human rights
sign the ICCPR.
were becoming universal and also because
On October 5, 1977, the United States,
developed nations, such as the U.S., were
with President Carter in office, signed the ICCPR
implementing human rights domestically, as well.
(United Nations, 2011). Around the time the treaty was signed, President Carter, a long time
The United States
advocate
The United States did not always believe
statements
for in
human regards
rights, to
made the
various
safe
and
that human rights had a place in foreign policy.
appropriate treatment of humans as a standard,
However, the moral depravity of the Second
both domestically and internationally. A few
World War caused people to rethink how human
months before Carter decided to sign the treaty,
rights should be handled. Unfortunately, despite
he addressed the United Nations and showed the
improvement immediately after, the Cold War
United States’ commitment to human rights with,
was a harsh interruption of the progress that had
“I see a hopeful world, a world dominated by
been made in the area of human rights. Donnelly
increasing demands for basic freedoms. . .We
argues that violations during the Cold War
are eager to take part in the shaping of that
occurred because they were “…largely tactical
world. . . To demonstrate this commitment, I will
maneuvers in a broader political and ideological
seek Congressional approval and sign the U.N. . .
struggle. The foreign policies of [the United
covenant on civil and political rights” (Carter,
States and the Soviet Union] regularly and
1977). His acknowledgement that the most
flagrantly disregarded human rights” (Donnelly,
powerful nation in the world believed human
2007, p. 6). However, a transformation occurred
rights to be of national interest proves the
in the 1960s, due to the “…U.N. human rights
significance of human rights and the treaties in
activity on behalf of self-determination and
society. This norm was being socialized both in
decolonization” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 6). It was
the U.S. and around the world, which proves the
through the reinstallation of human rights norms
power of this belief and idea. In addition, the
in the United Nations (and subsequently, in the
United States wanted to improve its international
United States) that caused the U.S. to reevaluate
image because of the past atrocities that the U.S.
its position regarding human rights. In fact, the
ignored. In a New York Times article written a
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
7
3 4
Lauren Farello
year before the signature, it states, “Mr. Carter’s
discrimination and equality, and spells out state
approach [to the human rights debate] is based
obligations with regard to guaranteeing women's
on the view that the United States must take a
enjoyment of their human rights on an equal
stand in the world for human rights to be. . .true
footing with men” (Human Rights Watch, 2009).
to itself” (Gelb,
Furthermore, it is considered to be the most
1976,
19).
comprehensive enumeration of the rights of
U.S.’
women to date (Sachleben, 2003, p. 51).
norms changed when women were given. . . powers within the government
p.
The practices based
were
on
the
idea that human rights
are
Jordan Although
Jordan
demonstrated
a
commitment to human rights around the time it
major
ratified its constitution, its ideas of women and
component
of
where they deserved to be in society was not as
life.
concrete. Women were not treated as equals
Additionally, in a Washington Post article from
and did not receive the same treatment as men,
the year the treaty was signed, Carter expresses
despite the socialization of human rights as a
his commitment to the norm with, “‘We in the
whole. In King Hussein’s autobiography, he
United States accept this responsibility [to foster
describes how women are not part of the royal
human
most
procedures when he states, “We recline on silken
is
a
cushions in tents fifty yards long. No women are
commitment, not just a political posture’” (Walsh,
allowed” (Hussein, 1962, p. 65). King Hussein
1977, p. A1). The norm had been socialized in
was not only representative of the government’s
the US because of the support of the President
beliefs about women, but also of the people of
and the executive branch.
Jordan at the time. Women were not allowed to
social
rights]
constructive
in
the
sense,’
he
fullest said.
and ‘Ours
vote or run for office. Instead, they were Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
expected to maintain the image of a proper
Discrimination Against Women
Muslim wife. However, in 1974 and 1984 women
The second case study of this paper is
were allowed to run for office and were
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
enfranchised,
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
Kingdom). The norms changed when women
which was formally introduced in 1981 with 167
were given these powers within the government.
state signers (Wotipka & Tsutsui 2008, p. 727).
In addition, Jordan’s prime minister, Wasfi al-Tall,
According to Human Rights Watch, “This is the
set the stage for women when he submitted a
world’s primary legal document on women's
“government programme to parliament that
equality. It reflects upon the consensus of the
included
international
specific
(Robins, 2004, p. 110). Through acts such as this,
protections and actions states are obliged to
Jordan demonstrated the changing idea of
take to ensure equality between men and
women. By trying to introduce women as part of
women”
In
society, the nation was accepting them and
addition, “CEDAW provides a clear definition of
trying to integrate them into society. The norm
8
community
(Human
Rights
on
the
Watch,
2009).
the
respectively
(The
enfranchisement
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
Hashemite
of
women”
5 6
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
of women as lower class citizens was changing
Women’s Conference
and they were gaining power.
stated, “Congress, State, and local legislatures
Six years after women were given the
should
enact
in 1977,
legislation
(The United Nations, 2011). By doing this, they
affectional
demonstrated
the
housing, public accommodations, credit, public
international social norm. In the international
facilities, government funding, and the military”
community, women were gaining rights and
(National Commission).
prominence in society, so the norm was being
Because of the pressure from women’s groups
acknowledged around the world. Members of
to change the practices that were in place,
Jordan’s government also started advocating for
women were able to gain support from the
women’s rights, especially Sharif Abdul Hamid
government in a few ways. Nationally, Zeitz
Sharaf, who was appointed as King Hussein’s
(2008) finds that:
chief adviser (Robins, 2004, p. 156). As high-
Women won passage of Title IX of the Education
ranking members in the Jordanian government
Amendments Act, which cut off federal funds
were acknowledging the importance of women
for educational institutions that discriminated
and how they deserved to be treated equally, the
against women; an extension of the Equal Pay
nation’s commitment to treaties such as the
Act
CEDAW increased. The King himself made a
employees; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
statement on the eve of the General Elections in
which
Amman in 1989 (nine years after signing the
discriminating against women; and congressional
CEDAW) and mentioned women’s
approval of the Equal Rights Amendment. (p.
to
roles in
of
basis
preference
1963
in…
covering
forbade
of
eliminate
discrimination
adherence
the
to
leaders
right to run for office, Jordan signed the CEDAW their
on
the
lending
sexual
and
employment,
most
white-collar
institutions
from
677)
Jordan when he said,
Be it man or woman alike, and that Islam was the
The norm was changing in the United
religion of hard work and productivity which
States; women were being treated as equals
does not permit the incapacitation of half the
through the government’s decisions and because
society or forgive a condescending look at our
women’s groups were able to pressure the
mothers, sisters and daughters. (Hussien, 1989)
government and demand equality. In this way,
The power of the new norms regarding women
the
essentially influenced Jordan to sign the CEDAW.
intergovernmental
existence
of
normative
pressure
organizations
and
from from
citizens encouraged the government to sign international human rights treaties (Wotipka &
The United States The 1960s-1980s were an interesting
Tsutsui, 2008, p. 736).
time for women in the United States. The idea of
On July 17, 1980, the United States
women and their role was changing. The perfect
signed the CEDAW (The United Nations, 2011).
1950s
the
The power of the social norm that women
tumultuous era that ensued. Women during this
deserve to be treated without discrimination is
period pressured the government to give them
echoed in many ways. The strength of the norm
more rights and to take gender equality (and
can
discrimination) more seriously. At the National
“…second-wave
housewife
was
juxtaposed
to
be
measured
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
numerically,
feminism…enjoyed
because broad
9
7 8
Lauren Farello
demographic
appeal,
decentralized,
and
was
engaged
thoroughly millions
(Sikkink, 1993, p. 157). In addition, “classic
of
realists, like Morganthau, Carr and Kennan,
constituents in a dialogue about…state socialism,
argued that treaty obligations would be forced
the politics of sexuality, and the meaning of
on minor states by major powers” (Sachleben,
gender” (Zeitz, 2008, p. 676). The idea of ending
2003, p. 169). While this paper acknowledges the
discrimination, CEDAW’s main goal, was echoed
validity of these arguments, they can also be
by American citizens. In a survey taken in the late
refuted. Sikkink argues that when states sign,
1970s, right before the US signed the CEDAW,
they
56 percent of young people agreed that ‘men
sovereignty
are
often and
willingly
giving
up
a
degree
accepting
their of
and women are born
uncertainty about the
with
future
the
human the
same
nature;
way
it’s
of
the
treaty/state
they
are
combination
up
that
p. 157). Additionally,
makes
them
the two case studies
different,’
while
in
brought
(1993,
this
paper
around 95 percent
contradict the idea
of all college-aged
that
respondents agreed
would be forced to
that ‘women should
sign because Jordan,
receive
equal
pay
with men for equal
minor
states
a “minor state,” and
President Jimmy Carter with King Hussein at the White House, February 1977
the U.S., a state which
work’ (Zeitz, 2008, p.
has
enjoyed
global
683). It was socially acceptable for the US to sign
hegemony for decades, both signed. Realism
the CEDAW because of the power of ideas in
fails to address why major powers would sign if
domestic and international politics. Essentially,
it is not in the country’s best security or national
the changed norm of fighting discrimination
interest. The social norms both domestically and
against women in the United States was echoed
internationally
when President Carter signed the CEDAW.
signatures than strategic reasons. This is not to
have
more
effect
on
the
say that there are not any strategic reasons to Realism & Critiques
sign, but instead, that the changing social norms
Although the primary purpose of this paper is to prove why constructivism is the best
and their power caused Jordan and the United States to sign the ICCPR and the CEDAW.
theory to answer why states sign human rights
There are some inherent flaws and
theories, there are other theories that attempt to
queries that are not adequately answered by
address this question. Taking realism’s core ideas
constructivism.
and values, the argument can be made that
constructivism in many ways, sociologist Eran
states only sign when it is in their best interest to
Shor acknowledges some of constructivism’s
do so, or when they want to “further the
flaws when he says it is “overdeterministic and
economic and security interests of a country”
idealistic in its proposition that once progress
10
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
While
agreeing
with
10 9
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
towards human rights compliance has started,
answer this paper’s main question not only has
there’s no turning back” (Shor, 2008, p. 118). This
implications for human rights treaties, but it also
means to say that if human rights norms change
can be applied to other types of treaties that are
for the better, then they can just as easily change
in existence today. Identifying the importance of
for the worse, which would retract from a state’s
social norms in society not only helps us
decision to sign a treaty. His second major issue
determine what is valued by states and the
with constructivism is that it “treats a country's
international community, but it helps identify the
human rights practices as a homogenous block
widespread beliefs of people around the world.
and does not leave room for disaggregation of
In order for a norm to be acknowledged, it must
different
first
practices”
(Shor,
2008,
p.
118).
be
socialized
domestically
and/or
Theoretically, constructivism’s argument would
internationally, before becoming important in the
mean that every nation in the world would sign
international sphere. For human rights treaties in
because it is socially appropriate to do so.
particular,
However, in practice, not every nation has
grassroots movements in countries where they
signed every human rights treaty, and there are
are not widely acknowledged is a way for human
still some who have not signed the ICCPR and
rights to be spread. Jordan and the U.S. did not
the CEDAW. Although constructivism has its
always consider human rights to be part of their
flaws, this paper’s evidence suggests that this is
internal structure, but after becoming socialized,
the best way in which to analyze why states sign
the norms changed. After the norms changed,
human rights treaties. The power of social norms
these nations signed international human rights
is great, especially after the norm has been
treaties promising to adhere to the articles
socialized in a country and becomes accepted
designed
internationally.
However, the underlying idea illustrates that
socializing
by
the
the
norms
international
through
community.
these countries do want to demonstrate their Conclusion
commitment to improving human rights in their
The constructivist framework used to
countries and around the world. n
Bibliography Ba, A. & Hoffman, M. J. (2003). Making and remaking the world for IR 101: A resource for teaching social constructivism in introductory classes [Electronic Version]. International Studies Perspectives, 4, 15-33. Bite, V. (2002). Human rights treaties: Some issues for U.S. ratification. In A. Carrington (Ed.), Human rights: Backgrounds, treaties and issues (7-17). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Carter, J. (1977, March 17). Carter’s U.N. Speech [Speech transcript]. Retrieved from CQ Press Historic Documents. Cole, W. M. (2009). Hard and soft commitments to human rights treaties, 1966-2000 [Electronic Version]. Sociological Forum 24 (3): 563- 588. The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan., ch. 2, art. 6i, 8. Donnelly, J. (2007). International human rights (3rd ed.). Colorado: Westview Press.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
11
2 3
Signing International Human Rights Treaties
Fischbach, M. R. (1999). Jordan. In P. Magnarella (Ed.), Middle East and North Africa: Governance, democratization, human rights (83-101). Ashgate, England: Ashgate. Gelb, L. (1976, October 8). Human-rights and morality issue runs through Ford-Carter debate. The New York Times, pp. 19. Goodliffe, J. & Hawkins, D. (2006). Explaining commitment: States and the convention against torture. [Electronic Version]. Journal of Politics 68, 358–371. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Human resources: human rights. Retrieved from http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo Hathaway, O. A. (2007). Why do countries commit to human rights treaties? [Electronic Version]. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51 (4), 588-621. Heyns, C. & Viljoen, F. (2001). The impact of the United Nations human rights treaties on the domestic level [Electronic Version]. Human Rights Quarterly 23 (3), 483-535. Human Rights Watch. (2009, July 24). United States ratification of international human rights treaties. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/ Hussein, K. (1962). Uneasy lies the head: The autobiography of His Majesty King Hussein I of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. New York, NY: Random House. Hussien, K. (1989, October 7). Address on the eve of the General Elections [Speech transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/views_democracy6.ht ml Milton-Edwards, B. & Hinchcliffe, P. (2009). Jordan: A Hashemite legacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. National Commission on the Observance of International Women’s Year (1977, November 21). National women’s conference. Retrieved from CQ Press Historic Documents. Nixon, R. & Sadat, A. (1974, June 19). Nixon’s Middle East trip. Retrieved from CQ Press Historic Documents.
of human rights norms. In T. Risse, S. Ropp & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change (138). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Robins, P. (2004). A History of Jordan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sachleben, M. (2003). International human rights treaties: Understanding patterns of participation and non-participation, 1948-2000 (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from OhioLINK ETD Center. Shor, E. (2008). Conflict, terrorism, and the socialization of human rights norms: The spiral model revisited [Electronic Version]. Social Problems 55 (1), 117-138. Sikkink, K. (1993). The power of principled ideas: Human rights policies in the United States and Western Europe. In J. Goldstein & R.O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change (pp.139-170). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Simmons, B. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. United Nations Treaty Collection. (2011, May 5). Chapter 4: Human Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Retrieved from http://treaties.un.org/pages/ Vreeland, J. R. (2008). Political Institutions and human rights: Why dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture [Electronic Version]. International Organizations, 62, 65-101. Walsh, E. (1977, March 17). Carter stresses arms and rights in policy speech. The Washington Post, pp. A1. Wotipka, C. M. & Tsutsui, K. (2008). Global human rights and state sovereignty: state ratification of international human rights treaties, 1965-2001 [Electronic Version]. Sociological Forum, 23 (4), 724-754. Zeitz, J. Rejecting the center: Radical grassroots politics in the 1970s—second-wave feminism as a case study [Electronic Version]. Journal of Contemporary History 43 (4), 673-688.
Risse, T., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The socialization
12
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
1 2
An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action An Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding and Self-Determinist Movements
Rose Wilson ’13 The
first
time
the
words
‘self-
of the U.S. today, governmental support and
determination’ were explicitly used in the context
reflection of this norm in concrete policy is
of U.S. foreign policy was when Woodrow
erratic at best. Given the precedents of an
Wilson declared that, “‘Self-determination’ is not
inherent right of all people to self-determine,
a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of
why does the U.S. employ a policy of selective
action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at
promotion
their peril” (War Aims of Germany and Austria,
movements today? I posit that a normative,
11 February 1918).
constructivist argument is best able to address
The notion of self-determination has been a key component of the identity of the United States from its beginning. The Founding Fathers
regarded
self-governance
as
an
towards
self-determination
the varied interests and selective promotion of the U.S. Constructivists argue that situations are what we make of them (Wendt, 1992). The U.S.
“inalienable right.” Indeed, Thomas Paine said
accords
self-determination
that the “authority of the people” is “the only
groups and not others depending on whether or
authority on which government has a right to
not the U.S. treats them as a self-determination
exist in
any country” (Paust, 1980, p. 9).
movement or not. However, there are many
Examining the self-determination on which the
different norms that drive U.S. foreign policy
U.S. was established, juxtaposed with the U.S.
decisions.
foreign policy in the modern era that ignores
circumstances, one norm may outweigh another
movements fighting for the same right to self-
(i.e. the U.S. promotes human rights, democracy,
government, there is the appearance of a
and U.S. safety or interests).
heinous hypocrisy and betrayal by the U.S. to its
implementation
own identity. Why does the U.S. offer aid to the
determination by the U.S. is not a reflection of
people of Tibet but deny it to those striving for
whether this norm has been internalized by the
independence in South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
U.S., but is based on the logic of appropriateness
Despite innumerable signals that the norm of
towards
self-determination is still important to the people
understanding of constructivism the question
Depending
of
competing
status
on
the
some
situational
The sporadic
norm
norms.
to
of
With
self-
an
Rose Wilson is an International Affairs major with a concentration in International Politics. She is, also, a member of the George Washington University Chorus.
13
4 3
Rose Wilson
might become: Why is the norm of self-
counterarguments to my own. Finally, I will make
determination
U.S.
recommendations to the theoretical framework
sometimes and not others, even though the
of constructivism, in addition to implications for
population and the government internalize the
the future of U.S. policy with regards to self-
norm?
determination movements.
implemented
by
the
In the following sections I will give an analysis of the peculiar record of support, which
Background Information
may be defined as the signals given by the U.S. government
that
weight,
origins
support
for
self-
determination should be examined in order to
affirmation of a self-determination movement.
understand its significance today. As Cobban
Support
(1969) noted, the American colonists’ struggle
exceed
simple
rhetorical
affirmation and be explicitly codified, including
against
economic policies directed toward a specific
precedents in the writings of John Locke and the
movement, ratification and signature of U.S. and
right to
UN
military
Unterberger (2002), the subsequent movements
measures taken either against or in conjunction
in Europe came to be synonymous with the
with other states in explicit aid of the movement.
ideals of democracy and self-governance. The
treaties
or
declarations,
and
the
British
as the exercise of the right of people
to
self-
governance, either by means of
representative
government,
secession
or
other autonomy, revolution, unification
with
or
even
dependence on another state. I
will
provide
relevant
context
for
historical
independence
had
concept was revived at the
movements may be defined any
for
popular sovereignty. According to
Self-determination
the
It is counterintuitive that the U.S. . . . does not promote a consistent agenda of support towards self-determination movements
issue of self-determination as
Paris Peace Conference in 1919
where
Wilson’s
Woodrow
ideals
of
determination recognized law
with
(Kirgis,
international
the
UN
1994).
continued
self-
became
in
Charter
The
to
U.S.
codify
its
support for self determination through century,
the
twentieth
but despite
manifestations
of
a
these norm
well as a review of previous literature addressing
supporting
this question. I will briefly discuss the inadequacy
abstention for many UN resolutions supporting
of past arguments, and will give an overview of
the
the theoretical framework in order to better
“supported arrangements” that undermined self-
understand
determination
the
component
parts
of
constructivist theory. In my evaluation, I will
of
signaling
must
carry
The
self-determination,
principle
(Murphy, movements
1980) in
it as
voted well
several
in as
cases
(Murphy, 1980, p. 53).
present several key cases in the modern history
It is counterintuitive that the U.S. does
of self-determination and inspect them vis-à-vis
not support a consistent agenda of support for
the components of constructivism, offer a
self-determination movements given its roots in
critique of constructivism, and engage several
self-governing theory. This is puzzling not only
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
6 5
An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action
because of the concept of self-determination in
selective promotion and is perpetuating violent
American history, but because following World
secession movements. They posited that the U.S.
War I and World War II, the League of Nations,
needs a more “systemic approach” (p. 7) to
and the United Nations, U.S. policy toward self-
supporting self-determination movements. For
determination became officially codified. UN
example, Kirgis (1994) concluded on several
declarations
like
components involved in the issue of selective
Resolution 1514 – “All peoples have the right to
promotion and tepidity (p. 308): Support for self-
self-determination; by virtue of that right they
determination movements is inversely correlated
freely determine their political status and freely
to the level of destabilization this movement will
pursue their economic, social, and cultural
cause
development” (Halperin, Scheffer, & Small, 1992
government, the less likely a destabilizing self-
p. 21) – became U.S. law.
determination claim is to be supported.
and
human
rights treaties
This seemingly
indicates that the U.S. routinely disregards both its
own
founding
principles
as
well
and
the
more
representative
the
Barkin and Cronin (1994) produced one
as
of the few normative arguments regarding
international law because it continually fails to
selective promotion. They posited that the
support the right of all peoples to self-determine.
international community will support movements more
Literature Review
during
worldwide
periods
where
“international norms legitimize states rather than
In many cases, scholars explain variance
national
sovereignty”
and
would
ignore
in U.S. support of self-determination through
movements when the opposite was true, which
rationalist or realist arguments such as power
leads to a crisis of normative “reevaluation” (p.
maximization and strategic caution, (i.e. which
108). I argue that there is no such reevaluation,
movements to support and which to ignore)
and that the norm of self-determination always
despite the existence of an internalized norm
remains constant. The logic of appropriateness
supporting self-determination (Hannum, 2006).
and thus the reordering of priority norms must
These
an
be examined as causal mechanisms for the issue
explanation that the U.S. gives concrete support
of selective promotion of self-determination
signals when the movement it supports is
movements, as well as tepidity 1 in support. As
strategically
relevant as the utilitarian explanation for selective
are
primarily
important
centered
or
when
around
there
are
material gains to be had.
promotion is, “a sense of justice may be equally
Murphy (1980, p. 43) said that the
relevant” (Pomerance, 1976, p. 26) in that
“quintessential ambiguity” of self-determination,
material gains are not the only component at
and the multitude of factors taken into U.S.
play.
consideration, is the explanation for U.S. variation in support for self-determination, a thought echoed by Pomerance (1976, p. 26). Halperin
Framework of Constructivist Theory Constructivism
presents
the
most
and Scheffer with Small (1996) argued that the
applicable lens through which to analyze the
failure of the U.S. to develop “a comprehensive
variance in U.S. support for self-determination.
set of principles and standards for responding to
The components of constructivist theory which I
self-determination movements” (p. 6) has caused
will utilize as a lens for this issue are as follows:
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
15
7 8
Rose Wilson
Interest in identities and how states perceive
urging for different courses of action. Actors,
them;
interests,
who must decide the norm, based on the
identities, behavior and social context; norm
interactions within their social and situational
internalization and the logic of appropriateness;
context, rank these conflicting rules.
the
cycle
between
actors’
and strategic construction (meaning that states
Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) note that
have dynamic interests, they can create interests
self-determination is “a profoundly normative
that can shape behavior, and that social context
agenda” (p. 887). Constructivism relies not on
merits
what
type
of
behavior).
2
The
ontological,
materialist,
power-related
constructivist theme emphasizes the capacity of
explanations of states’ actions, but on the ideas
discourse to shape how political actors define
and
themselves, their interests, and their behavior.
Hoffman 2003). It negates the contradiction in
The concept of identities as having the power
to
control
international
agents
is
values
behind
those
actions
(Ba
and
realist thought, which says that actors’ actions should
not
change
inherently.
Because
important in that the interests and identities of
constructivism asks for the reasons behind
international actors are malleable and they
states’ decisions, it is the most appropriate lens
depend on the context in which the actor finds
through which to look at the variation in U.S.
herself. Actors are dynamic and so identity and
support for self-determination.
interests of states change across contexts and
In addition to the significance given to
over time. In the words of Ba and Hoffmann
social context and norms in influencing actors’
(2003):
behavior, many constructivist scholars place
At times some states will be security-conscious
emphasis on the language of these actors.
and
Rhetoric can be used to condemn a ‘rebellion’
power-hungry,
not
because
there
is
something inherent about states that make them
and
this way, but rather because states learn to be
stability, or sovereignty’ by a self-determination
this way by interacting with other states within a
movement or used to garner support for a
specific historical context. (p. 20)
“people
the
destruction
of ‘territorial integrity,
determining
their
own
destiny.”
These identities are influenced by the
Constructivism says that norms are directed by
social context, meaning that the actions of other
speech, and by the significance that speech has
actors, as well as established rules of this
on
interaction, are integral in determining actors’
Kratochwil noted that “Norms are speech acts,
behavior. These rules and ideas are internalized
and
or ascribed to by people or agents, and greatly
communication” (Zehfuss, 2001, p. 66). Actors in
influence their actions. Likewise, the logic of
the U.S. know that they can direct norms based
appropriateness gives room for choice: Actors
on rhetorical devices they choose to employ – it
may face varied and conflicting rules and norms
is this tenant that distinguishes constructivism
1
the
audience they
(Zehfuss,
depend
2001,
upon
p.
59).
successful
Tepidity presents a further challenge to constructivist explanations. There is a dichotomy between US outright support and denial, but instances of halfhearted support may include only a rhetorical affirmation, as in the cases of US reactions to 2011 Bahraini protests and the Uyghur dissidents in China. In both cases, US support was limited to flimsy statements of extremely cautious support. Following an examination of cases, I will attempt to explain this question. 2 Adapted from Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, Ba & Hoffmann, 2003, Wendt, 1992, Onuf, and Kratochwil (both as cited in Zehfuss, 2001).
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
90
An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action
from the mute agents of realism and rationalism.
behavior in the case of Tibet stems from its
These
(like
interests revolving around the norm of self-
condemning a rebellion or aiding in a dissident
determination, which are obviously influenced by
people’s struggle for democracy) legitimacy
the social context (an international system that
among the US population, which I argue has
likewise supports self-determination (Stolberg &
internalized these norms but not arranged them
Sengupta, 2008). In fact, support for Tibet
as per the logic of appropriateness. This “Logic
comes without strategic material and security
of Appropriateness” gives
for agent
interests or power incentives, especially because
choice: Actors may face varied and conflicting
of strained U.S.-China relations. This indicates the
rules and norms (like national security) urging
implementation
for different courses of action. Constructivism
determination by the U.S. in the case of Tibet –
expects that duties, rights, responsibilities—not
taking
utility maximization—drive actors.
awkward and “complex relations” with China
devices
give
their
actions
room
of
strategic
a
norm
priority
valuing
over
self-
sometimes
(Stolberg & Sengupta, 2008). Theoretical Evaluation
The independence of South Ossetia and
In the following section I present U.S. positions
regarding
several
cases
of
Abkhazia’s
from
Georgia
illustrates
the
self-
dichotomy of U.S. support for self-determination
determination movements. I will examine the
movements. In fact, the U.S. has failed to support
movements in Tibet, and South Ossetia and
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, even though there
Abkhazia, and address tepid support for the
were strong pleas for support in the 1990s
cases of the Uyghur and Bahraini movements
(Hannan, 2008). In fact, the U.S. now blatantly
vis-à-vis the above tenants of constructivism.
denounces the Russian government’s efforts to
The case of Tibet presents a modern
negotiate with Ossetia as an independent state,
example of concrete U.S. support for a self-
citing it as a threat to international unity: “The
determination movement. Not only has the U.S.
United States should urge the European Union,
rhetorically framed the independence movement
its
in Tibet as one of self-determination, the U.S.
community to rescind its recognition of the
has, for years, actively and verbally supported it.
independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia”
George W. Bush has acknowledged that he
(U.S. Congress, 2009). Daniel Hannan (2008) an
“admire[d] the Dalai Lama a lot” (Weiner, 2007)
MEP
and awarded him the Congressional medal of
Telegraph, puts it right when he says that South
honor (Naylor, 2007). Congress codified this
Ossetia is “yet another example of how almost
support in 1991 when it definitively stated, “The
no national government is consistent in its
United States believes that our objectives must
attitude to self-determination.” The U.S. has set
include the restoration of human rights of the
itself against this movement, which voted in a
Tibetan people and their natural right of self -
landslide
determination” (“Legislation,” 2011). Here, the
Georgia. In the case of South Ossetia and
U.S. has unequivocally established its identity as a
Abkhazia, the identity of the U.S. in this situation
paradigm of human rights, and used it to define
is
its position on the movement in Tibet. U.S.
maintaining a position of power over Russia, and
member
from
clearly
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
states,
England,
and
in
referendum
constructed
an
for
by
the
international
article
for
secession
its
the
from
interests
17
in
1 2
Rose Wilson
has thus allowed the U.S. to formulate behavior
because of its varying implementation of norms
concerned with strategic objectives of territorial
depending on the logic of appropriateness.
integrity. The EU likewise denied recognition to
However, there are several counterarguments
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and said “the power
that can be used to explain certain components
politics
too
of selective promotion. While there may be
of
extreme variation in the implementation of the
territorial integrity has created, in this instance, a
right to self-determination norm by the U.S.,
logic of appropriateness that has internalized
there is not always a dichotomy between
norms of stability and national interest and
support and denunciation. There is often a
ingrained self-determination.
halfhearted, or tepid, approach toward support
of
Russia” (“EU,”
manipulative.
This
strategic
2008) were construction
Two instances of US tepidity in its
by the U.S.4
support for self-determination movements are
Tepidity
can
be
understood
using
the Uyghur in Xinjiang province, China – a
Fearon’s rationalist theory of signaling (1997). In
dissident people ignored to an extent by the U.S.,
fact, rationalism may provide a gateway into
despite the similarities in their cause to that of
understanding certain components of the puzzle
3
Tibet (Bork, 2009) —and the 2011 uprising in
of selective promotion. Fearon might argue that
Bahrain. The U.S. has given recognition to the
the U.S. does not want to send costly signals by
violations against the Uyghur, but has restrained
support or denial of certain movements because
in aid or codified support. Likewise, as the U.S.
it wants to maintain the status quo and avoid
sends aid to Egypt’s revolution and bombs to
audience costs. As opposed to the prospect of
Libyan rebels, protests in Bahrain are an example
making threats towards a sovereign state if they
of tepidity as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
do not recognize the self-determination of their
was quoted in the New York Times as saying that
people, it may be preferable for the U.S. to
the U.S. should “express deep concern about
ignore the rebellion and maintain the status quo.
recent events,” while she simultaneously urged
However, what is it that drives the desires of the
“restraint
2011).
U.S. to keep civil relations and avoid provoking a
Conflation between support and total denial of
sovereign state by supporting a rebellion? Giving
support for the Uyghur and Bahrainis show the
halfhearted (i.e. tepid) support is a strategically
existence of the support of a norm of self-
‘safe’ implementation of norms that is influenced
determination, and demonstrate that it can be
by the social context and the perceived identity
relegated
of the state Here the implementation, whether of
moving
to
the
forward”
(Landler,
background
of
important
normative origins of foreign policy.
self-determination or of territorial integrity, etc. is simply diluted in order to serve the interests of
Critique of Theory & Engagement of Counterarguments
Material,
The U.S. has a varying policy in its support
3
18
of
self-determination
the U.S. geostrategic
interests
of
national security, and relative power could
movements,
arguably be used in justification of strategies of
despite the ingrained nature of the norm,
tepidity or denial of support. Realism denies the
Tibet, like Xinjiang province, has few strategic interests, yet is the focus of much U.S. foreign policy. (see “Legislation,” 2011)
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
3 4
An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action
existence of normative identities and causation
Failure of the U.S. to support certain
or a social context that influences actors’
movements is at times seen by the public as the
behavior. Based on this, U.S. support of self-
condoning of tyranny (Izzadeen, 2011), and is
determination movements varies when it best
seen as normatively hypocritical for the U.S. to
suits
U.S.
ignore these movements, especially if they are in
Rationalists are usually associated ontologically
contra to dictators and autocrats. There are
with material gains (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998,
competing norms that are taken into account by
p. 910), but this is not necessarily the case—
U.S.
utilities can be social and idea-based as well.
regarding
What realism fails to account for is what drives
movements,
the importance placed on material gains—it is
including territorial
one thing to say states are only interested in
integrity,
power and quite another to ask why. The answer
nonintervention and
is a normative one. Constructivism provides a
sovereignty,
better explanation of selective promotion in that
geostrategic
variation in U.S. support, as well as tepidity, can
positioning.
be accounted for through competing norms:
Finnemore
Self-determination is just as normative as the
emphasized
that
ontological norm for national security.
“claiming
that
the
utilitarian
interests
of
the
The question of where strategy and
politicians
‘norms
when
support
matter’
is
decisions
self-determination
the U.S. has unequivocally established its identity with the paradigm of human rights
not
p. 910) is important to understanding that
constructivists. They must provide substantive
sometimes
trump
arguments about which norms matter as well as
ideological ones. Instrumental rationality and
how, where and why they matter” (Jørgensen
strategic interaction play a significant role in
2001, p. 51). Explaining certain phenomena using
highly politicized social construction of norms,
normative structures is not as useful as being
preferences, identities, and common knowledge
able to derive concrete theories based on these
by norm entrepreneurs in world politics. As Ba
structures so as to actually predict the behavior
and Hoffmann (2003) summarized, there are
of agents. For example, analyzing the above
many reasons to conform to a norm, some of
situations
which “may be driven by material self-interest,”
determination movements and deducing that
and which “can often be self-interested” (p. 912).
different norms are competing for precedence
Even though the U.S. may choose to implement a
in US actors’ decisions is the essence of ex post
norm that values utility, the norm valuing self-
inefficiency. Suzuki noted that “The complexity
determination is still present.
of the factors involved. . .makes it impossible to
norms
will
for
for
make
normative context meet (Ba & Hoffmann, 2003, utilitarian
enough
and
they
involving
U.S.
support
for
self-
recommend rules which would automatically
4
Recommendations to and Future Application
determine the applicability of the right of self-
of the American Theoretical Framework
determination” (Paust 1980, p. 11). I recommend
See Birnbaum, 2011
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
19
5 6
Rose Wilson
to
human life, give this legitimacy. I posit that a
determine exactly which norms will be most
normative, constructivist argument is best able
important, under what circumstances, and when.
to address the varied interests and selective
Additionally,
promotion of the U.S. as well as that of tepid
that
research
continue
there
for
needs
a
to
method
be
“criteria,
standards, and conventions” (Jørgensen, 2001, p. to
Constructivists argue that situations are
constructivism so as to fully test the application
what we make of them (Wendt, 1992); so it can
of norms and identities.
follow that the U.S. accords self-determination
52)
for
empirical
research
connected
I propose that future research study the
status to some groups and not others depending
patterns surrounding U.S. support more closely
on whether or not the U.S. treats them as a self-
in order to facilitate predictions about U.S.
determination movement or not. However, there
treatment
are many different norms that drive U.S. foreign
of
movements.
future
self-determination
Additionally,
I
recommend
policy
decisions.
Depending
on
situational
examining what effect this support has on the
circumstances, one norm may outweigh another
success of the movements in question. A main
(i.e. the U.S. promotes human rights, democracy,
problem is that each movement is completely
and U.S. safety and interests). In the case of
different from the next—it is no wonder the US
Tibet,
has a problem making a consistent policy
territorial or security norms, but the people of
regarding them. Nevertheless, in future research,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia must endure without
I suggest further examination of which norms
the implementation of this norm, because norms
are more important with regard to treatment of
of
self-determination movements.
appropriateness dictates to actors which norm
The answer to the puzzle of selective promotion lies in the rhetoric employed by the
the
utility
self-determination
have
beaten
it.
norm
This
trumps
logic
of
will be implemented, based on social context and normative components.
U.S. government. It is important to distinguish
In the light of recent events involving the
between support by the U.S. government to self-
Arab world, including U.S. support of the people
determination movements and the rhetoric it
of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, the question
uses to either give or deny this support. When
remaining to be addressed is regarding the
the U.S. treats a rebellion as a righteous
specific norms driving the decision to provide
movement, it is enabled to have legitimacy in
assistance. Do the norms at work now value the
supporting
U.S.
right of a people to self-determine? Are they
government calls the rebellion illegal, or uses
norms of stability or territorial integrity? Are they
strategic
secession
norms valuing utility? As the revolutions and self-
would cause more bloodshed or threatens
determination movements sweep (and/or blow
territorial sovereignty or has grave economic
up) the Middle East and Africa at the beginning
implications, the U.S. gains legitimacy in not
of 2011, the U.S. must remember the imperative
supporting the movement in question. Citizens,
principle of action, a norm which is embedded in
who have internalized the norm of the right to
its origins, and which it has committed to
self-determination, just as they have internalized
implementing. n
it.
However,
terminology
when
saying
that
the
the norm of human rights and protection of
support for such movements.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
1 2
An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action
Bibliography
Negotiating self-determination (pp. 61-80). Lanhan, MD: Lexingon Books.
Ba, A. A., & Hoffmann, M. J. (2003). Making and remaking the world for IR101: A resource for teaching social constructivism in introductory classes. U.S. Studies Perspectives, 4(1), 15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Barkin, S. J., & Cronin, B. (1994). The state and the nation: changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations. International Organization, 1, 107-130. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org. Birnbaum, B. (2011, February 16). Obama administration to Bahrain: Respect protestors. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com. Bork, E. (2009, July 10). The Right Way to Help the Uighurs. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com. Carley, P. (1997). U.S. Responses to self-determination movements: Strategies for nonviolent outcomes and alternatives to secession. United States Institute for Peace, Peaceworks No. 16. Retrieved from http://www.usip.org Cobban, A. (1969). The Nation State and National SelfDetermination. New York, NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Emerson, R. (1971). Self-determination. The American Journal of US Law, 65(3), 459-475. Retrieved from JSTOR. EU will not recognize South Ossetia and Abckasia, Solana stated. [Supplementary material].(2008, November 5). Georgia Times. Retrieved from http://www.georgiatimes.info/en/ Fearon, J. (1997). Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68-90. Retrieved from JSTOR Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). U.S. Norm Dynamics and Political Change. US Organization, 52(4), 887-917. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Halperin, M. H., Scheffer, D., & Small, P. L. (1992). Selfdetermination in the new world order. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hannan, D. (2008, August 11). South Ossetians, too, have the right to self-determination. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk. Hannum, H. (2006). Self-Determination in the Twenty-First Century. In H. Hannum & E. F. Babbitt (Eds.),
Izzadeen, A. (2011, March 18). Bahrain: The butchery of democracy dream. The Daily Mirror. Retrieved from http://print.dailymirror.lk. Jørgensen, K. E. (2001). Four Levels and a Discipline. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing international relations: The next generation (pp. 3653). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Kirgis, F. (1994). The Degrees of Self-Determination in the United Nations era. American Journal of U.S. Law, 304(308). Retrieved from JSTOR. Landler, M. (2011, February 17). Unrest in Bahrain presents diplomatic puzzle for Obama. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Legislation in Congress. (n.d.). International Campaign for Tibet. Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://www.savetibet.org. Margalit, A., & Raz, J. (1990). National self-determination. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(9), 439-461. Retrieved from JSTOR. Mason, J., & Mohammed, A. (2011, February 7). Obama says U.S. to recognize South Sudan as sovereign. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com. Murphy, J. F. (1980). Self-determination: United States perspectives. In Y. Alexander & R. A. Friedlander (Eds.), Self-determination: National, regional, and global dimensions (pp. 43-61). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. National Post Staff. (2011, February 15). Graphic: Bahrain’s strategic importance. National Post. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com. Naylor, B. (2007, October 17). Congress, Bush give Dalai Lama gold medal. NPR. Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyI d=15374199 Paust, J. J. (1980). Self-determination: A definitional focus. In Y. Alexander & R. A. Friedlander (Eds.), Selfdetermination: National, regional, and global dimensions (pp. 3-18). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pomerance, M. (1976). The United States and selfdetermination: Perspectives on the Wilsonian conception. American Journal of International Law,
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
21
4 3
Rose Wilson
70 1-27. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com
Stolberg, S. G., & Sengupta, S. (2008, March 22). Bush silent, but others speak out on Tibet crackdown. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ Unterberger, B. M. (2002). Self determination. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (2nd ed., p. 461). New York: Scribner. USAID Africa: Sudan. (2011, January 27). U.S. Agency for International Development. Retrieved May 7, 2011, from http://www.usaid.gov/locations/subsaharan_africa/countries/sudan/ U.S. Congress. (2009). Division A – Foreign relations authorization act, fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2410). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov. Weiner, E. (2007, October 17). Bush prods congress on domestic issues, Turkey. NPR. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from http://www.npr.org. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46 391-425. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org. Zargham, M. (2011, March 16). Bahrain violence presents U.S. with fresh dilemma. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com. Zehfuss, M. (2001). Constructivisms in International Relations: Wndt, Onuf, and Kratochwil. In K. M. Fierke & K. E. Jørgensen (Eds.), Constructing international relations: The next generation (pp. 54-75). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
1 2
Kazakhstan: Emerging Global Superpower Report on Current Projects and Future Outlook for Growth
Jeremy Iloulian ’14
Central Asia is a region of the world that
uranium and immense fields of both natural gas
in the past few years alone has become
and oil, Kazakhstan holds the ultimate strategic
incredibly
position in all three resources. Kazakhstan will
important.
Kazakhstan,
with
its
massive supplies of uranium, oil, and natural gas,
use
will prove to be an influential player in the future
positioning their companies to make up for lost
of Asia. Due to its geographic location next to
ground in the 1990s when any deal was accepted
many large developing nations, its resources are
just to inject investment into the country.
their
resources
most
effectively
by
in high demand, especially since Kazakhstan’s
When it comes to natural gas and oil
trade routes are not dominated by the United
Kazakhstan and Central Asia, generally speaking,
States, unlike the Persian Gulf or the Straits of
have been dominated by Russian politics since
Malacca.
how
their discoveries. The only pipelines in and out of
Kazakhstan will begin to build its own companies
the region went through Russia, leaving no
and how those companies can catch up in terms
option other than compliance with Russian
of
requests. While the gas traveled through Russia
One
resource
question
control
to
answer
and
is
technological
advancement. This paper will attempt to answer
and
these questions through analyzing the research
development of the facilities was mainly by
deals signed by the Kazakh government, the
Western companies. After the Soviet Union
involvement of Kazakh companies, and how
collapsed, Western powers took advantage of a
these deals relate to other energy giants in
weak country and negotiated for great deals
similar situations. Based on historical models and
highly favoring Western companies such as
existing
resources,
Chevron or Italy’s ENI. However, with the recent
conclusions can be drawn that explain the
shift in power from west to east, Kazakhstan can
Kazakhstan
expect to become more independent of Russia
information
on
government’s
Kazakh actions
and
can
predict potential, future moves. Kazakhstan’s large resource supplies will
eventually
sold
into
Europe,
the
influence in the future as well as dictate the terms of its negotiations and deals.
allow it to become a dominant player in the energy sector. With the second largest supply of
was
The
effort
to
divert
from
sending
resources through Russia has been spearheaded
Jeremy Iloulian is an International Affairs major. He is, also, Chairman of the George Washington University International Affairs Society.
23
4 3
Kazakhstan: Emerging Global Superpower
by the United States but it is really China that
to continue to rely heavily on Russian gas.
found the way around. The Central Asia—China
Europeans in the future should not expect to
Gas pipeline brought massive amounts of gas
receive the majority of the Kazakh oil or natural
into China. The pipeline begins in Turkmenistan,
gas. Because of its geographic location and
travels
in
close proximity to China, it makes sense for
Kazakhstan. While the majority of the natural gas
Kazakhstan to sell most of its energy supplies to
going through this pipeline is of Turkmen origin,
the east. If China does not buy most of it, the
Kazakhstan signed an agreement that will allow
Kazakhs can push it more easily through China
the development of the pipeline to reach China,
or Russia to the north and ship it further east to
which may allow for future sources. This deal
South Korea and Japan which are also in
financed
China
desperate need of new resources. What should
National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), will
be of greater concern to the West is not the
through
by
Uzbekistan,
both
and
KazMunaiGas
ends
and
i
share the investment of $3.5 billion equally. This
actual oil, but the leverage that their companies
Beyneu-Shymkent pipeline will link up with the
receive in Kazakhstan.
Central Asia—China Gas pipeline adding up to 15 billion cubic meters more.
ii
The
new natural gas line is not the only change in a shift from west to east though. China, also, helped finance and build the Atyrau--Alashankou pipeline to transport oil from the
[Kazakhstan] controls 15% of the world’s uranium
Asia began to liberalize into a free market investors.
system,
but
Immediately,
with
no
Western
companies such as Chevron, ENI, and BG Group moved in to take advantage of the situation closely followed by Russia’s Lukoil. During
Aktobe and Kumkol oilfields in the Caspian Sea
the 1990s and early 2000s Kazakhstan did not
basin to the Xinjiang province in China. The
have any state companies with the capacity or
pipeline
own
the technology to invest in these large oil fields.
Alashankou–Dushanzi
As a result, foreign companies could negotiate
pipeline for distribution throughout the Xinjiang
the deals heavily in their favor. Now that the
province and China generally. With construction
Kazakhstan has found other sources of revenue
on the pipeline completed in 2009, China already
and has economically strengthened, these deals
has begun to receive the oil. Even more oil will
are unlikely to stay. Already Kazakhstan has
be sent once the oil from the Kashagan fields is
begun to try to terminate the deals using a series
adding
pipeline
of export tariffs and criminal charges against the
debuted, oil has flowed to China at a rate of
companies if they do not renegotiate.iv This is not
200,000 barrels a day, however experts predict
a new way to integrate state companies into
then
domestic
to
hooks
pipeline,
the
up
the
pipeline.
with
Since
China’s
the
iii
this number could reach 400,000 barrels a day.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Central
previously foreign owned oil fields. Russia used
Originally Western nations welcomed this
the exact same method with many of their
shift from Russian dominance of Kazakh energy
oilfields throughout the country.v Once Russia
markets to a more diversified market, but now
became
there are growing fears that most of Kazakh
companies took majority control. There is no
energy will end up in China, forcing Europeans
reason to suspect that Kazakhstan will be any
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
strong
enough
again,
the
state
6 5
Jeremy Iloulian
different than Russia and signs are already
`the two companies switch once inside China for
showing that it is headed in the same direction. A
the building of the nuclear facilities. At the same
classified document released by Wikileaks claims
time, Kazatomprom will begin to see how to
that miscommunication in a negotiation meeting
build nuclear power plants.xi This will allow China
between Chevron representatives and members
to have a close and
of the Kazakh government led to hostilities
stable
between the company and Kazakhstan.vi It is
uranium to fuel its 23
possible to imagine another situation such as this
reactors that are set
being exaggerated by the Kazakh government to
to be completed by
push Western companies out. As of now in the
2020. China is not the
Tengiz project, it is 50% ownership by Chevron,
only
25% ownership by ExxonMobil, 5% ownership by
advantage
vii
country
of
taking of
LukArco and 20% ownership by KazMunaiGaz.
Kazakhstan’s uranium
In the past few years Kazakhstan has eliminated
supplies. Russia
348 natural gas and oil contracts they previously
signed
three
joint
venture
deals
with
viii
signed.
Even though Kazakhstan still does not
has
Kazakhstan is investing in the futures of its natural gas, oil, and uranium industries.
have the technology of the West, it is finding
Kazatomprom totaling for $10 billion dollars to
other sources of revenue to invest in such as
build a plant in Kazakhstan and also ship uranium
China with its $10 billion in loans and credits, $5
off to Russia. These finds of uranium come at a
ix
billion specifically for energy. These fields that
crucial time for the world’s uranium market as
are dominated by foreign energy giants can
Russia finishes its megatons to megawatts
expect a reduced role in coming years due to
problem in 2013 limiting local uranium supplies
Kazakhstan’s
for Asian countries.xii
new
means
of
finance
and
strengthening of the economy despite the country’s lack of technology.
supply
Besides bordering nations, Kazakhstan has made a significant number of deals with
The major and much more important
Japan to sell uranium to the island nation and in
resource in Kazakhstan’s energy sector are its
return for assistance with constructing nuclear
Uranium fields. Currently Kazakhstan mines the
reactors and nuclear fuel cycles. The signed deal
most Uranium in the world and has the second
will upgrade the Ulba fuel fabrication plant
largest
it
allowing Kazakhstan to produce nuclear fuel and
x
controls 15% of the world’s uranium supply.
sell it directly as opposed to just selling the
This massive supply has attracted many different
uranium.xiii Areva of France and Kazatomprom
investors, especially with the growing amount of
signed a 51% (for Kazatomprom) 49% (Areva)
nuclear reactors due to their low CO2 emissions.
deal where Areva helps provide the technology
China is one of those nations signing a deal
and finance to build a new fuel assembly
between Kazatomprom and China Guangdong
manufacturing line at the Ulba plant.xiv All these
Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) as a joint
moves show how Kazakhstan is expecting to
venture. The deal entails that Kazatomprom will
retain dominance in the future.
reserves
after
Australia.
Overall
gain 51% with 49% going to CGNPC for the
Kazakhstan will begin to hold more
mining of the Uranium in Kazakhstan then having
leverage in future negotiations with countries in
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
25
7 8 1
Kazakhstan: Emerging Global Superpower
Asia or Europe that use nuclear power. The two
but also the move away from immediate benefits
other major countries with large supplies of
to long-term energy needs will help sustain
uranium include Australia and Canada. For pure
Kazakhstan’s development. Kazakhstan does not
geographic reasons, Kazakhstan trumps both
allow any investment into the country without a
nations as it borders two major nuclear powered
joint venture deal signed by the foreign company
nations and is in close proximity to South Asia,
with a Kazakh company. In each of these deals,
Europe, Japan and South Korea. Australia, which
Kazakhstan
may have more uranium in the country than
regarding how to build nuclear plants and for
Kazakhstan and be just as close for regions like
development in the fuel cycle. This greater
South Asia or Japan, will not pose to be a major
understanding will allow Kazakhstan to have
problem for Kazakhstan. Australia still has major
more leverage in their sales, since part of the
opposition within the country to nuclear power
process will already have been completed.
is
acquiring
more
knowledge
and therefore to mining and selling uranium.
Kazakhstan is investing in the futures of
Additionally, Australia will not sell uranium to
its natural gas, oil, and uranium industries. With
nations such as India who have not signed the
more independence in finance, and a variety of
NPT, giving Kazakhstan another advantage in the
sources to ship their natural gas and oil,
xv
future.
Kazakhstan no longer is constrained by the same
Outside from the ability to outcompete
limitations that it was in the 1990s and early
both Canada, because of its geographic location,
2000s. This will lead to a stronger sense of
and Australia, because of its political situation,
confidence
Kazakhstan will hold more power just by the
involvement
sheer increase in uranium demand in the coming
allowing Kazakh companies to take the lead on
years. The World Nuclear Association predicts
deals. In the uranium market, Kazakhstan is set to
xvi
that demand will increase by 50%.
in by
the
country
foreign
and
energy
will
limit
companies,
There are
become another Saudi Arabia and dominate the
currently 57 new nuclear plants being built in the
markets. A continued shift back to nuclear power
near future in conjunction with the 439 plants
plants
xvii
already in existence.
for
energy
usage
and
Kazakhstan’s
The largest amount of
geographic location give Kazakhstan the edge
these nuclear plants will be built in nations like
over both Australia and Canada. In the next
China and India who are looking to diversify their
decades, Kazakhstan will grow to prominence in
energy sources and stay away from high CO2
Asia due to its resource capacity and the
emitting sources. Not only is the need for
investments it is making. n
uranium going to increase Kazakhstan’s strategy,
Endnotes i
Zhihong, Wan. "China, Kazakhstan Sign New Gas Pipeline Deal." China Daily Website - Connecting China Connecting the World. 14 June 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. ii Franz., By Paris. "China, Kazakhstan Agree Deals on Gas, Nuclear Energy." Digital Journal: A Global Digital Media Network. 13 June 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. iii United States of America. State Department. Kazakhstan, Chinese Ambassador Comments on Key Foreign Policy Issues. By Richard E. Hoagland. iv Konyrova, Kulpash. "Kazakhstan Probes Foreign Oil and Gas Contracts - New Europe." New Europe - The European News Source. 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. v Levine, Steve. "Kazakhstan's Oil Grab - By Steve LeVine | The Oil and the Glory." The Oil and the Glory | FOREIGN POLICY. 20
26
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
2 3
Jeremy Iloulian
July 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. vi United States of America. State Department. Chevron Incident Reflects Changing Dynamics in Kazakhstan's Energy Hierarchy. By Ambassador Ordway. vii Klare, Michael T. "Draining the Caspian." Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: the New Geopolitics of Energy. New York: Henry Holt and, 2009. Print. viii Konyrova, Kulpash. "Kazakhstan Probes Foreign Oil and Gas Contracts - New Europe." New Europe - The European News Source. 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. ix United States of America. State Department. Kazakhstan, Chinese Ambassador Comments on Key Foreign Policy Issues. By Richard E. Hoagland. x Paxton, Robin. "Kazakhh Uranium Drive Shed Soviet Nuclear Legacy." Reuters 14 June 2010. Print. xi Nurshayeva, Raushan. "Kazakhstan, China Sign Gas, Nuclear Energy Deals | Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. 12 June 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. xii Paxton, Robin. "Kazakhh Uranium Drive Shed Soviet Nuclear Legacy." Reuters 14 June 2010. Print. xiii "Uranium and Nuclear Power in Kazakhstan | Silk Road Intelligencer." Kazakhstan News and Analysis - Silk Road Intelligencer. 21 May 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. http://silkroadintelligencer.com. xiv "AREVA and Kazatomprom Strengthen Their Partnership in the Front-end Nuclear Cycle | Kazatomprom." Kazatomprom. 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. xv Gorst, Isabel. "Kazakhstan Claims It Has Become the World's Biggest Uranium Miner." Financial Times 31 Dec. 2009. Print. xvi Gorst, Isabel. "Kazakhstan Claims It Has Become the World's Biggest Uranium Miner." Financial Times31 Dec. 2009. Print xvii Paxton, Robin. "Kazakhh Uranium Drive Shed Soviet Nuclear Legacy." Reuters 14 June 2010. Print.
Shrinking Planet: the New Geopolitics of Energy. New York: Henry Holt and, 2009. Print. Konyrova, Kulpash. "Kazakhstan Probes Foreign Oil and Gas Contracts - New Europe." New Europe - The European News Source. 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. http://www.neurope.eu. Levine, Steve. "Kazakhstan's Oil Grab - By Steve LeVine | The Oil and the Glory." The Oil and the Glory | FOREIGN POLICY. 20 July 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com. Nurshayeva, Raushan. "Kazakhstan, China Sign Gas, Nuclear Energy Deals | Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. 12 June 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. http://www.reuters.com. Paxton, Robin. "Kazakh Uranium Drive Shed Soviet Nuclear Legacy." Reuters 14 June 2010. Print. United States of America. State Department. Chevron Incident Reflects Changing Dynamics in Kazakhstan's Energy Hierarchy. By Ambassador Ordway. Print. United States of America. State Department. Kazakhstan, Chinese Ambassador Comments on Key Foreign Policy Issues. By Richard E. Hoagland. Print. "Uranium and Nuclear Power in Kazakhstan | Silk Road Intelligencer." Kazakhstan News and Analysis - Silk Road Intelligencer. 21 May 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. http://silkroadintelligencer.com. Wagstyl, Stefan, and Vincent Boland. "Official Opening of Pipeline Ends Years of Argument." Financial Times 23 May 2005. Print.
Bibliography "AREVA and Kazatomprom Strengthen Their Partnership in the Front-end Nuclear Cycle | Kazatomprom." Kazatomprom. 28 Nov. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. http://www.kazatomprom.kz/en/news.
Zhihong, Wan. "China, Kazakhstan Sign New Gas Pipeline Deal." China Daily Website - Connecting China Connecting the World. 14 June 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn.
Chazan, Guy. "Kazakhstan Seeks to Expand Oil Outlets." Wall Street Journal 18 Feb. 2009. Print. Franz., By Paris. "China, Kazakhstan Agree Deals on Gas, Nuclear Energy." Digital Journal: A Global Digital Media Network. 13 June 2010. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. http://www.digitaljournal.com. Gorst, Isabel. "Kazakhstan Claims It Has Become the World's Biggest Uranium Miner." Financial Times 31 Dec. 2009. Print. Klare, Michael T. "Draining the Caspian." Rising Powers,
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
27
1 2
Truman’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb U.S. Diplomacy at the End of World War II
Alexandra Stambaugh ’14
Upon
the
experiences, he followed President Roosevelt’s
of a
strategy of keeping American losses to a
uranium-235 atomic bomb, President Truman
minimum by “seeing to it that, in every action,
wrote that mankind, specifically the United States
[the
Manhattan
successful
Project and
completion the
of
invention
had “discovered the most terrible bomb in the
U.S.]
superiority.”
has iii
overwhelming
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s
i
history of the world.” Despite this opinion,
White House Chief of Staff, made clear to the
President Truman decided to drop the bomb on
Joint Chiefs that Truman’s intentions were to
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in 1945, killing
“’make his decisions on the campaign with the
over 200,000 people and wounding an equivalent
purpose of economizing to the maximum extent
ii
number. President Truman’s decision to use the
possible in the loss of American lives.”iv Truman’s
atomic bomb, therefore, reflects a realist U.S.
commitment to ending the war with minimal
foreign policy and the U.S. government’s interest
deaths was also evident when his Secretary of
in winning the war against Japan. By ending the
State, General George Marshall, hesitated in
war as early as possible, with the fewest number
reporting the number of predicted casualties
of American deaths, and preventing the Soviet
from the planned invasion of Kyushu. Moreover,
Union from gaining influence in Asia, the U.S. was
Marshall “‘was concerned that the casualty
able to deter future conflict in Japan and position
estimates of the Joint War Plans Committee
itself as a post World War II global superpower.
would alarm the president and undermine his
legitimate
support for an invasion.’”v President Truman felt
argument in favor of using the bomb was its
a responsibility to prevent American deaths and
ability to minimize potential U.S. losses, thereby
preferred to use the bomb to end the war and
securing post-war American power. Truman
prevent the loss of thousands of Americans lives,
wanted to end the war in the Pacific as soon as
which may have resulted from alternative action
possible and exit with a small death toll. As an
plans like the invasions of Honshu and Kyushu or
artillery captain during World War I, Truman
stronger bombing and blockade efforts.
The
most
advocated
and
experienced the cruelties of war and the distress
Another explanation for the hastened
of losing fellow soldiers and friends. From these
decision to drop the bomb was fear that the
Alexandra Stambaugh is an International Affairs major with a concentration in International Economics. She is, also, Chief Assistant Editor of The Globe.
material
28
4 3
Alexandra Stambaugh
Soviet Union’s invasion of the Pacific would
1945:
increase Soviet influence in the region and hinder
The president has promised apparently to meet
the U.S.’s ability to spread democratic peace. It
Stalin and Churchill on the first of July and at that
was seemingly more important to end the war
time
with Japan than to use U.S. resources to limit
invasion and Russia’s involvement] will become
Soviet influence in East Asia, Eastern Europe,
burning and it may be necessary to have it out
Turkey,
with
and
the
Mediterranean.
Truman’s
Russia
on
her relations to
to advanced nuclear technology, Japan would
Manchuria
surrender and “‘Russia will not get in so much on
Port Arthur and
vi
kill.’”
The
threat
of
the
spread
of
and
various
other
communism and the strengthening of Soviet
[territories
influence outside their sphere, which included
influence] ... Over
Poland, Manchuria, and Port Arthur, American
government
officials
1
scared
who
saw
of
any such tangled wave
of
[related
to
Japanese
As an artillery captain during World War I, Truman experienced the cruelties of war
communism as a threat to world peace. In
problems the S-1
President Truman’s 1945 State of the Union
[code name for
Address, he states, “the entire world is looking to
the atomic bomb] secret would be dominant.ix
America for enlightened leadership to peace and
The accelerated completion of the bomb most
progress… I will support and defend those ideals
likely exemplifies how Truman felt that the
[peace and liberty] with all my strength and all
atomic bomb was necessary to prevent Soviet
my heart. That is my duty and I shall not shirk
expansion in Asia.
it.”
vii
This
desire
to
limit
Soviet expansion
The successful completion of such a
prompted President Truman’s efforts to use the
destructive bomb on July 16, 1945 in Los
bomb as a bargaining tool against the Soviet
Alamos, New Mexico2 made Truman more
Union.
assertive in the discussion and actively resistant President Truman urged scientists to
to Stalin’s positions on Soviet influence in Eastern
develop the atomic bomb before going into the
Europe. Churchill commented that Truman “told
Potsdam
had
the Russians just where they got on and off and
deliberately postponed the Potsdam meeting
generally bossed the whole meeting.”x The
until mid-July of 1945, so that it would occur
Potsdam meeting bolstered the United State’s
after the bomb test was scheduled to take place.
confidence
One scientist, Robert Oppenheimer, expressed
diplomatic aggression against expanding Soviet
that
influence. Its most powerful, secret weapon—the
he
meetings.
and
his
The
president
colleagues
“‘were
under
incredible pressure to get [the bomb] done before the Potsdam meeting,’” Truman
questions
Secretary of State, James Byrnes, felt that, due
the
1
these
a
greater
hand
viii
in
in order to give the
atomic
and
promoted
bomb—influenced
stronger
the
U.S.
increased
assertiveness of the U.S. envoy. The fact that the
coming
bomb offered a solution to ending the war
negotiations against Joseph Stalin. Secretary of
without further Soviet expansion made dropping
War Stimson wrote in his journal on May 15,
the bomb a viable option for President Truman.
As agreed upon by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference, Feb 1945.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
29
6 5
Truman’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb
Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam Conference, Germany, July 1945
Although little was known about such a
invention and use of the atomic bomb could
potentially destructive weapon, the United States
“become a powerful and forceful influence [for
also saw the weapon as a means of increasing its
the United States] towards the maintenance of
global power, especially its ability to foster world
world
peace in the post WWII world. In a memorandum
Reconstructionist,
to Secretary of War Byrnes from Bush and
contemporary Jewish thought published by the
Conant on September 30, 1944, they describe
Reconstructionist
the global advantage the bomb has given the U.S.
editorialist echoes the public opinion at the time,
over other nations:
hypothesizing that fear of the atomic bomb may
Unless it develops that Germany is much further
create global stability:
along than is now believed, it is probable that the
If the fear of the atomic bomb makes mankind
present developments in the United States
realize the anachronism of absolute national
undertaken in cooperation with Great Britain put
sovereignty, if it impresses on men the need for
xi
us in a temporary position of great ascendency.
In an
an
article
academic
Rabbinical
from journal
College,
The of an
formulating and implementing an international
and
law and an international government founded on
scientists agreed with President Truman that the
justice and peace, it may prove the salvation of
Furthermore,
2
peace.”xii
both
U.S.
officials
As described by General Leslie Groves in a Memorandum, July 18, 1945.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
7 8
Alexandra Stambaugh
mankind.xiii
Truman was additionally attracted to use the bomb because of the sentiments from U.S. officials and the public that the use of the atomic bomb could bolster the U.S.’s ability to institute peace and could possibly deter future conflict. Nearing the end of WWII, the use of the atomic bomb was justified in the eyes of President Truman. In Truman’s perspective, the bomb offered the United States a way to win the war without more American casualties, limit Soviet expansion in the East, and improve the Unites States’ role in establishing post war peace. After all, the United States was also in a war in which the winner was determined by their effectiveness in destroying the enemy. As the former Vice President and Dean of Faculties from the University of Chicago, Dr. Reuben Gustavson, pronounced in a speech, “When you are in war, you are in a dirty business. It doesn’t make much difference how you do the killing, since victory depends on doing it effectively.”xiv n
Endnotes i
Truman, Harry. Harry S. Truman 1947 Diary July 25, 1945. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. TS. http://www.trumanlibrary.org. Paterson, Thomas. American Foreign Relations: A History. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. 230. iii Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Radio Address from the White house.” November 2, 1944. iv Walker, Samuel. Prompt & Utter Destruction. Chapel Hill, DC: UNC Press, 2004. 35. v Ibid, 38. vi Ibid, 65. vii Truman, Harry. “Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress.” April 16, 1945. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. http://www.trumanlibrary.org. viii Walker, Samuel. Prompt & Utter Destruction. Chapel Hill, DC: UNC Press, 2004. 55. ix Stimson, Henry. Harry Stimson’s Diary & Papers. May 15, 1945. George Washington University National Archives. MS. http://www.gwu.edu. x Butow, Robert. Japan’s Decisions to Surrender. Palo Alto, CA: Standford University Press, 1954. 207. xi Bush, Vannevar, and James Conant. Memorandum to Secretary of State James Byrnes, September 30, 1944. The George Washington University National Security Archive. http://www.gwu.edu. xii Truman, Harry. Draft statement on the dropping of the bomb, July 30, 1945. Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. MS. http://www.trumanlibrary.org. xiii “The Atomic Bomb and the Peace.” The Reconstructionist. Vol 6, 10. October 5, 1945. xiv Gustavson, “Story Behind the Atomic Bomb: Teamwork among scientists,” Sept 7, 1945. (Speech delivered to Executives’ Club of Chicago). ii
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
31
1 2
Misguided Modernization The Headscarf Politics of Turkey
Emily Russel ’13
In Turkey, women-centered issues have
limiting and backward. In the end, banning the
become the focal point for discussions about
headscarf is a misguided attempt to modernize
Westernization and Islam, culminating today in
Turkey.
fierce debates about the headscarf, which has
To understand the contemporary political
become the symbol for this internal dispute.
climate regarding the headscarf in Turkey, it is
From the Western perspective, the headscarf
important to examine the historical context
epitomizes the “otherness” of Islam—it is a
leading to this current state of affairs. In the
tangible emblem illustrating why Islamic societies
early 19th century, the Islamic societies of the
are not only different from the West, but also
Middle
i
East
began
to
undergo
significant
inferior. This Orientalist notion has guided the
transformations due in great part to the West.
Turkish sense of identity both before and during
The influential European leaders brought both
the Republic, influencing the Kemalist desire to
informal and formal domination to the area as
“reach the level of contemporary civilization as
colonial powers and economic forces.iii With a
defined by the West.”ii While women were
greater
perpetually
identity
pronounced Western and Orientalist outlook on
discourse, the headscarf only really emerged as
the Islamic societies, especially in regard to the
th
role of women. Despite a notable androcentric
century, and since then it has been ever-present.
and misogynistic legacy in Western societies, the
Relying primarily on historic and discursive
Orientalist view concentrated on what it saw as
analyses,
this paper will first examine the
Islam’s innate oppression of women, and thus, its
historical context leading to the Turkish ban on
general backwardness as compared to the
the headscarf; it will then determine the effects
West.iv Leila Ahmed explains the implications of
of the ban on women in the contemporary
this Orientalist view: “Only if these practices
political climate. Ultimately, the paper finds that
‘intrinsic’ to Islam (and therefore Islam itself)
while the ban is an extension of Turkey’s attempt
were cast off could Muslim societies begin to
to modernize according to Western standards,
more forward on the path of civilization.”v Thus,
its effect on contemporary women is ironically
a new discourse arose, inexorably linking the
at the
fulcrum
of the
the centerpiece of this debate in the 20
European
presence
came
a
Emily Russel is an International Affairs major with a concentration in Global Public Health. She is, also, Vice President of the George Washington University Language Network.
32
more
4 3
Emily Russel
notions of modernization and civilization with the
ideologies, the issue of women’s status lies at
perceived position of women.
the heart of the dispute. On the one hand, the
In
the
late
Ottoman
Empire,
the
Modernist or Westernist stance affirmed the
willingness to adopt institutions, ideas, and
Orientalist viewpoint, which saw the changed
vi
manners of the West was paramount.
The
of
women
as
a
prerequisite
to
Ottoman attempt to “civilize” emulated specific
civilization;
qualities of Western society—ranging from the
Traditionalist belief viewed the integration of
types of technology to the modes of dress—that
women into the public sphere as an attempt to
made the West distinct from the East. As a result,
undermine the morality of society.ix The latter
the rapidly changing empire was especially
group did not deny the benefits of attempting to
sensitive to the Orientalist outlook that linked
modernize in an increasingly globalized world;
their women to the “backward” and “primitive”
rather, they argued that the impacts of Western
qualities from which it hoped to disassociate.
civilization should be “confined to technological,
The 1910 writing from Ottoman princess Seniah
administrative,
Sultan to her French friend illustrates Ottoman
material
exasperation with their portrayal in the West:
The
“They make up really unimaginable stories about
however, maintained
us… They anticipate us to be slaves, to be
that the entirety of
imprisoned in rooms, to live only behind lattice
society
windows, to be chained up and watched over by
transformed
ferocious
black
and
other
slaves…”
vii
The
on
the
and
aspects.”x Westernists,
must
be and
reinterpreted
in
other
hand,
the
more
The West was the mirror by which. . . the Turkish Republic, judged itself
concerns of the princess show both how the
order to effectively
West viewed the allegedly exotic women of the
modernize.xi
Orient and how these perceptions were of great
these
concern to the Islamic societies.
Traditionalists were dubious of adopting the
Along
lines,
the
The desire gain respected from the West
customs and morality of the West,xii and did not
was evident, and as long as the European nations
see a break from Sharia law with the integration
remained powerful regional influences, Islamic
of women into the public sphere as necessary to
empires and nations would continue to define
modernize.xiii
themselves based on the Western notion of
maintained the Orientalist view that without the
civilization.
viii
The
Westernists,
however,
The West was the mirror by which
education and liberation of women, society
the Ottoman Empire, and later, the Turkish
would remain backward.xiv Thus, the dichotomy
Republic,
of
of this debate is contingent on the relative
Western civilization on the Turkish society is the
position of women within society and explains
pervasive theme that drives today’s headscarf
why, in the modern context, the discourse has
debate.
moved to the headscarf – a symbol of women
judged
itself.
This
projection
The West-East encounter gave rise both to the Ottoman desire to emulate Europe, as
position
within society. After
the
collapse
of
the
Ottoman
well as a reactionary movement to retain the
Empire, its post-World War I partition, and the
Eastern, and primarily Islamic, identity. In both
emergence of the Turkish Republic, these two
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
33
6 5
Misguided Modernization
movements endured, bringing the question of
Anglo-Saxon separation of the church and state,
Westernization and Islam to the forefront of
Turkish secularism, known as laikilk, is rooted in
Turkish identity. The rise of Mustafa Kemal
the French laïcité, which can be described as an
Atatürk during the War of Independence, and his
almost militant discourse in which religion is
subsequent creation of the Republic in 1923,
confined to the private sector.xx Upon the
marked
the
creation of the Republic, Atatürk dismantled the
Westernist perspective in this debate. Atatürk
caliphate, which had existed for over four
strived to create in Turkey the type of civilization
hundred years, closed religious schools and
he saw in the West. However, for Atatürk,
Qur’anic courts, eliminated Sufi orders, and
civilization was more than just an adoption of
discontinued other religious sites.xxi In addition, in
Western
the
1924, the Directorate of Religious Affairs was
Western
established and became the administrator of
consciousness. Nevertheless, the overpowering
Islam in all of Turkey. In essence, Atatürk infused
desire to be Western was coupled with a strong
this form of secularization and laicism into every
sense of Turkish pride, and left the new Turkish
aspect of his Westernization projects, ranging
identity
from political to economic to social reforms.
a
period
goods
establishment
of
and of
an
dominance
habits:
it
for
was
entirely
xv
fraught
with
both
inferiority
superiority complexes: “In its own eyes, it was
The secularization and modernization
invariably better than the Arab Middle East but
movement, once again, found the position of
xvi
never as good as the European West.”
Atatürk
women at its crux. In order to finally fulfill the
was able to harness this Turkish nationalism in
Orientalist perspective concerning the social
order to unite the people under the new
location of women, Turkish women had to
republic. He proclaimed after the war: “The
become Westernized, both legally and socially;
success that we have won until today has done
however, their integration was limited.xxii At the
no more than to open a road for us, towards
inception of the Republic, the Swiss civil codexxiii
progress and civilization… The duty that falls on
replaced the religious code and gave women the
us…
is to advance, unhesitatingly, on this
ability to have custody over their children, equal
road.”
xvii
shares
In this quote it is clear that Atatürk saw
in xxiv
inheritance,
and
the
power
to
modernization as paramount to the success of
divorce.
the Turkish Republic.
rights as equal citizens, the right to vote, and the
In addition, women were granted
Thus, Atatürk commenced his radical
right to be elected to office. Despite these
nation building, which centered on the Westernist
advances, it was clear that the Turkish Republic
ideology. Among his many far-reaching changes
believed that the primary place of women was in
were the establishment of Western political
the household.xxv
institutions, alterations to the Turkish dress,xviii
Atatürk’s relationship with his wife, Latife
reforms of education, the replacement of the
Hanım, is a prime example both of how he
Arabic alphabet with the Latin one, and the
wished to see Turkish women modernize and to
adoption of the Christian calendar.
and
xix
But perhaps
what extent he thought they should be active.
his most infamous attempt at Westernization, at
When he first married Latife, she wore a full
least in terms of the contemporary debate, came
body covering, similar to a burka. Over the
through the secularization of Turkey. Unlike the
course of their marriage she began to wear the
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
7 8
Emily Russel
headscarf,
it
to cover their heads stood out as marked
completely. Atatürk saw this transformation as
symbols of religion in a quickly secularizing
one that he wished all Turkish women would
society.
xxvi
make.
until
she
finally
removed
At the same time, when Latife asked her
the
headscarf
itself
became the primary focus of this debate.
husband why she could not be active in politics,
The veil, hijab, or headscarf is for many
he responded that he was not against women
women a symbol of faith, morality, and freedom;
being in politics, but that he would rather be
for others, it is an emblem of oppression and the
xxvii
comforted at home by his wife.
Thus, while
tool of politics and power.xxxii In the Turkish case
the Turkish woman was integrated into society, it
specifically, opinions
was clear that her role was limited. This
divided along the lines of the ideological debate
inequitable reality would be echoed again during
that has beset the country since before its
th
the headscarf debates of the late 20 century. Much
of the integration
creation.
of Turkish
on
The
framing
Westernization
versus
the headscarf are
of
this
debate,
Islamization,
is
as an
women was encouraged by the state, but not
oversimplification of a nuanced issue. However,
mandated. Atatürk gave subliminal messages,
they can be useful tools to illustrate the nature of
urging women to adopt Western dress and to
headscarf politics in Turkey today. Influenced
frequent the public sphere, and was often
tremendously by the West, those on the side of
flanked
Westernization
by
women
Western attire.
xxviii
fashionably
dressed
in
initially
adopted
the
dated
As the transition to Western
Orientalist stance that the headscarf represents
clothing became more common, women in the
not only the oppression of women, but also the
upper echelons
general
of society
walked publicly
without their headscarves, acting as Kemalist xxix
role models to other Turkish women.
inferiority
Islam.xxxiii
of
Following
Atatürk’s distinct definition of modernity and
Atatürk
secularism, much of the country came to view
even went as far as organizing events in which
the headscarf as a negative symbol of both
men and women socialized in a European style.
Turkey’s barbaric past and of the potential threat
At one such function, he forcefully ordered the
of radical Islam.xxxiv Those on the other side of
men and women to dance together, illustrating
the debate maintain that Turkey is a nation
his desire to Westernize, even through coercive
rooted in faith with a majority Muslim population,
means: “I now order you: spread out through the
and that forceful secularization to the point of
dance hall! Forward! March! Dance!” many
women
xxx
However,
chose not to emulate
their
trendsetting Kemalist counterparts, but instead retained their more traditional forms of dress.
discrimination is an unnecessary and odious step towards modernization.xxxv Thus, the headscarf has
become
a
“discursive
symbol
that
is
xxxvi
instrumental in conveying political meaning.”
Thus, as women became increasingly more
Since the rise of Atatürk and his strong
present in the public sphere, they became a
Kemalist following, as a country, Turkey has
more central part of discussions and debates on
predominantly
xxxi
Westernization. laicism
The basis of this was the
promulgated
Atatürk
on
the
side
of
Westernization. The policies of the Republic are
the
strictly secular, and its continued desire to be
effect,
as
accepted by and integrated into the West can be
women became more visible, those who chose
seen throughout history. It is not surprising, then,
Kemalist
by
acted
and
subsequent
Consequently,
leaders.
In
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
35
90
Misguided Modernization
that political leaders and the nation’s elite are
There is no such thing in the religion, anyway.”xlii
those who have reacted most strongly against
declaration
made
official
the
the headscarf. These individuals have historically
discrimination directed toward women wearing
had the greatest contact with the West and
the
harbor little respect and sympathy for the
contentious issue. That it came from a group
women
wearing
effectively
deeming
it
a
intending to uphold the Kemalist dream of a
them to the periphery of society. By viewing all
civilized and modern society is rather ironic after
(başö rtülü
examinng the truly undemocratic outcomes of
kadınlar) as a collective, it is easy for the state
this ban. With roughly 62%xliii if the female
and its supporters to stereotype these women as
population donning the headscarf, the ban has
who
headscarves,
xxxvii
headscarf,
relegating
women
wear
headscarves
an Islamist threat to Turkish society.
xxxviii
The
yielded notably negative effects on women in
women are viewed as semi-dissidents who cover
the areas of education and employment, and has
for the political reason of undermining the
widened the rift between the women in the two
xxxix
secular state.
The negative perception of the
opposing sectors of society.
headscarf is illustrated by the fact that the
Over the past several years it seems as if
women are often called “women with turbans”
Turkey has been more preoccupied with the
(türbanlı kad ınlar) as opposed to the more
presence of the headscarf in the public sphere
neutral “women with headscarves,” indicating a
than with the political and social rights of all
more profound level of disapproval
and
their
xl
choice to cover.
The reality is that only a fraction of women wear the headscarf for political reasons. A 2006
women, who wear the headscarf… have been denied the basic right to health care
women in the country. Despite the constitutional assurance in 2004 that “men and women have equal rights,”xliv the level of education received by women in the country is
survey indicated that 0.4% of women chose to
remarkably low. The number of university-
wear the headscarf as a political statement; while
educated women represents a mere 3% of the
an
primary
population; Turkey ranks 110th out of 130
motivation was because of its importance in
countries in terms of education by gender; and
overwhelming 71.5% said xli
their
These statistics show that, despite the
over five million women cannot read or write.xlv
intentions of the başörtülü kadınlar, the dominant
Already deplorable, the headscarf ban merely
Westernizing perspective still sees them as
serves to exacerbate the poor conditions for
problems to rectify. By 1981, a law passed by
women’s education in Turkey. To begin, the
General Evren, head of the 1980 military coup,
Turkish government has a regulated system of
solidified the separation of başörtülü kad ınlar
education in which there is no alternative option
from the remainder of Turkish women. He
for schooling.xlvi As a result, women must either
declared that women wearing the headscarf
accept the restrictions of the headscarf ban, or
would not be allowed to attend university: “We
simply not advance in the Turkish education
will not let başörtü into the university. We are
system. In 2002, another stipulation on the ban
adamant about that. No one should insist on it.
was
Islam.
This
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
introduced,
barring
women
with
the
1 2
Emily Russel
headscarf from taking the University entrance exams.
xlvii
The number of women who lost the
teaching religious issues or a lawyer in trial
opportunity to further their education due to this
court.liv Furthermore, some women are expected
requirement is unknown; however, undoubtedly
to uncover even outside of working hours,
many talented women were turned away.
demonstrating the pervasiveness of the policy.
In addition to simply being denied direct
An extremely relevant example of women being
educational opportunities, the headscarf ban has
barred from the professional sphere is the case
also lead to overt discrimination toward students
of Merve Kavakçı, a current George Washington
who choose to cover, leading to emotional and
University lecturer and author, who elected as a
psychological stress. After the ban was declared
Member of Parliament, only to be ousted
constitutional,
professor
because she refused to remove her headscarf.lv
exclaimed to his student: “Now we will efface
Kavakçı pointed out that while men in her
one
university xlviii
you from this school.”
Another professor was
political party maintained beards because of
heard saying: “Are you a student? You can’t be a
their faith, they were not treated with the same
student with this attire… You are not even a
harsh
human being with that attire.”
xlix
In the 1990s,
measures
symbols of faith.
lvi
because
of
the
different
This injustice shows how the
Turkish universities even introduced “persuasion
headscarf ban stymies the women in Turkey and
rooms” designed to convince young women to
violates human rights.
l
take off the headscarf. While the emotional
Negative effects of the ban are hardly
implications of this have not been medically
limited to women’s education and economic
studied, some students have summarized their
status. Unfortunately, sick women, who wear the
experiences with this psychological coercion,
headscarf, and their children have been denied
explaining:
the
the basic right of health care because of this
university, which is assumed to be the place to
politicized discrimination. Medine Bircan, a 71-
acquire
is
year-old patient, was told that her care would be
‘darkness.’” These examples illustrate that the
suspended until she changed the photograph on
headscarf ban in the academic setting does
her health card so that she was not shown
more than just decrease women’s opportunity
wearing a headscarf.lvii In another instance, a
for education; it also creates a wearing and
five-year-old boy was denied treatment because
emotionally
his mother wore the headscarf.lviii These are
“Now
the
knowledge,
only
thing
resonated
that
with
me
li
devastating
situation
that
has
adverse effects.
tragic examples of how the headscarf politics of
The sordid fact that not all women can equally obtain an education has repercussions in the
economic
realm
as
well.
Overall,
the
Turkey have negatively impacted the health and wellbeing of citizens. A
multi-faceted
and
complex
issue,
participation of women in the workforce is 26%.
Turkish headscarf politics are rooted in the
lii
employment found in
strong Western presence at the turn of the 19th
Europe, this number is quite low. An explanation
century. The late Ottoman Empire evaluated its
for the underwhelming statistic is the headscarf
world position in terms of the Western definition
ban: in any public job, it is compulsory for
of civilization. This dictated that the Empire
Compared to the 49%
liii
women to uncover their heads.
far-reaching that it even applies to a woman
The ban is so
needed to secularize and modernize its views on
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
37
14 3
Misguided Modernization
the position of women by freeing them from the
“manifest his religion or belied in worship,
household and the headscarf.
observance, practice and teaching,”lix it is clear
For a country that has so fiercely fought
that Turkey has not granted said freedoms and
to become Western and modernized, Turkey’s
has fallen short in its dreams to create a fully
headscarf ban is an ironic step backward on the
democratic republic. Despite its best efforts to
path to democracy. Ideologically promising its
emulate the West, Turkey’s decision to ban the
citizens
this
headscarf is ultimately a misguided attempt to
government-sanctioned ban has, in fact, done
modernize. In order for the full and equal rights
the opposite: it has actively contributed to the
of women to be realized, underlying issue of
unequal status of women in society. Examining
Westernization
the repercussions of the ban in light of the
reevaluated. n
equal
rights
and
protection,
versus
Islamization
must
be
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the freedom of each person to Endnotes i
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 152. Göle, Nilufer. The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling. University of Michigan Press, 1996, p. 13. iii Ahmed, p.127 iv Göle, p. 31 v Ibid., p.152 vi Göle, p.11 vii Ibid., p.27 viii Göle, p.28 ix Ibid., p.28 x Ibid., p.31 xi Ibid., p.31 xii Ibid., p.52 xiii Göle, p.31 xiv Ibid., p.31 xv Ibid., p.60 xvi Islam, Merve Kavakçı. Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Postcolonial Reading. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 15 xvii Ibid., p.15 xviii Islam, p.15 xix Göle, p.58 xx Islam, p.16 xxi Smith, p.310 xxii Islam, p.17 xxiii Arat, Yeşim. "Women's Rights as Human Rights: The Turkish Case." Human Rights Review (2001): 28. xxiv Smith, Thomas W. "Between Allah and Atatürk: Liberal Islam in Turkey." The International Journal of Human Rights Sep. 9 (2005): 310 xxv Islam, p.21 xxvi Ibid., p.20 xxvii Ibid., p.20 xxviii Ibid., p.19 xxix Islam, p.21 xxx Ibid., p.20 xxxi Toprak, Metin, and Nasuh Uslu. "The Headscarf Controversy in Turkey" Journal of Economic and Social Research. Vol. 11, no. 1 (2009): 45. xxxii Islam, p.xiii xxxiii Ahmed, p.152 xxxiv Toprak and Uslu, p. 52 xxxv Göle, p.31 ii
38
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
2 3
Misguided Modernization
xxxvi
Ibid., p. 4 Roprak and Uslu, p.52 xxxviii Islam, p. 22 xxxix Benli, Fatma. "A Statistical Examination of the Condition of Women in Turkey and the Impact of the Headscarf Ban on Turkey's Gender Inequality Ranking." Women's Rights Organization against Discrimination (AKDER) (2009) Revised 2010: 1. xl Benli, 23 xli Islam, p.23 xlii Ibid., p. 51 xliii Benli, p. 1 xliv Benli, p.2 xlv Ibid., p. 3 xlvi Ibid., p. 4 xlvii Ibid., p. 4 xlviii Islam, p. 58 xlix Ibid. l Islam, p. 106 li Islam, p. 104 lii Benli, p. 5 liii Ibid., p. 6 liv Ibid., p. 8 lv Islam, p. 78 lvi Ibid., p. 78 lvii Benli, p.21 lviii Islam, p. 108 lix Benli, p. 27 xxxvii
Bibliography
Benli, Fatma. "A Statistical Examination of the Condition of Women in Turkey and the Impact of the Headscarf Ban on Turkey's Gender Inequality Ranking." Women's Rights Organization against Discrimination (AKDER) (2009) Revised 2010: 1-47. http://www.osce.org. Göle, Nilufer. The Forbidden Modern: Civilization and Veiling. University of Michigan Press, 1996. Islam, Merve Kavakçı. Headscarf Politics in Turkey: A Postcolonial Reading. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Kitfield, James. "The Road to Anatolia." National Journal 43 (April 30, 2011): 28-33. Smith, Thomas W. "Between Allah and Atatürk: Liberal Islam in Turkey." The International Journal of Human Rights Sep. 9 (2005): 307-325. Toprak, Metin, and Nasuh Uslu. "The Headscarf Controversy in Turkey" Journal of Economic and Social Research. Vol. 11, no. 1 (2009): 43-67. Turam, Berna. "Turkish Women Divided by Politics: Secularist Activism Verses Pious NonResistance." International Feminist Journal of Politics 10.4 (2008): 475-94.
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Arat, Yeşim. "Women's Rights as Human Rights: The Turkish Case." Human Rights Review (2001): 27-34.
Publication Image Sources “Churchill, Stalin, and Truman at Potsdam.” Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. Accessed February 4, 2012. Last modified January 30, 2012. http://www.trumanlibrary.org. “Eleanor Roosevelt.” Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute. Accessed February 4, 2012. Last modified March 3, 2001. http://www.udhr.org. “Elliott School of International Affairs Building.” Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library. Accessed February 4, 2012. Last modified February 4, 2012. http://exhibits.gelman.gwu.edu. “The Next Generation Blue Marble.” NASA’s Earth Observatory. Accessed February 4, 2012. Last modified June 2, 2011. http://www.nasa.gov. “President Carter meets with King Hussein in 1997.” Fun on the Net Community. Accessed February 4, 2012. Last modified May 2, 2009. http://www.funonthenet.in.
THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal
39