Name: Russia has become a pariah state. What's next?
Uploaded: 2022-11-28T17:45:36.000Z
Duration: 10 min
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Relative clauses (Restrictive vs. nonrestrictive)

This is Davos: A Swiss mountain resort, which brings together both business leaders

and politicians from the international community to discuss some of the

world's most pressing issues every January.

Only this winter, there is one notable exception.

This is the former Russia House, which was converted into the “Russian War Crimes House”

in 2022, showcasing an art exhibit of the atrocities committed in Ukraine.

In 2023, a new tenant has taken over and there's no trace of Russia's presence.

Russian public figures and business delegates — once a key presence here — have been

banned from the forum this year, reflecting the country's broader ousting from the international

community following President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Given the circumstances and the violation of the UN charter, it was impossible to have

Russian representatives join us in dialogue.

There are countries where, when a representative walks into a room, other representatives walk out.

Yet, further along the promenade, as on the global stage, other states accused by the

international community of human rights abuses are well represented.

That begs the question: who decides which countries should receive a warm welcome and

the ones that get frozen out of the international community?

A pariah state is typically defined as one outcast from the international community and

often subject to isolation and sanctions by nations that view its actions as unacceptable.

Perhaps the most widely accepted example of a pariah state is North Korea, which has been

largely isolated from the global stage for more than half a century.

The country is known for behaving entirely outside of international norms, with assassinations

on foreign soil, missile provocations and inflammatory rhetoric among its wrongdoings.

But there is no unanimous agreement or criteria for the label.

The term 'pariah state' has origins in Western diplomatic discourse and is used sparingly,

generally reserved for those nations guilty of gross human rights abuses,

supporting international terrorism or breaking nuclear non-proliferation laws.

However, its application has varied over the years.

Iran, which has a history of using hostages as a tool of statecraft, has drifted in and

out of pariah status for several decades.

Iran has been considered a pariah state, sort of, off and on.

There are times when Iran is more interested in engaging and interested in negotiating,

and times when Iran seems to be more threatening to other countries in the region.

Oftentimes that threatening behavior gets countries to take a step back.

But oftentimes then looking for a way to reengage the Iranians.

Cuba, which has been occasionally labelled as a pariah state, was neither a state sponsor

of terrorism nor possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Other countries which have been labelled pariah states inconsistently include Afghanistan and Syria.

Then, there are nations with the label that have caused divisions among the international community.

In 2002, Zimbabwe was dubbed a “self-made pariah” by the U.K. over then President

Robert Mugabe's land reform program, which seemingly aimed to redistribute land from

minority white citizens to the majority black population.

The scheme resulted in accusations of human-rights abuses, prompting the U.S. and the European Union

to sanction the country — much to the discomfort of other African leaders.

Ethel Kuuya has worked as a public policy advisor across Sub-Saharan Africa, including

within the Southern African Development Community.

There were some violations of human rights, I don't dispute that at all.

But if we were to put that in context of other countries that have been sweeping violators

of human rights and have somehow not fallen into the 'you go and sit in the naughty

corner' type of policies that the West tends to apply, there was a choice to be very strongarmed

around a country that had decided to dare to reclaim some of the land.

Sanctions are one of the tools usually employed against pariah states to influence a desired outcome.

Following Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, Western nations leveled sanctions against

more than 8,000 Russian individuals and around 2,300 Russian entities in a bid to pressure

Putin and choke off funds to his war chest.

The U.S. alone implemented more than 2,500 sanctions against Russia up to November 2022

The punitive measures include seizures of vessels and aircrafts owned by Russian oligarchs.

Neighboring Belarus was also targeted over President Alexander Lukashenko's support for Russia.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of Belarus's opposition democratic movement, was forced

into exile in 2020 after Lukashenko declared victory in widely disputed elections.

Lukashenko seized the power in 2020 and he's continued repressions against Belarussian

people, and he became a co-collaborant in this war.

He provided our territory and infrastructure for attacking Ukraine, for launching missiles.

But the effectiveness of sanctions in reforming a country's behavior remains a topic of much debate.

If countries don't think there's a way out of sanctions, you diminish the incentives

Twenty-one years down the line after sanctions, the effects of it was not on a handful of

people, as they claimed it would affect, but it has affected an entire country.

In a study of 57 sanction programs between 1914 and 2000, just 21% were considered partly

successful, while in 65% of cases, sanctions were lifted without achieving the goal.

Meanwhile, from 1976 to 2012, United Nations sanctions led to a 25.5% aggregate decline

in the gross domestic product per capita of sanctioned countries, often hurting the most

From a human rights perspective, the moment you put sanctions and label a state a pariah

state, that turning away from that country to some extent can also provide cover for

certain things to continue to go on that can't get examined because this country is a pariah state.

Back in Zimbabwe, not everyone was on board with the West's isolation tactics, and in

2008, Russia and China, alongside South Africa, Libya and Vietnam, vetoed proposed

The absence of Western engagement served to cement new alliances between Zimbabwe and

the East, most notably via the government's “Look East Policy,” which promoted investment

with countries like China, Singapore and Malaysia.

China has come in very strongly, creating manufacturing capacity on the ground in Zimbabwe,

as well as obviously it being an export destination for China's products.

Countries that are so-called pariah states, they find new partners.

In the wake of Russia's war, Moscow and Beijing have similarly strengthened their

political, economic, and military ties even as relations with the West worsened.

The fractured international response raises questions about the effectiveness of economic

and political exile in today's increasingly divided world: one in which global super

powers are shifting, and Western dominance is less assured.

I've heard this from people: You know what, Ukraine's really far from us, this isn't our fight.

And I think this is partly a reflection of Russia and China working to undermine global solidarity

because of a sense that global solidarity is a cover for U.S. hegemony.

And by the way, whenever China's in a bilateral relationship with another country, except

for the United States, it's the stronger power. That's the way they want the world to operate.

It also refocuses the debate on how much countries should engage with their adversaries

With that in mind, to what extent is it possible for a country to rehabilitate from pariah status?