The experience of World War II showed that preventing crimes against humanity requires the formation of international institutions and cooperation. Since then, many expenses have been spent on maintaining and expanding such institutions. Unfortunately, not only are we still witnessing human tragedies, but considering the events in Gaza in 2023, it seems that the trend of the decline of human dignity beings has begun, and a dark future awaits us.
In this article, I am trying to reveal a mechanism of relations by referring to several events in the international arena, which are the result of the policies of democratic countries (The US and the European Union) in the last few years. I also illustrate those policies have had a significant impact on the decline of human dignity. Unfortunately, there are no signs of change until further notice. In the end, I would like to point out that to restore human dignity, humanity needs a “categorical imperative” in the field of the international system.
• Zarif, Blinken, Trump
Mohammad Javad Zarif claims on November 8th, one month after the Hamas attack on Israel, that Anthony Blinken, with his speech in the Security Council, intended to somehow drag Iran into war. He says that although everyone in Iran has clearly said that Iran had no role in this attack, America is eager for Iran to enter the war.
While Anthony Blinken clearly stated in the Security Council on October 24, “America is not looking for a conflict with Iran.” We do not want this war to spread. “But if Tehran or its proxies attack American personnel anywhere, make no mistake: We will defend our people, we will defend our security — swiftly and decisively.”
What is the matter? Blinken clearly says that he is not looking for a conflict with Iran. Why does Zarif insist that the US Secretary of State has tried to drag Iran into a war?
Instead of looking for the answer to this question in the contradictory statements of these two, we should go to another person. This person is Donald Trump.
For years, Trump has been accusing President Biden and the Democratic party of spreading war worldwide and even starting World War III. He knows that American public opinion is very sensitive about war and the best propaganda item in the election campaign is to accuse the opponent of warmongering. This activity of Trump against the Democrats is the best opportunity for Zarif to put pressure on the US government in the eyes of the US public by claiming that Anthony Blinken is warmongering. He knows that with this trick, the American government simply sits back and does not bother the Islamic regime much. In the continuation of his speech, Zarif says that in the event of a war, bombs will fall on the Iranian people and will not harm the Islamic regime.
Here I want to talk about a behavioral mechanism that is related to the decline of human dignity. A kind of mechanism that exists in international relations. American public opinion is considered a deterrent factor in the foreign policy of that country’s government. Hatred of war and military expenses in the eyes of public opinion has caused the government of this country to show itself to be free from such an act. This deterrent has become a good opportunity for the religious regime to limit and push back against the US government and its allies. In other words, interactions between America and the European Union with others are no longer based on fundamental values such as human rights and have caused the decline of human dignity. Rather, the West always behaves in a way that avoids the charge of war-mongering. The continuation and repetition of this issue are such that a stable behavioral mechanism can be recognized in the international system. A mechanism that facilitates the violation of general standards and suppression of fundamental human rights for the Islamic regime. Therefore, I call it a “facilitating mechanism”. This mechanism is directly related to the decline of human dignity.
• The death of Qassem Soleimani and the missile attack on the Ain al-Assad base
After the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the religious regime responded by targeting the US-owned Ain al-Assad military base in Iraq with dozens of missiles. After this action, everyone was waiting for the reaction of the United States; The hegemonic power in a unipolar system! As expected, Donald Trump gave a speech the day after the attack on Ain al-Assad. The President of the United States, while vaguely referring to Iran’s nuclear program and unwillingness for Middle Eastern oil, asked NATO to be more present in this region. He also talked about his country’s military power. He said America has the “strongest” army in the world, but having such a force does not mean it is necessary to use it.
In the end, Donald Trump pointed out that ISIS was the “natural enemy” of Iran and the United States, adding that Iran can “cooperate” with the United States on “common priorities” in this regard, and addressed the leaders of Iran, saying that the United States is ready to peace for those who want it.
Trump extended a hand of peace to a regime that a few hours ago had one of the heaviest attacks on an American military base. The President of the United States intended to prevent the widening of the conflict. It is clear. So, the type of speech and behavior of US and Iranian officials provides more information about the “facilitating mechanism”.
From the day after Iran’s missile attack on the American base, the significant question was the amount of human damage caused by the American forces. Although dozens of missiles were fired at the American base, it was expected that the death toll of American soldiers would be high, but on the contrary, not a single person was killed. In a short time, it became clear that the Islamic regime had informed the Americans of its intention before the attack and, given the right opportunity, practically demanded the evacuation of the base before the attack. America also took advantage of the opportunity.
America’s way of informing about possible damages is also unique. Elisa Farah, the former spokesperson of the Pentagon, says in this regard: “The White House asked [us] the Pentagon to report the number of casualties differently or to delay it, to inform about it once 10 days or two weeks and give a general summary of this story”. It is known that not only the Islamic regime did not intend to kill the American soldiers, but the White House also wanted the possible damages to be considered insignificant and eventually forgotten.
This information indicates that there are sensitive points in the “facilitating mechanism”. It seems that in this mechanism, the actors are allowed to do any kind of behavior, but they should not hit the sensitive points. The behavior of the Islamic regime and the US government showed that saving the lives of American soldiers (citizens) is one of these sensitive points. In other words, although we witnessed a relatively heavy missile attack against the positions of the United States, due to respecting the privacy of the sensitive point, this missile attack was tolerable within the framework of the “facilitating mechanism”.
At the same time, we are witnessing heavy competition between the US House of Representatives led by Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump. Pelosi and the House of Representatives, with the majority of the Democratic Party, approved that limits the powers of the president from military power. This was a symbolic form and was vetoed by Trump himself. It seems that the purpose of its plan was only to draw the attention of public opinion to the fact that in the event of a possible war between the United States and Iran, all the responsibility for it will be borne by Donald Trump himself. In other words, it should be acknowledged that the “facilitating mechanism” should not be considered a creation of Donald Trump. Rather, the entire American political system believes in this mechanism. The accusations of each of the rival parties against each other should be seen only in the framework of the election competition.
Hostage-taking; a sample of moving boundaries
It may be thought that in the “facilitating mechanism” the boundaries are defined. But in fact, it is not. The boundaries and norms of this mechanism can be adjusted and can be changed relatively easily. In other words, this mechanism should be imagined as a machine that has an adjustment lever. One of these levers is hostage-taking.
Taking hostages is a customary method used by the religious government to change the normative boundaries of the “facilitating mechanism” and it has been relatively successful. During the life of the religious regime in Iran, dozens of Western citizens, including Americans and Europeans, were always present in Iran’s prisons, and they usually were exchanged for the regime’s demands from time to time. It may be thought that the ability to change the normative boundaries leads to the instability of this mechanism. But in fact, this is not the case and this mechanism has a very high stability.
All options are on the table
One of the phrases that have been heard a lot in the last two decades in diplomacy is: “All options are on the table”.
My memory remembers that this sentence was always repeated by Barack Obama. George W. Bush may have used this phrase and I have forgotten. This sentence has always been used regarding the amount of uranium enrichment by the religious regime. It should be kept in mind that Obama used this sentence when the level of uranium enrichment had reached about 3%. Later, in the JCPOA agreement, it became clear that the tolerance limit of the US government was enrichment with a concentration of 3.5%. It was thought that enrichment above 3.5% concentration would lead to the use of coercive options including military attack by the US government. The issue of nuclear activities of the religious regime has been going on for more than two decades and has always been the headline of the day’s news. Since that day, the concentration of enriched uranium has reached more than 60%, and according to a report by the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, samples of uranium with a concentration of more than 84% have also been found. Certainly, the publication of reports on the concentration of enriched uranium has led to the reaction of the United States government. Can you guess what President Biden said in response to these reports? He said: “All options are on the table.”
All options are on the table!
The repetition of this threatening sentence in all conditions, from enrichment with a concentration of less than 3% to over 60% and even in one case over 80%, shows that the “facilitating mechanism” is stable in every situation.
Therefore, the “facilitating mechanism” can be identified with these 4 components:
The above four components bring results that can play an effective role in the decisions and policies of any country. Together, we review the results of this mechanism.
The Anti-war Public Opinion and Elections:
The high impact of public opinion, especially in the days close to the elections, makes the presence and influence on this field attractive for other political forces. Today, according to the above mechanism, every political action knows that to influence the foreign policy of the United States and Western European countries, it is necessary to target the public opinion focused on the elections in those countries. Political forces have learned well that the best tactic to destroy any party or leadership in democratic countries is to accuse him of war. Therefore, they try to influence public opinion in different ways. It can be said that the “facilitating mechanism” has caused, every change in international relations immediately affecting the internal political interactions of democratic countries.
The Sensitive Points (life of citizens)
On the surface, the action of governments in giving importance to the lives of citizens seems to be a natural and desirable thing. But whenever it is observed that the importance and value of human life are defined by attributes or affiliations such as citizenship, religion, race, language, and the like, then one should immediately worry. What is considered the heritage of the West for humanity is their importance and priority as human beings by simply being human. If a person is to be defined by his attribute or dependence on another subject, then all the value foundations of the West (humanism) will collapse. And this is the biggest wish of the enemies of the West, especially religious groups. Religious groups seek the continuation of their existence by convincing others about the incompetence of humans in accepting responsibility, will, and control. Anything that can question the dignity of humanity and is a fact on the validity of religious claims will be welcomed by religious groups. Too much emphasis on the importance of the lives of Western citizens causes their citizenship to be important instead of the humanity of individuals. Religious systems are also based on the same logic. A logic that considers man as a subject who enjoys blessings by obeying a higher power. So far, more than 20,000 people in Gaza have been killed. But what is being discussed is the ceasefire agreement to exchange dozens of Western prisoners. It is obvious that the more the lives of non-Western citizens, including the people of Gaza, become unimportant, the higher the legitimacy of religious groups, whether Islamist or Zionist.
The Moving Boundaries
The moving boundaries refer to the fact that everything, including human lives, is negotiable. In other words, there is no absolute in this mechanism. The most disastrous result of this situation is the “Banality of evil”. What I mean by this concept exactly corresponds to the meaning used by Hannah Arendt. In the sense that the existence of evil is accepted if benefits are provided and everyone considers himself an exception to the evil. It seems that the misfortunes of the evil are for others and its blessings are for them. For this reason, association with evil is considered normal, but this association implicitly means confirming and facilitating its continuation. When the international system accepts to negotiate and exchange benefits with any group on any issue including human rights violations, it trivializes the existence of evil and makes it appear normal.
The Stability
The Stability can be beneficial or harmful, depending on the situation. that is obvious that the conditions with the Banality of evil and the danger of destroying the dignity of humanity, the stability of the situation more than anything, causes disillusionment and destruction of humanitarian forces and ideas aimed at freedom and justice.
The absence of the “categorical imperative”
The subject of this article is neither the nuclear conflict of the Islamic regime, the death of Qassem Soleimani, nor the hostage-taking. I just wanted to show how interaction is in the international system through examples.
After the bitter experience of the Second World War, it was believed that humanity had achieved a level of responsibility and awareness to prevent its repetition. Unfortunately, today, despite the “facilitating mechanism”, we are closer to the decline of human dignity than ever before. The United Nations was established to prevent human disasters and does not play much of a role in international interactions today. It seems that the resolutions of this organization do not affect changing the course of events. In such a situation, there is one way to hope for the change and restoration of human dignity, and that is to stop the “facilitating mechanism” as soon as possible and establish a “categorical imperative” on international institutions.
Why is the “categorical imperative” needed to prevent the decline of human dignity?
- The “facilitating mechanism” causes international disasters to become uncontrollable and continue with internal challenges in democratic countries. The existence of the “categorical imperative” in the international system causes this connection to be cut off. Because countries are obliged to obey the categorical imperative, regardless of the wishes of the public opinion inside the country, and on the other hand, there is no incentive left for the forces that violate human rights to influence the public opinion of democratic countries.
- With the establishment of the “categorical imperative,” the law applies to all human beings. In this case, the difference based on the dependence of humans on other things cannot be the cause of injustice and the decline of human dignity. The “categorical imperative” is considered an inhibiting factor for wills that try to differentiate between people through secondary components. The existence of moral principles instead of any otherization factor is the most humane and acceptable normative method that can cover and protect all human beings.
- “categorical imperative” does not accept any exceptions. The exception is a factor in the “Banality of evil.” The Banality of evil distorts every subject. You cannot negotiate to confront evil. Because evil first distorts the topic of negotiation, and then imposes its agenda.
- In the end, Kantian “categorical imperative” is stated once again. It seems that we have no choice but to obey it to prevent the decline of human dignity.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
