FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Sovereignty of Muslim Nations

The United States has adopted an invasive foreign policy that violates the sovereignty of many Muslim nations. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter promulgates: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Territorial integrity and political independence are the principles of national sovereignty — key principles of the U. N. Charter and post-colonial international law – which empower nations to freely determine their political, social, economic, and religious institutions, without external coercion, diplomatic pressure, war threats, and economic sanctions. Philosophically, these principles respect human diversity and presume that no system, including liberal democracy, can be the singular model for all nations. The principles caution against any mindless importation of legal and political systems successful in other nations. Accordingly, the peoples of the world are free to institute political systems of their choice, including constitutional monarchies, presidential systems, secular or religious forms of government.

Contrary to the U.N. Charter, and in blatant violation of the principles of territorial integrity and political independence, the U. S. is determined to forcibly shape the Muslim world in its own image. Part of this determination mirrors the American mindset that Muslim nations would indeed be better off if they simply borrow secular institutions of the United States. This evangelical mindset presumes that Islam is a reactionary religion that impedes material prosperity and social justice. Part of this determination reflects the dark side of American self-pride and super-power exceptionalism, which sees most other nations as the lesser children of God in need of American guidance. Undoubtedly, the U.S. foreign policy is also geared toward obtaining key natural resources (such as oil) and maintaining strategic military dominance in various Muslim regions of the world.

For most part of the twentieth century, Muslim nations, some emerging from the colonial yoke, approached the U. S. for economic assistance, development, and even protection against regional and global enemies. For example, the U.S. played a supportive role in the independence of Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation. The fear of the Soviet Union, which had occupied Central Asian Muslim nations and later invaded Afghanistan, drove many other Muslim nations to seek U.S. patronage. For a variety of reasons, the U.S. succeeded in constructing strategic alliances with key Muslim nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran under the Shah.

The relations with the Muslim world, however, began to fracture as the U.S. foreign policy favored Israel in the Middle East conflict. The 1979 Iranian revolution painted the U.S. as the Great Satan, and highlighted the immorality of U.S. foreign policy that subsidizes cruel and inhuman occupation of Palestine and institutes puppet governments in Muslim countries. A few years later, the Al Qaeda, an international militant organization, launched asymmetrical warfare against U.S. targets to draw attention to the occupation of Muslim lands. In countering terrorist attacks, the U.S. bombed Tripoli and Khartoum, the capitals of Libya and Sudan, ratcheting up the conflict with Muslim nations.

The 9/11 attacks and subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have further fractured relations with the Muslim world. The U.S. homeland security and the associated legal rhetoric of self-defense and the war on terror have been invoked to establish a new justificatory paradigm for violating territorial integrity and political independence of Muslim nations. The phraseology of “Islamic fascism” and “Islamic terrorism” paints Muslim militants as inherently violent individuals who kill to please God and to go to heaven. Almost every Muslim nation, foe or friend, is under intense U.S. diplomatic pressure to launch attacks on national militants even if such attacks kill innocent civilians.

The U.S. logic of homeland security is weighing heavily on Afghanistan, where the war machine has killed thousands of civilians in pursuing the dubious goal of defeating the Taliban. Even Pakistan, a subservient ally, has been subjected to drone attacks while Pakistan’s democratically elected government and its armed forces are helpless in protecting the nation’s territorial integrity and political independence.

In addition to military attacks, the U.S. foreign policy employs subversive modus operandi. The 2006 Iran Freedom Support Act allocates millions of dollars authorizing U.S. intelligence agencies to support groups opposed to the Iranian government. This law is fashioned after the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a law that paved the way for invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The threats of attacking Iran are in the air. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence agencies enjoy the legal mandate to destabilize the Iranian government and possibly reverse the Islamic revolution by sowing seeds of confusion and anarchy.

Unfortunately, these massive violations of the U.N. Charter, specifically of the principles of territorial integrity and political independence, go unnoticed. The U.N. officials are silent over these violations as if Article 2(4) does not exist. The U.S. foreign policy remains the same under President Obama, who promised to mend relations with Muslim nations. Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers continue to talk about winning hearts and minds of Muslim populations. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Iran, with so many Muslim countries on the U.S. hit-list, it is unclear how a foreign policy of territorial aggression, invasion, and subversion can generate goodwill that the U.S. seeks in the Muslim world.

ALI KHAN is professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas and the author of A Theory of universal Democracy (2006).

More articles by:

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail