Why Has the U.N. and the E.U. Failed to Address Gilead in The Handmaids Tale?

In the dystopian world of The Handmaids Tale, the lack of action from the U.N. and the E.U. regarding Gilead is a significant point of tension. This apathy is not merely a plot device; it is a reflection of complex geopolitical realities and the challenges faced by international organizations. Let's delve into the reasons behind this inaction.

Political Complexity

One of the most critical factors in the U.N. and E.U.'s inaction is political complexity. Gilead, a theocratic regime that emerged from a U.S. coup, represents a significant shift from the democratic norms that the international community values. The U.N. and E.U. are hesitant to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, especially those that were once powerful democratic states. The challenge lies in balancing the respect for national sovereignty with the imperative to protect human rights.

Normalization

Over time, Gilead's actions become normalized, leading to a desensitization among international observers. The regime's existence and practices are often viewed as a domestic issue, and the urgency to address the human rights violations becomes increasingly muted. This normalization can be attributed to the gradual acceptance of the regime's policies and the difficulty in mobilizing international outcry.

Fear of Escalation

The fear of escalation into conflict or war is another significant reason for the inaction. Gilead's military capabilities and nuclear arsenal pose a substantial risk if the international community were to intervene directly. Diplomatic measures and other non-military solutions are preferred as a means to avoid the high stakes of direct confrontation. This fear often leads to inaction, as the international community opts for lower-risk, more controlled measures.

Media Control and Bureaucratic Inertia

Media control is a tool used by Gilead to maintain its dominance and obscure the reality of life within its borders. The regime's propaganda can obfuscate the extent of the human rights abuses, making it difficult for the outside world to understand the true scope of the problem. Additionally, international organizations often face significant bureaucratic challenges, including political will and consensus among member states. This inertia can further hinder effective action against Gilead.

Implications for the U.S.

The hypothetical scenario of a Gilead-like situation in the U.S. offers further insights into why the international community might be reluctant to intervene. In such a scenario, a significant portion of the population would likely vote for the new regime, reflecting a shift in societal norms and values. In the U.S., unlike many other nations, there is a cultural emphasis on self-determination and the right to make one's own choices, which would complicate external interventions.

Moreover, with falling birth rates, most nations might prioritize their own internal concerns over international conflicts. If Gilead maintains control over the U.S. military and there are no significant defections, the potential for a prolonged and dangerous intervention becomes more apparent. The use of F-35s in the text suggests that elements of the U.S. military might remain intact, but the overall military situation would be complex.

Under such circumstances, a Gilead in the U.S. would likely be seen as a backwater nation that other countries would not want to enter militarily. With an agenda to keep the majority of the population uneducated and indoctrinated, and with nuclear weapons as a deterrent, Gilead would be perceived as a formidable but undesirable adversary. The international community might opt for sanctions and a policy of containment rather than direct intervention.

The combination of these factors highlights the complexity of addressing Gilead in the context of international relations andthe challenges faced by the U.N. and E.U. in their efforts to uphold global human rights standards.