The United Nation's Security Council's treatment of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe based on neomercantalist interests

Abstract

The problématique the study deals with is identifying whether the United Nations Security Council's treatment of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe based on their respective human rights violations was impacted by the economic interests of the veto powers. The aim of the study is to explore these mentioned variables through a neomercantilist theoretic framework. The presented theory will focus on the international level of analysis. The theory also serves to explain the differential treatment in a comparative analysis of the two case studies that the United Nations veto powers acted in accordance with their national interests. The analysis will deal with human rights violations perpetrated by both the Rhodesian and Zimbabwean governments through comparative approaches. It will further assess how decisions made by the four out of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Peoples Republic of China, in response to human rights violations were liable to variables of self-interest and ignored such abuses. The dissertation indicates the difference in the way Rhodesia and Zimbabwe were treated has demonstrated that economic variables influence foreign policy of the United Nations Security Council members.