South Africa-Political Science | Blogs

The book opens with a more subtle account of the larger debate within feminist theory relating to ideas of difference and traditional notions of equality and equity by questioning the legitimacy of liberal society’s dedication to gender equality while it   grant legal and political recognition to other cultures that discriminate against or abuse their female members. The first part of the book by author, Susan Moller Okin presents the main essay; entitled Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?  Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society and Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, demonstrates the inherent tensions between multiculturalism and feminist theory by assessing what the cultural practices of minority groups in Western societies imply for women and girls.  Within the context of a growing influx of immigrants for various parts of the developing world, Okin isolates several cases that highlight the notion of multiculturalism and the concessions in the name of ‘group rights’ that involve the marginalisation of women. One such incident that Okin draws from is the late 1980’s contentious case in France about whether Magrbin girls could attend school wearing the traditional Muslim headscarves (purdah) regarded as proper attire for young women when they reach puberty. Okin writes:

Staunch defenders of secular education lined up with some feminists and far-right nationalists against the practice while the left supported the multiculturalist demands for flexibility and respect for diversity, accusing opponents of racism or cultural imperialism. However, the public was virtually silent about a problem of vastly greater importance to many French Arab and African immigrant women: polygamy.     

During the 1980s, the French government quietly permitted immigrant men to bring multiple wives into the country, to the point where an estimated 200,000 families in Paris are now polygamous.

By offering a conceptualization of her use of feminist and understanding of multiculturalism, Okin brings the principles of liberal theory under a harsh and compromising light in her reproach of all cultures being intrinsically patriarchal.  In order to show the clashes between multiculturalism and gender equality, Okin point out how advocates of special group rights tend to focus on public parts of cultural life and neglected private life.  The problem here is that because most cultural practices, customs and ‘rules’ are predominantly concerned with the private life such as laws of marriage, divorce family property and the like. Thus the advances made in the interest of special group rights are more likely to have a more significant impact for women and girls than for men and boys, whose time and energies are vastly vested in the public life of the society they form part of.  Okin writes:

Occasionally, cultural defenses are cited in explanation of expectable violence among men or the ritual sacrifice of animals. Much more common, however, is the argument that, in the defendant’s cultural group, women are not human beings of equal worth but rather subordinates whose primary function (if not only) function is to serve men sexually and domestically.

As a feminist and liberal political theorist Okin accepts that minority groups should be given special rights and that even outside the context of liberal states, culture should be preserved. However in her attempt of a solution to the issue of overt sex discrimination against women under the flagship of culture she maintains that there is still no clarity in the feminist view that ‘minority group right’ as they have presented thus far are the solution. Therefore a compromise between feminist demands for the equality of women despite culture appears unlikely.        

As part of its ongoing ‘global war against terror’ the United States, under the leadership of former President Bush declared war against Iraq on 23 March 2003 with the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Lindner: 2009,21).  White (2011, Internet source) reported that in 2010 the death toll of Iraqi civilians was estimated at 109 794 and more 55 000 insurgents have been killed. In 2007, the estimated number of misplaced persons was approximated at 2, 225,000 making it the largest forced misplacement in the Middle East since 1948 (Berta: 2008, 262). The number of Iraqi soldiers and police that have been killed in the war was reported in January 2011, at 9,889 (White: 2011, Internet source). What is more, the impact of the war is vast and it runs deep, in the face of such tragedy, the Iraqi nation is confronted with challenges of unemployment levels of about 60 per cent, an infrastructure in ruins and chronic malnutrition among others.

However despite reports on the number of deaths, injuries and displaced persons that continue to be recorded well over five years after the war has ended, as the country fights to rebuild itself and regain an announce of normalcy the considerations surrounding the US led invasion in Iraq  are not clear-cut as it may appear.  According to Nye (2003:22) there are four overarching limitations on ethical considerations that guide international politics.  Firstly, there are massive cultural and religious differences that divide people when deciding the morality and justice of certain acts.  Islam societies present a dissimilar culture to that of the West. Secondly states do not act as individuals and heads of states are judged on different set of ideals as their expected to serve as trustees of the country’s resources and the population’s safety over which it has been given the power to rule over.  Thirdly limits on the ethics international politics is the complex nature of causation.  At the international level, making accurate predictions of consequences is intricate as there many more key actors and more variables at play.  Lastly, there are arguments that perhaps stem from the realist tradition, that assert that institutions of international society such as the United Nations are particularly weak in their very nature.

While strict pacifists deem any kind of killing as always wrong, for Perry (2004: Internet source), killing can be justified in defence of the innocent against unjust attack.  Therefore although all people have a basic right not to be killed, the right is not absolute and one can forfeit that right if they wilfully threaten or take the lives of others. The United States has received a lot of criticism since 2002, regarding the conditions justifying its decision to wage war against Iraq under the flagship of ‘how does a government’s abuse of its citizens’ human rights have to be before military intervention can be enforced in that country, without its governments consent.  According to international law, if there is no threat to any other state, then the UN Security Council must be formally consulted before any form of action can be taken. 

Although the Iraqi government’s cooperation with UNMOVIC (the UN agency responsible for monitoring Iraq compliance with the resolution) in early 2003, a report was released indicating that Saddam Hussein’s government had not yet it full access to its programs and weapons sites.  On the basis of this report, the United States asserted that the report was reason enough for undertaking military action on Iraq.  China, Russia, France and other non-permanent members of the Security Council expressed strong opposition to the argument the US and all its allies had posed.  While this was met with widespread criticism, several scholars in international politics have posited that indeed nothing short of invasion would have prevented Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and sing WMD to achieve his foreign policy goals or giving them to terrorist groups.  Nonetheless the human cost of the war has been extensive. The latest death reports of American soldiers and Iraqi insurgents that are directly linked to the events of the war and the ongoing occupation of Iraq by Americans troops were reported in January 2011.

This article does not purport to offer means by which specific moral dilemmas should be approached. Rather it highlights the interlinked relationship between the domestic and international moral aspirations of states as well as the irony of globalisation. Although we live in an age where the margins between states are so faint maps best serve as territory markers we as moral creatures remain divided in our selfish ambitions of state interest.   

Bibliography
Lang, A.F., 2007. “The violence of rules? Rethinking the 2003 war against Iraq”. Contemporary Politics. Vol 13 (3)
Maitre, B. R., “What sustains ‘Internal Wars’? The dynamics of conflict in the state of Sudan”.  Thirds Wold Quarterly. Vol (30) 1
Meashmier, J.J. and Walt, S.M., 2003. “An unnecessary war” . No Iraq War.org. Internet source, accessed 2 May, 2011 
Nye, J.S., 2003. Understanding International Conflict.  Pearson,New York
Perry, D.L., 2002. “Can an Invasion of Iraq be justified ethically?”. Santa Barbara News Press. Internet source, accessed 2 May, 2011
http://www.hoeearthlink.net/davidperry/recent.html
White, D., 2011. “Iraq war facts”. About.com. Internet source, accessed 29 April, 2011
http://usliberlas.about.com/od/headsecurit1/a/iraq/nimber.html

The events of September 11 came as a great shock that was meshed with feelings of fear and uneasiness for the American population and the greater international community as well. Since then Washington has rhetorically pledged to make the promotion of democracy a primary goal in America’s foreign policy objectives.  Through this, the United States has expressed its desire to revive the ideals of the liberal systems that were made popular in the 20th century and advance them in the developing world so the global South community can engage fully in the global agenda.

At the core of liberal theory is the commitment to the individual and the progression toward a society in which the individual can thrive. Beyond its preoccupation with the individual, liberals contend that freedom is the chief individualist value. However Liberal theory upholds that security and progressive leadership can only be ensured by the state, which is in turn regulated through the constitution (Heywood: 2007: 23). 

While international politics is inherently anarchic, the distribution of power among states provides a great deal of insight into how states are likely to respond to certain influences (Nye:2003; 42).  The whole world over, people are embracing democracy. The populations of countries with small and deteriorating economies also desire democracy.  For a long time the conflict situation in Darfur was seen as just another model of the war predicament in Africa. It is interesting to observe how this attitude changed when the ‘Darfur crisis’ started making the headlines of international news networks and newspapers, and moreover how this transformed the situation into a ‘humanitarian crisis’. 

Darfur lies in the most western part of the country in North Sudan. The conflict in Darfur is commonly classified as an opposition of ethnic African and Arab groups on the basis of a patriarchal lineage and tribal hardships. However in reality the human rights abuses, ineffective local law enforcement, tribal disputes and conflict over land and other resources contribute to instability of Darfur (Bogema and Beard: 2009: 8). Maitre (2009:54) reported that the number of people killed in the civil unrest in Darfur between 2003 and 2009 has been estimated to be 450 000.

The first step at a negotiated resolution was the Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, which was fostered by the government of Chad on April 8th 2004. When the rebellious faction in the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) camp declined to sign the ceasefire further violence ensued and escalated the humanitarian crisis. The next attempt at a ceasefire was the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), which was launched by the USA on behalf of the AU, and signed on May 2006. 

Following the independence of South Sudan as sovereign state and the newest member of the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th of July 2011, both North and South Sudan have been faced with significant challenges. For the North, the major challenge has been the conflict situation in Darfur. While the international community has been consistent in its peace-keeping efforts, in particular with the efforts of the AU-UN combined peace-keeping forces that were deployed in the region in 2008, the resistance of rebel groups has been strong.  The most significant hindrance in the peace-keeping efforts occurred when the 2010 peace talks delayed and the ceasefire agreements that had brokered began to breakdown.  However rebel groups in Darfur have since shown greater willingness to cooperate, both politically and in terms of military action. Although progress continues sporadically, the threat of conflict has not been done yet been done away with. 

The pronouncement of Sudan as a failed state by various international organisations, including Amnesty International comes as no surprise if one considers the reports on the death toll in country and vast human rights abuses. The order of the international system today observes the condition of war as a deviation from the expected course of governance and statehood. Yet Maitre (2009:53) has emphasised that when assessing the functionality of states it is important to consider that what starts a war is not necessarily what sustains it.  However it is also evident that the framework of democracy is postulated on Western postulations.
On this basis the international community awards sovereignty exclusively on the terms of territorial borders without taking into consideration the institutions in place as well as the historical identity of the communities that inhabit those territories.  Therefore although democracy has proven to be a viable reliant model for good state governance and the maintenance of international peace, its framework needs to be broadened in order to cater to historical traditions and grievances that play a significant role in informing strategies for good governance.

Bibliography
 Bogema, S. and Beard, V., 2009. “Women’s movement, state building, growth and civil society”. Midwestern Political Science Association, P1-29
Heywood, A., 2007.Political Ideologies. Palgrave Macmillan. New York
Insight on Conflict, 2011. “Sudan: Conflict profile”. Insightconflict.org, Internet source, accessed 17 August, 2011.
http://www.insightconflict.org/conflict/sudan/conflictprofile/?gclid=cTKTe7LmN3KoCFsQOfdOT7u7w
Maitre, B. R., “What sustains ‘Internal Wars’? The dynamics of conflict in the state of Sudan”.  Thirds Wold Quarterly. Vol (30) 1
Mcfaul, M., 2004. “Democracy promotion as a value”. The Washington Quarterly. Vol 28(1)
Nye, J.S., 2003. Understanding International Conflict.  Pearson,New York