Human rights in a multipolar world

During any other time, it would have been possible to argue that a unipolar world is a safer world for marginalized communities, especially when the single power embraces and adheres to human rights norms. However, one does not have to undertake a longitudinal study covering the last thirty years, the period during which the US and its wester allies dominated the world, to conclude that a unipolar world order is most dangerous for social groups whose human rights are often abused. The current events, especially the one’s related to the war on Gaza show how a world ruled by a single power can essentially allow and enable a genocide to take place. Literally, every country in the world wanted the violence to stop and the food and water to make its way to 2 million people starved to death. Yet, the United States, blocked every vote in the United Nations Security Council that would have saved tens of thousands of civilians, 70% of whom were children and women. US was the only country to vote “NO” in every resolution since the start of the war, not even its allies, who usually side with it, were able to join in, given the level of abuse to which the people of Gaza were subjected to. Even members of the US administration acknowledged that the level of killing and destruction at the hands of Israeli forces were “over the top”; yet, it blocked every action that could have saved lives. The conclusion, then is there should be no mechanism that would allow one nation to enable a genocide to take place, and that means a multipolar word is always a better world for the marginalized, even if these many other powers have a poor human rights record—their presence that disables single power to commit crimes or enable crimes is more protective to human rights than to trust human rights to a single power no matter what their claims to human rights norms.