Nationalism and Human Rights This Page Intentionally Left Blank Nationalism and Human Rights

Nationalism and Human Rights This page intentionally left blank Nationalism and Human Rights In Theory and Practice in the Middle East, Central Europe, and the Asia-Pacific Edited by Grace Cheng NATIONALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS Copyright © Grace Cheng, 2012. Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2012 978-0-230-33856-2 All rights reserved. First published in 2012 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States – a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978-1-349-34157-3 ISBN 978-1-137-01202-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9781137012029 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Nationalism and human rights : in theory and practice in the Middle East, Central Europe, and the Asia-Pacific / edited by Grace Cheng. p. cm. 1. Human rights—Political aspects. 2. Human rights—Political aspects—Middle East. 3. Nationalism—Middle East. 4. Human rights—Political aspects—Europe, Central. 5. Nationalism—Europe, Central. 6. Human rights—Political aspects—Pacific Area. 7. Nationalism—Pacific Area. I. Cheng, Grace, 1968– JC571.N33265 2012 320.54—dc23 2011040451 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by MPS Limited, A Macmillan Company First edition: March 2012 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Contents Foreword vi Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat 1 The Relationship between Nationalism and Human Rights: An Introduction to the Dimensions of the Debate 1 Grace Cheng 2 Human Rights as a Security Challenge: An Examination of Turkish Nationalist Discourse on Minority Rights Reforms 21 Beyza Ç. Tekin 3 All in the Name of Human Rights: A Historical Case Study on Australian Nationalism and Multiculturalism, 1980–1990 47 Troy Whitford 4 Migrants at Home: The Impact of Israeli Land Policy and Patrilocal Residence on Palestinian Women in Israel 69 Lilian Abou-Tabickh 5 National Rights, Minority Rights, and Ethnic Cleansing 97 Omar Dahbour 6 Cosmopolitan Citizenship as a Thin Concept: Who Is Willing to Die for Humanity? 123 Filiz Kartal 7 The Contradictions of Human Rights and Sovereignty: Contemporary Dilemmas of Postwar Historical Practice 141 Grace Cheng 8 Taming the Nation- State: Human Rights and Peoples 163 Mitch Avila 9 Conclusion: Nationalism versus Human Rights 179 Füsun Türkmen Notes on Contributors 187 Index 189 Foreword Both human rights and nationalism make emancipatory promises, and as such they serve as effective mobilizing devices. Oppressed, repressed, and marginalized people increasingly frame their issues in human rights terms. The early uses of nationalism meant liberation, as it was connected to first peoples’ struggles against the ancien régime in the modernization of Europe and then in seeking independence from colonial and other forms of imperialism. Moreover, the International Bill of Rights recognizes “peoples’ right to self-determination” as a human right. Peoples’ right to self- determination is often understood as a nation’s right to statehood, thus feeding the desire to form nation- states. Statehood is important because not only it equips a nation with claims of sovereignty against others, but also because the global and regional human rights regimes are essentially étatist. They recognize the state as the arbitrator as well as the provider and protector of human rights. In other words, although the post- Westphalian world structure brings forth international human rights treaties that curb states’ freedom to treat their citizens as they wish and oblige the states parties to follow international human rights norms, and “universalism of rights” means that they apply to all human beings regardless of their citizenship and other status, human rights, as constructed in these treaties, cannot be enjoyed without an active and strong state (Arat 2008). Noncitizens remain particularly vulnerable, as evident in refugee crises and treatment of immigrants. Yet, the emancipatory function of citizenship rights has been limited, and nation- states, including those that subscribe to the rule of law and democratic governance, maintain hierarchal structures and discriminatory policies (Kaplan 1997). They engender second- class citizens, who are, in Carlos Formet’s words, “racial, ethnic, national, religious, and gendered minorities who have been driven by the discriminatory practices of their compatriots to occupy marginal positions in the ‘central institutions’ of their own homeland” (Formet 1996, 316). Moreover, nationalist discourses and mobilization efforts have been masculine and militarist, yielding nation- states that follow and reinforce patriarchal norms, structures, and FOREWORD vii gender roles. In postcolonial or postrevolution states, the desire to form and forge a national identity further overburden women who are treated as the carrier and transmitter of the “authentic” culture ( Yuval- Davis 1997) and embodiment of the national and family honor; but at the same time they are expected to transform themselves into an image of the revo- lutionary/modern “new woman,” which is typically imposed by the male leadership (Durakbas¸a 1998; Kandiyoti 1987). A blatant sign of the militarism of nationalism is the international and civil wars that have been increasing both in number and in terms of the damage and suffering that they inflict. Although when critics of nationalism, such as Arundhati Roy who notes that “nationalism of one kind or another was the cause of most of the genocide of the twentieth century” (Roy 2003, 47), emphasize the particularist, “othering” aspect of nationalism, the assimilationist, homogenizing, and civilizing missions of nationalism can be equally detrimental, if the persistent denial and exces- sive repression of cultural identity eradicates the culture through a “white genocide” (Tirman 1997). Assimilation policies are often problematized in assessing the impact of colonialism and Western states’ treatment of immigrants from the former colonies or in postcolonial states that are engaged in homogenizing efforts as a part of their nation- building projects. However, a quick comparison of the maps of the early- eighteenth- century and postrevolutionary France would reveal the scope of languages and ethnic/national identities lost in the process of unification and converting feudal provinces into a modern département system. It is important to note that nationalism was also a part of the modern/ Western imperialist expansion. Different from classical imperialism that typically served dynastic interests, in which territorial expansion involved acquiring the adjacent land and making the conquered land an integral part of the empire, with its overseas acquisitions or indirect rule, modern/ Western imperialism intended to serve the interest of the “motherland.” The three pillars of Western imperialism—the state, profit- seeking entrepreneurs/corporations, and Christian missionaries—reinforced each other’s interests, even though at times they appeared to be in conflict. Most important, they worked toward homogenizing the dominated people, politically, economically, and culturally, albeit without granting them full equality. Classical empires, on the other hand, although discriminatory and exploitative, usually allowed multiple cultures to coexist and even to flourish. Which ethnic/national groups’ right to self- determination is considered legitimate or which peoples’ demand for statehood are recognized by the community of states? I think the response to nationalist demands is largely determined by the colonial structures, as well as the power differentials viii FOREWORD among states. In countries where the colonial rule involved major population movements from Europe to the colonies (e.g., Americas, Oceania, South Africa), decolonization led to the establishment of states that are run by white settlers, and the colonized became “the indigenous people,” whose struggle for equality in dignity and self- determination still continues today. Indigenous peoples’ nationalist claims are often undermined, and their cultures are essentialized. In The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development, Karen Engle notes that “while powerful nonindigenous entities might be able to insist on being able to ‘pick and choose’ which parts of indigenous heritage shall be valorized and preserved, indigenous communities themselves are rarely afforded such liberty” (Engle 2010, 137). It is worth noting that beyond decolonization, only few peoples gained territorial independence and statehood during the Cold War years. Ethnic claims within both established and newly independent states were either disregarded, or they were provided accommodations that excluded statehood. However, the political map of the world changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and the number of states increased as each “nation” attempted to have its own nation- state. While the cause of the international community’s willingness to support more statehood claims in the aftermath of the Cold War deserves careful research, I would like to point to the irony in the proliferation of states during this recent

Load more