The Iran war, irrespective of the way it ends, will have a corrosive impact on the present world order in multiple ways. That order was put in place by the victors of the Second World War. A pillar of the order lay in its ideal of the sovereign equality of all states big or small. Along with this it emphasised that the territorial integrity of states was inviolable and, further, there should be no interference in their internal affairs. This conception replaced the preceding world order which recognised the validity of colonialism. European powers paid scant regard to either the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of non-European states. They also intervened in their domestic affairs. Colonialism was based on the principle that some peoples were not fit to rule themselves. From this followed the view that some races were superior to others. Hence, all human beings were not equal. This was an affront to peoples who had moved the human race from barbarism to civilization.

If one pillar of the post Second World War world order dealt with states, another dealt with human rights. The core of this view repudiated the belief in the inequality of races. Indeed, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 1 of the Declaration states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. It took a few decades for this clarion call to be accepted by states. Indeed, a few states do not subscribe to its principles even now but generally the Declaration is the bedrock of current beliefs and doctrines of human rights.

A brief consideration of the evolution of the principles and doctrines of human rights is opportune because these are most flouted in wars; that has been the case in the Iran war too. A children’s school in Iran was bombed on the first day of the war. More than 170 young school girls and their teachers died in the bombing. India condoled the death of the school children though after almost a fortnight. The spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs said “We regret the precious lives lost and express our grief in that regard”.

History shows that human rights were not accepted in principle in remote or medieval times. This is notwithstanding the view that many religions held. They asserted that all men (not all human beings) were equal. In the political sphere it was held during the Enlightenment In Europe. During the French Revolution the National Assembly in 1789 adopted a declaration pertaining to the ‘rights of man and citizen’. It stated inter alia “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on common utility. The purpose of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression”. It took the US a civil war and seventy nine years, after the adoption of its constitution, to accept that all men enjoyed equal protection under the law. Till slavery was abolished slaves were not treated as humans but as property!

Gender discrimination continued till later. In the US women were given the right to vote only in 1920. Incredibly in Switzerland it was only in 1971 that voting rights at the federal level were conferred on women. Even now the potential of women in many countries cannot be realised. In India the constitution gave the right of vote to all Indians. The framers of the constitution were remarkable and far-seeing individuals who decided to base the constitution on the foundation of human rights that were enforceable by the courts. Certainly, the most important right is that of vote which empowers all Indians, men and women and transgenders, to decide who will represent them and govern them on their behalf. Over the years it is not only men who are making their mark in all spheres of life and achieving the highest offices in the country. Women are breaking the shackles of discrimination and forging ahead.

The Iran war has been waged by the world’s most powerful state, the US, on grounds of its security. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) it has a special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Normally, it should have taken the mandate of waging war from the UNSC. It chose not to do so. Earlier in January it launched a military operation against Venezuela and abducted the President of the country and his wife. Both these actions violated sovereignty. The Iran war has, in addition, led to the death of hundreds of civilians too. Retaliating against the US, Iran has attacked the Gulf Arab countries. In doing so it has also violated sovereignty. These have eroded a foundational principle of world order.

Recently, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a European audience that they should not be apologetic about the expansion of the West in other parts of the world. Rubio’s implication was clear: there was nothing wrong with colonialism. It is that sentiment that makes it easier to attack a non-European state. The Iran war will now make it ideologically easier to deny non-Europeans their rights and there will be scant remorse for the deaths of girls in bombings!

© Greater Kashmir