The Globe: Winter 2012 Issue by The Globe

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

-- Allyson Brown ’14 --

---Essays Signing International Human Rights Treaties

-- Lauren Farello ’14 -An Examination of an Imperative Principle of Action

-- Rose Wilson ’13 -Kazakhstan: Emerging Global Superpower

-- Jeremy Iloulian ’12 -Truman’s Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

-- Alexandra Stambaugh ’14 -Misguided Modernization

-- Emily Russel ’13-THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

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

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

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

All

Forms

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

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

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

the

improve

the

human

strength

and

authoritarian

normative

THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

aforementioned

rights. Some

the

domestic

regimes

argument

from

for

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

and why states choose to sign human rights

(Ba

sign

question

interests can be used to accurately identify why

2003,

before

THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

World

War

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

the

Constructivism

internalized

idea

argues

and

that

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

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

power

and

Ideational and social factors play a

rights

treaties

because

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

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

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

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.

Article of the

In 1972, exactly twenty years after Jordan

ICCPR, were not always socially accepted norms

ratified its constitution, Jordan signed the ICCPR

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,

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

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

The practices based

were

the

idea that human rights

are

Jordan Although

Jordan

demonstrated

commitment to human rights around the time it

major

ratified its constitution, its ideas of women and

component

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

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

the

sense,’

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”

society, the nation was accepting them and

addition, “CEDAW provides a clear definition of

trying to integrate them into society. The norm

community

(Human

Rights

the

Watch,

2009).

the

respectively

(The

enfranchisement

THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

Hashemite

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.

roles in

basis

preference

1963

in…

covering

forbade

eliminate

discrimination

adherence

the

leaders

right to run for office, Jordan signed the CEDAW their

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

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

measured

THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

numerically,

feminism…enjoyed

because broad

7 8

Lauren Farello

demographic

appeal,

decentralized,

and

was

engaged

thoroughly millions

(Sikkink, 1993, p. 157). In addition, “classic

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

degree

accepting

their of

and women are born

uncertainty about the

with

future

the

human the

same

nature;

way

it’s

the

treaty/state

they

are

combination

that

p. 157). Additionally,

makes

them

the two case studies

different,’

while

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

effect

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

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,

118).

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

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

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

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

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

competing

status

the

some

situational

The sporadic

norm

norms.

With

self-

Rose Wilson is an International Affairs major with a concentration in International Politics. She is, also, a member of the George Washington University Chorus.

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

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

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

declarations,

and

the

British

as the exercise of the right of people

self-

governance, either by means of

representative

government,

secession

other autonomy, revolution, unification

with

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

determination recognized law

with

(Kirgis,

international

the

1994).

continued

self-

became

Charter

The

U.S.

codify

its

support for self determination through century,

the

twentieth

but despite

manifestations

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

constructivist theory. In my evaluation, I will

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

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

well

and

the

representative

the

Barkin and Cronin (1994) produced one

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

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

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

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

behavior).

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

control

international

agents

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

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

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

the

audience they

(Zehfuss,

depend

2001,

upon

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

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

strategic

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

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

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

referendum

constructed

for

the

international

article

for

secession

its

the

from

interests

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

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

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

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

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

the

forward”

(Landler,

background

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

self-determination

the U.S. geostrategic

interests

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

the

The question of where strategy and

politicians

‘norms

when

support

matter’

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

make

normative context meet (Ba & Hoffmann, 2003, utilitarian

enough

and

they

involving

U.S.

support

for

self-

recommend rules which would automatically

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

5 6

Rose Wilson

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

method

“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

movements.

future

self-determination

Additionally,

recommend

policy

decisions.

Depending

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

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

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

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

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

requests. While the gas traveled through Russia

One

resource

question

control

answer

and

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

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

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.

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

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

Uzbekistan,

both

and

KazMunaiGas

ends

and

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.

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

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

hooks

pipeline,

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

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

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

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

allowing Kazakhstan to produce nuclear fuel and

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

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.

acquiring

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,

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

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

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

invention

had “discovered the most terrible bomb in the

U.S.]

superiority.”

has iii

overwhelming

Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s

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

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

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

her relations to

to advanced nuclear technology, Japan would

Manchuria

surrender and “‘Russia will not get in so much on

Port Arthur and

kill.’”

The

threat

the

spread

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

scared

who

saw

any such tangled wave

[related

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

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

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

these

greater

hand

viii

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

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

us in a temporary position of great ascendency.

In 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,

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

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

East

began

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

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

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.

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

the

late

Ottoman

Empire,

the

Modernist or Westernist stance affirmed the

willingness to adopt institutions, ideas, and

Orientalist viewpoint, which saw the changed

manners of the West was paramount.

The

women

prerequisite

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

the

and

aspects.”x Westernists,

must

be and

reinterpreted

other

hand,

the

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 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

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

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.

period

goods

establishment

and of

dominance

habits:

for

was

entirely

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

In this quote it is clear that Atatürk saw

in xxiv

inheritance,

and

the

power

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,

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

the headscarf debates of the late 20 century. Much

of the integration

creation.

of Turkish

The

framing

Westernization

versus

the headscarf are

this

debate,

Islamization,

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

women

Western attire.

xxviii

fashionably

dressed

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

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

“discursive

symbol

that

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

the

side

Westernization. The policies of the Republic are

the

strictly secular, and its continued desire to be

effect,

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

acted

and

subsequent

Consequently,

leaders.

THE GLOBE – International Affairs Journal

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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