Pariah state

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

Until the past few centuries, the authority to designate a nation as an outcast, or pariah state, was relatively clear, often resting with religious authorities (e.g., "the Ottoman Empire for example was regarded as an outcast by European states" from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 until the nineteenth century on a "religious basis.").^[1][2] In more recent times, however, the criteria for and attached implications of pariah statehood, as well as the designating authorities, are the subject of much disagreement. For example, the Nigerian scholar Olawale Lawal has stated:^[3]

There are so many open questions on the issue of Pariah State. For instance who determines a Pariah State and how a nation becomes a Pariah State... This becomes more profound when one realizes that a nation that is an outcast in one region, has diplomatic and friendly relations with others.

By some criteria, nations can be considered pariahs within their own neighborhood of surrounding states. By other criteria, an international body (such as the United Nations) or perhaps a consensus among certain nations may govern the meaning or use of the term.^[3]

The word "pariah" derives from Paraiyar, a large indigenous tribal group of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Under the Indian caste system, the Paraiyar were members of the lowest caste, which were called the "outcastes".^[4] Since its first recorded use in English in 1613, cultures worldwide have accepted the term "pariah" to mean "outcast".^[5]

A pariah state, defined in its simplest terms, is an outcast state.^[3] This is not a new term in the lexicon of International Relations, nor is it a new historical concept.^[3] What is new, however, is what Lawal refers to as "the basis for Pariahood appellation."^[3] Other definitions have been advanced that expand this basis (see next section below), or perhaps add more academic nuance, which may vary by author or the author's field of study. These definitions are here grouped into two categories: definitions focusing on the lack (or disadvantage) the pariah state objectively suffers from, and definitions focusing on the political justification - given by other nations - for why that pariah state "deserves" their extraordinary attitude towards it.

The first type of definitions is well exemplified by Bellany's definition, according to which a pariah state is "A state lacking any significant soft power."^[6] Similarly, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations defines the pariah states as "international States/actors which, by virtue of their political systems, ideological postures, leadership or general behavior, suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium."^[7] This definition, as the previous one, does not indicate what kind of political system, ideological posture, leadership or general behavior, is ascribed to the pariah state by the other nations.

The second type of definitions is most simply exemplified by Weiss's definition, according to which pariah states are "states that violate international norms."^[1] Similarly, Harkavy offers, "A Pariah State is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior."^[8] Geldenhuys gives a more detailed definition of that type: "A pariah (or outcast) country is one whose domestic or international behaviour seriously offends the world community or at least a significant group of states."^[9] Marks's definition elaborates more: a pariah state is "a state with provocative policies or expansionary territorial ambitions, measures of the absence of diplomatic relations with neighboring states or the situational harm posed to other states if the state in question acquired nuclear weapons."^[10]

As of August 2014, no internationally accepted criteria exist for designating a nation as a pariah state, nor is there any single accepted authority for doing so. Some criteria are proposed in the definitions offered in the previous section. For example, Harkavy and Marks make reference in their definitions to the international behavior of a nation in order to qualify it for pariahood.^[8] Marks goes one step further and includes the question of nuclear weapons in his criteria,^[10] while Weiss adds "a state’s defiant existence in the face of international non-recognition.".^[1] However, Bellany's sole criterion is a lack of soft power,^[6] while the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations requires that the pariah states also "suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium".^[7]

Left-wing political commentator and activist Noam Chomsky declared in 2003 and again in 2014 that the United States had become a pariah state. Both declarations were based on both the United States's leading violation of international laws and results from Gallup polls showing that only 10 percent of people around the world supported the Iraq War and that 24 percent of people in the world believed the United States represented the greatest threat to world peace.^[11][12] Such poll results are not listed among objective criteria advanced by academic sources, international authorities or NGOs, or any governing bodies as criteria for designation as a pariah state, and Geldenhuys argues that major world powers by definition cannot be pariah states because they cannot be isolated or harmed politically or economically, or brought into compliance with international norms by pariah designations, whether by individuals or international governing bodies.^[9] Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame, explains that there has been a decline in the respect towards international law in the United States from our highest government officials to the person on the street because of the misunderstood belief that the laws are in practice not enforceable.^[13]

Lawal distinguishes between subjective and objective designations. Subjective designation can also exist on a national level, according to the interests and values of the designating nation. If the designating nation is powerful enough, the designation of pariah statehood can become objective based on the amount of pressure the designating state can apply to gain international consensus. Such was the case, according to Lawal, when the United States used its strength within the Western Bloc to impose pariah status on Fidel Castro's Cuba instead of acting unilaterally through foreign policy, with no objective need to impose international pariah status. Lawal explains that the United States' problem with Cuba was geographical more than ideological, as Cuba was no further from the United States on the political spectrum than the Soviet Union was at the time, but the Soviets had attempted to establish nuclear missile launch facilities in Cuba, within 99 miles (159 km) of the United States coastline.^[3]

Lawal has summarized four primary categories often used for qualification as pariah states: 1) nations that possess or use weapons of mass destruction in contravention of existing treaties, 2) nations that support terrorism, 3) nations lacking democracy, and 4) nations with a record of human rights violations.^[3] To these four criteria, Geldenhuys adds another two: 5) nations that promote radical ideologies at home or even abroad (clarified as "exporting revolution"), and 6) nations that commit acts of military aggression abroad.^[9] In addition to these six categories of state conduct that can result in objective designation as a pariah state, Geldenhuys suggests a seventh category that might gain international consensus: nations that are involved in international drug trafficking.^{[note 1]}

According to Lawal, international law can serve as objective criteria. For example, nations who violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are often sanctioned for their actions. Such sanctions can include designation as a pariah state, as has been the approach used by the United States.^{[3][note 2]} However, international law can fail in this regard, as under the current international system, most nation states recognize their own legal supremacy over the laws of any international governing body. Thus, according to Lawal, consensus under international law can be problematic. In the case of nuclear arms development, international isolation can have a paradoxical "push effect" on a pariah state, motivating accelerated development of nuclear weapons.^[3] As of 2012, there was no provision in international law for pariah status.^[3]

Geldenhuys has identified four common characteristics shared by many pariah states that are unrelated to any actions of international deviance that might have qualified them as pariahs under the various criteria.

The first is that pariah states tend to lack strong identity as a nation. Geldenhuys cites Iraq as an example. Iraq is a relatively young nation state with "artificial borders." Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'ath party denied that Iraqis formed a nation. Rather, they maintained that Iraqis were part of a larger Arab nation^[9] (Iraqi Kurds are not Arabs.^[14]).

The second characteristic is that, although they are not necessarily small, pariah states cannot be "regarded as a major power in world terms." Certainly there are individuals who disagree with this second characteristic, such as Noam Chomsky (cited above) and author-journalist Robert Parry,^[15] each of whom has applied his own personal criteria to describe the United States as a pariah state.

The third characteristic noted by Geldenhuys is that pariah states tend to develop a siege mentality. Similar to the "push effect" (described above regarding sanctions against nations developing nuclear arms), this siege mentality can motivate pariah states to develop costly and ambitious arms programs.

Finally, pariah states tend to develop resentments against the established world order. They may seek to subvert the international status quo. These characteristics are presented as generalizations, and not intended by the author to apply to every pariah state.^[9]

While there are no definitive list for pariah statehood, some states are being regarded as pariah states due to numerous factors including human rights abuses and violation of international laws.^[16]

After the Iranian revolution that made Iran transition from monarchy to Islamic republic, Iran has been regarded as pariah state due to its confrontational foreign policies against Western and Arabian Gulf countries. The regime confrontational policies has caused United States and Gulf countries to start international isolation campaign against Iranian regime. One of main concern of Iranian pariah status was due to concern similar revolution could be exported against the Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates.^[17]

After the end of Iran-Iraq war, Iran has started to attempt fixing its international reputation by refocusing more into domestic issues rather than exporting revolution in neighboring countries. Many efforts were done by Iran such as establishing relations with old diplomatic allies such as the Gulf and Western countries and releasing Western hostages held by Iran backed militias in Lebanon. However the attempt to fix its image didn't last long after the territorial dispute between Iran and United Arab Emirates regarding the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs resurfaced. The planned thaw with the West was also faded after Ayatollah Khomeini put a bounty against British novelist Salman Rushdie due to Satanic Verses controversy.^[18]

The attempt to fix its international image was briefly resumed under the presidency of Mohammad Khatami that advocates more liberal approach for the governance of Iran. Khatami also met several Western leaders such as Pope John Paul II and French President Jacques Chirac in order to restore the previously strained relationship. In 2003, Iranian officials approached the United States, become the first engagement between two countries since the establishment of the Islamic Republic to discuss outstanding issues such as nuclear weapons and two-state solutions regarding Israel and Palestine.^[19]

Since the Six-Day War, some analyst also regarded Israel as one of the pariah state. The status was started be given to Israel after the formation of Palestine Liberation Organization that goal is to establish an Arab Palestinian state in Israeli territories. The Palestinian refugee issue in the neighboring countries and Israeli involvement in the Suez Crisis has caused strained relations between Israel and its neighbouring countries especially Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser regime.^[20] Numerous border disputes would later prompt the six-day war between Israel and 4 Arab countries. After the victory of Israel, Jews living in Arab countries begin to experience discrimination, causing mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries to Israel or Western countries.^[21] Similarly, Jews in Warsaw Pact countries also faced similar discrimination. Sincr 1968, there were 11,200 Jews recorded to have left Communist Poland during the 1968 Polish political crisis.^[22][23][24]

Following the war crimes committed by Israel during the Gaza war, many Israel traditional allies such as Australia, Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom and European Union countries began to distance themselves from Israel and calling for Israel to stop its aggression against civilians in Gaza strip. Recently, many Western leaders such as Anthony Albanese, Keir Starmer, and Emmanuel Macron has planned to formally recognize Palestinian sovereignty which was condemned by Israeli government. According to Australian journalist Laura Tingle, the continued aggressive action committed by Israel in Gaza has risked the country into becoming a global pariah.^[25]

Libyan pariah status began after Colonel Muammar Gaddafi launched a coup d'etat against King Idris in 1969 and established the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. During its early days, Gaddafi expelled American and British bases in Libya and nationalized foreign oil companies operating in the country, causing strained relationship with the West. During his tenure, Gaddafi was known for his support toward left-wing militias around the globe such as Provisional IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and Free Aceh Movement (GAM); making Libya become international pariah to the numerous affected governments.

In 1979, Libya was added to the state sponsors of terrorism list due to its involvement with left leaning militias.^[26] The relationship between Libya and the West was strained even futher during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan which Reagan accused Gaddafi of being puppet regime to the Soviet Union and plotted to assassinate him which was denied by Gaddafi.^[27] In 1982, the Reagan administration imposed oil embargo against Libya.^[28] In 1986, the Reagan administration accused Libya of funding terror attack of a discotheque in West Berlin that killed two American servicemen stationed in West Berlin. As a response, Reagan launched a bombing campaign against Libya as a warning to Gaddafi.^[29]

After numerous years as international pariah, Gaddafi began working to normalize relations with Western nations at the end of 1990s and early 2000s. In 1999, Gaddafi began a secret talk with the British government to normalize relationship.^[30] During the September 11 attack, Gaddafi expressed his sympathy with Americans who are affected by the attack and stated he was ready to participate in the War on Terror as an attempt to polish his image to the Western world. In 2003, Libya began to dismantle its weapon of mass destruction in order to normalize relations with the United States after deal with the Bush administration. The move was praised by some Western government and was being hyped as a model of disarmament for Syria, Iran, and North Korea.^[31][32]

Since its independence from the British Empire, Myanmar (also known as Burma) has been led by different military regimes from Ne Win to Min Aung Hlaing. Ne Win seized power in 1962 and imposed martial law for the first 12 years of his regime. During his regime, Ne Win also nationalized many companies operating in Burma and imposed self isolation with disconnected Burma from the rest of the world in the name of "self sufficiency", however his policy later backfired as the isolation bankrupted the country and saw rise of black market and smuggling operations.^[33]

After the 8888 Uprising, Burma experienced a power vacuum after the fall of Ne Win regime which caused General Saw Maung to launch a coup in 1988 to assume power, marking the beginning of Myanmar's another decades of international isolation due to widespread condemnation of the regime.^[34] As a response of the coup, The United States downgraded its relations with Myanmar after the government's crackdown of democratic opposition as well as the military junta refusal to recognize the the 1990 general election results which led to a detention to the election winner Aung San Suu Kyi.^[35] In early 2000s, the U.S. government passed the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act (BFDA) act which imposed broader sanctions against Myanmar which restricted trade between Myanmar and the U.S., freezing of assets tied to the junta, and visa restriction for Burmese. The act was signed by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2003 as a response to the Depayin massacre committed by the junta and was renewed annually. Like the U.S., The European Union has also imposed international sanctions against the junta but with exceptions of humanitarian aid.^[36] The broader sanctions has caused many European and American companies that previously operating in Myanmar to withdraw from the country since 1990 with few companies continued to operate under the loopholes.^[37] Aside from the Western world, Myanmar's neighbors who are part of ASEAN also expressed their concern and tried to distance themselves from having relationship with Myanmar due to democratic situation in the country.^[38]

After the democratic reform and the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, sanctions against Myanmar was gradually eased and Myanmar began to normalize its ties with the Western world. However, the Myanmar decade of democracy was only short lived as Tatmadaw once again returned to power in 2021 after toppling Aung San Suu Kyi's government, reverting the country back to another international isolation. The coup was internationally condemned with numerous governments imposed sanctions against Myanmar.^[39] After the military coup, Myanmar has also been excluded in numerous ASEAN summits, isolating the country even further.^[40]

Since the end of Korean war, North Korea has been widely regarded as pariah state due to the international isolation imposed since the Kim Il Sung leadership and continued after his death in 1994 by his descendants until today. Initially the Juche ideology that was coined by Kim Il Sung does not advocate isolationism but rather cooperation with other Eastern bloc countries such as Cuba, China, Soviet Union, Hoxha's Albania, and Ceaucescu's Romania.^[41] Since 1950s, the United States government has imposed sanctions against North Korea due to series of bombings against its rival nation South Korea. After the end of Korean war the sanctions was tightened after North Korea launched a series of state sponsored terror attacks against South Korean officials and civilians most notably being Rangoon bombing that targeted then South Korean leader Chun Doo Hwan during his visit to Burma and the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 between Baghdad and Seoul. As a result, North Korea become increasingly isolated and was placed under the state sponsor of terrorism list.^[42][43]

After the collapse of the Eastern bloc which subsequently led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, North Korea becoming more isolated from the international stage. As a result, famine and economic crises started to rock the country due to the collapse of its biggest financial donor, the Soviet Union followed by international sanctions that are still imposed since the end of Korean war in 1953.^[44] After Kim Dae-jung launched Sunshine Policy, the Clinton administration began to ease sanctions against North Korea and start sending food aid to ease the effect of the famine to North Korea.^[45]

However, the sanctions relief was short lived after North Korean withdrawal from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and start conducting nuclear tests since 2006 which caused North Korea to return to its pariah status. The UN Security Council Resolutions passed international sanctions for North Korea since 2006 as a response and the Bush administration begin to drastically reduce food aid to North Korea since 2005, which he was criticized by the media for "weaponizing food aid" for nuclear talks with North Korea.^[46][47] North Korean cold war era allies such as China and Russia also imposed sanctions against North Korea due to compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions. In 2010, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev passed presidential decree banning purchase of weapons and relevant materials from North Korea. Chinese government would follow suit 7 years after Russia by banning coal and petroleum imports from North Korea. However, Russia and China would later ease sanctions against North Korea after the informal formation of CRINK bloc in 2020s.^[48][49][50]

Relations with the United States and South Korea was briefly thawed during the first Trump administration and Moon Jae-in administration. In April 2018, Moon Jae-in met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at Peace House in the Korean DMZ with second talk continued on September 2018 in North Korean capital Pyongyang. United States President [[Donald Trump held 2 summits with Kim Jong Un in Singapore and Hanoi to talk about denuclearization of North Korea. Donald Trump become the first sitting U.S. President to step its foot in North Korea during 3rd summit in the DMZ.^[51] After the end of Trump and Moon presidencies, the hostilities between U.S., South Korea with North Korea was resumed.

• Failed state
• Isolationism
• Rogue state
• Persona non grata
• List of states with limited recognition

• Joseph Edward Gleason Jr. (1993). Iranian Foreign Policy Shedding the Pariah Image. Norfolk, Virginia: Old Dominion University.
• Segev Tom (2007). 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East (PDF). Metropolitan Books. ISBN 978-0805088120.
• Bearman, Jonathan (1986). Qadhafi's Libya. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-0-86232-434-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Vandewalle, Dirk (2008a). "Libya in the New Millennium". In Vandewalle, Dirk (ed.). Libya Since 1969: Qadhafi's Revolution Revisited. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 215–237. doi:10.1007/978-0-230-61386-7_10. ISBN 978-0-230-33750-3.
• Lee, Grace (2003). "The Political Philosophy of Juche" (PDF). Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs. 3 (1): 105–111.