The "Who Cares" Democracies

The United States, Israel, and India are three influential democracies that, despite being considered leaders in their respective regions, often circumvent international regulations when these hinder their interests. This tendency raises critical questions about the legitimacy of global governance and each country's role in maintaining peace, security, and respect for human rights.

1. Shared Political and Ideological Analysis

• Political Composition: These countries share a political and ideological foundation that prioritizes national sovereignty and skepticism toward international organizations, often seen as limiting their ability to act. Dominant political parties in each of these states frequently hold nationalist or security-focused positions.

• Core Ideology: Patriotism and national security are central to decision-making, often resulting in a preference to defend the state—even at the expense of certain international principles.

• Military Capabilities: Military strength, including nuclear capabilities (possessed by all three countries), reinforces their independence from external pressures.

2. Human Rights Violations and Racial Segregation

• United States: Despite a declared commitment to human rights, racial tensions persist in American society. Treatment of minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, has seen episodes of violence and discrimination.

• Israel: Israel's relationship with Palestinians exemplifies ongoing human rights violations, as reported by various international organizations. The settlement expansion and segregation of populations in occupied territories are stark examples of this dynamic.

• India: Interethnic conflicts and the marginalization of minorities, especially Muslims, reflect a degree of permissiveness from authorities, exacerbated by policies favoring the Hindu majority in power.

3. Rejection of International Regulations: Geneva Conventions, Rome Treaty, and the ICC

• Geneva Conventions: These countries sometimes circumvent these conventions, particularly in military operations. Although signatories, they have often been accused of violations.

• International Criminal Court (ICC): None of these states are fully subject to the ICC, often viewing this body as an infringement on their sovereignty.

• Examples and Number of UN Resolutions Vetoed:

  • United States: Has used its veto power more than 80 times, primarily in support of Israel.

  • Israel: While not a permanent member of the Security Council, it benefits from U.S. vetoes to block resolutions that could condemn its actions.

  • India: As a non-permanent member, India lacks veto power but often acts unilaterally in regional matters, especially regarding Kashmir.

4. Non-Compliance with UN Resolutions Leading to Significant Human Losses

• United States: Invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Since the 1970s, over 40 U.S. vetoes have supported Israel, blocking resolutions aimed at ending hostilities, particularly where severe human rights violations and civilian losses, such as in Palestine and Lebanon, were at stake. With its substantial nuclear arsenal, the U.S. maintains a dominant global position to protect its interests.

• Israel: Military operations in Gaza and the West Bank are frequently condemned for their effects on the Palestinian civilian population. Since the 1960s, over 400 UN resolutions have addressed Israel's actions in Palestine and Syria, but enforcement has been hindered by consistent U.S. support. Additionally, Israel is not a member of the ICC, limiting the international community's capacity to investigate its military operations.

• India: India, also a nuclear power, has adopted a "Who Cares" stance towards UN resolutions on internal issues, particularly Kashmir, a disputed region with Pakistan. The area faces strict restrictions and frequent human rights violations, but India dismisses international interventions, asserting its sovereignty over internal decisions. Its absence of explicit ICC support and its growing influence in international organizations bolster its stance on these issues.

Conclusion: The "Who Cares" Attitude and Its Implications

The "Who Cares" attitude symbolizes these nations' disregard for international criticism, particularly when it comes from structures they perceive as non-binding. This posture weakens the authority of international institutions, leaving affected populations to bear the repercussions of this defiant stance.