We need global rules on how self determination is exercised

From Scotland to Catalonia, from Crimea to Kurdistan: We need global rules on how self determination is exercised 

Most countries in the world claim to have derived through some form of national self determination. However, the reality looks very different. The overwhelming majority of nation states and their boundaries emerged as a result of wars, conquests and colonization between the 17th and 20th century. This is why the call for self determination in large parts of Europe and the Middle East cannot simply be ignored by the UN and the EU.

A history of war, occupation & suppressed self determination

Regions like Scotland, Catalonia, Crimea, Kurdistan, South Tyrol and the Szeklerland, to mention just a few, were all conquered by force in the last few centuries and then incorporated into the increasingly centralist political structures of their invader states against the will of the local majority population. 

As our world globalize and societies become increasingly egalitarian, democratic and focused on personal self determination, collective self determination is emerging as another important aspect of modern human aspiration. The rise of separatist movements across the globe, most particularly in Europe and the Middle East, hast to be understood in this context. We will see more rather than less of it in the future.

Self Determination versus Territorial Integrity 

Although self determination is recognized as a basic human right in international law, it is rarely exercised. In fact, there are two international laws that seemingly contradict themselves- the right to self determination and a nation state’s right to territorial integrity.

Whenever a region wants to break up from a nation state, different powers tend to cherry pick which of the two they prioritize depending on their strategic needs. When the Kosovo declared her independence, the US and the majority of EU countries supported the break up of the region from Serbia while Russia was against it. In the case of Crimea, Donezk and Luhansk it was the opposite.

Most nation states emphasize the indivisibility of their territory. They draw on the theory that any break-away-attempt by regions and communes represent a breach of the principle of territorial integrity. This is is also the current approach by Spain.

However, territorial integrity is only supposed to protect the boundaries of an independent state from outside agression. It is certainly not meant to prevent the local or regional population within a state from exercising self determination themselves. It contradicts the modern concept of grass root democracy and subsidiarity that political decisions should always be made as close as possible to the people affected on the regional or even local level.

We need global rules on how self determination is exercised

Any attempt by nation states to prevent their regions and communes from exercising self determination is therefore unquestionably a clear breach of international and European laws, among them the Treaty of Lisbon and the UN Charta on Human Rights. For that reason it is the responsibility of the UN, the EU an the European member states to act.

In the light of current developments, the UN and the EU should set clear rules on how regions and communes can separate from nation states to either become independent or join other states. Any plebiscite would need to be organized and conducted by an independent UN body, incorporate the entire population of the affected area and provide the remain- and separation camps with funds and access to the entire population to communicate their cases.

While on a global basis self determination could only be exercised within a connected and self contained area, the EU could go a step further and enable each commune to vote on its regional and national status. As the Schengen area has no controlled boundaries, enclaves would not matter and democratic self determination could be exercised on the most local level possible.

In the case of Catalonia, for example, this would be a very useful measure as there are enormous regional differences in the level of support for separation from Spain. Why should a commune in which 90% of the population wants to remain in the Spanish state be forced to separate if Catalonia as a whole supports separation and vice versa? The situation in other potential break away regions in Europe is similar. 

A great chance for more democracy and cooperation in a more United Europe

The EU has the unique opportunity to create measures that allow for self determination to be exercised in its purest form. Those nationalist forces in Europe that argue the EU has no legitimacy to get involved in separatist conflicts are wrong.

Those who fear the EU or the European unification process would weaken as a result of local and regional self determination and the possible appearance of more states on the continent are also wrong.

Smaller entities that are closer to the people will make Europe more democratic, resolve ongoing  minority problems, but also increase the need for more cooperation. In fact, they should help create the “United Europe of Regions” that the founders of the European project envisioned after the horrors of two World Wars. Maintaining the inflexible nationalist status quo will do the opposite. 

Peter Josika is a Swiss based historian, political scientist and freelance journalist dealing with topics related to federalism, centralism, human rights and minorities with particular attention to Central Europe. In 2014 he published a book on the concept of a Europe of Regions.

Between Federation and Disintegration: Can Europe re-define itself?

The EU is at a crossroads, and the question Europe as a whole needs to ask itself is how it should cope with the growing demand for more democracy as well as more local and regional power within an increasingly globalised world. In this exclusive article for OneEurope, Peter Josika asks whether the current political structures meet the needs of our time and the foreseeable future.

Read my full article:
http://one-europe.info/europe-between-federation-and-disintegration

From Scotland to Eastern Ukraine: Calls for self determination divide Europe

© Peter Josika

Category: Viewpoint 

Published: 13 September 2014

Written by Peter Jósika 

On Sept. 18 the Scottish people will choose between remaining part of the United Kingdom or becoming an independent country. Although the outcome is unlikely to have any great economic implications for the European Union, the referendum sparks hopes and fears across the continent. Irrespective of the result of the Scottish vote, the calls for regional autonomy and independence across Europe simply cannot be ignored.

Referendums on the complete secession of a territory from a state have been exceptional in European history. They mostly occurred after Wars or other political upheavals and were always highly controversial as they questioned one of the foundations of the modern nation state- the indivisibility of its territory.

International law recognizes two in many ways contradictory principles. On the one hand there is the right to self determination, on the other hand the principle of territorial integrity. It's a matter of great controversy which of the two has precedence over the other and under which circumstances.
Whenever disputes over the status of a territory arose in recent history, the big powers supported “self determination” or defended “territorial integrity” selectively depending on their geo-political interests. While Russia justifies the “re-attachment” of Crimea and the support of “pro-independence forces” in eastern Ukraine with the right to regional “self determination,” the West is defending Ukraine’s “territorial integrity.”

In the case of the Kosovo, on the other hand, the two powers follow completely opposite policies. While the West recognized Kosovo's split from Serbia after its 1991 referendum, Russia rejects Kosovan independence on the basis of Serbian “territorial integrity.”
In other words: Due to the perceived strategic interests of major powers and power blocks, the will of the people in regional Europe were consistently ignored. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that Europe's current states and their boundaries have little to do with democratic evolvement and much more with decades or even centuries of nationalist power politics.
Many regions were occupied and forced into states against the will of the majority. Most of Europe's nation states implemented strict centralist political regimes destroying historically grown regional and local structures while assimilating or often even expelling all or parts of the autochthonous regional populations.

These policies led to inner and outer conflicts culminating in the rise of extremist movements. Both World Wars, the Cold War and the Balkan Wars were largely the product of ethnic nationalist power politics in Europe and its consequences.

The current independence and autonomy movements are the logical consequence of historic failings in combination with outdated centralist-nationalist structures and a growing demand for more political participation on a regional and local level.

Besides Scotland, there are dozens of other regions in Europe seeking more autonomy or even independence. Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Wales, Northern Ireland, Yorkshire, Cornwall, Brittany, Alsace, Corsica, Bavaria, South Tyrol, Friuli, Veneto, Lombardy, Sardinia, Sicily, Dalmatia, Istria, Vojvodina, the Banat, Transylvania, the Szeklerland, modern day Southern Slovakia, Silesia and Moravia are only some examples.

Until recently any discussion about secession, independence, a change of state or extended autonomy were considered a taboo issue and in some instances even a crime. In an increasingly globalized, open and multicultural environment this has changed.

However, a society marked by decades of centralist controlled “nation state building” is split on the virtues of a “regionalisation” of power. Accordingly, the upcoming Scottish referendum is viewed as a possible precedence for other regions in Europe and therefore watched with a mixture of hope and fear.

But how should Europe react to the rise in calls for independence or more regional autonomy? It would be undemocratic and counterproductive to simply ignore or even disallow them. This would only acerbate inner and outer conflicts while endangering Europe's security as well as it's ongoing peace and integration process.

Instead, a EU-wide decentralization process should be put on the agenda. Decentralization plans already exist in most European countries anyway. As part of the “No-Campaign” against Scottish independence, the UK government is promising more devolution in Britain.
France is currently working on a controversial “réforme territoriale” that should eventually provide the regions with similar levels of power to the German Bundesländer. In Germany and Austria extensive reforms giving communes and regions more tax autonomy and more clearly defined competencies are being debated. Other extensive decentralization plans exist in Italy, Poland and Spain.

A joint European devolution process based on the successful Swiss model and the principle of subsidiarity, as defined in the Treaty of Lisbon, would help eradicte much of the undemocratic and growth inhibiting centralist structures across Europe in one single step. It would create the conditions for more need based political and economic structures on a local and regional level while also clearly defining the competencies of EU, national, regional and local government eliminating costly duplications. Taking such a comprehensive step across the Continent won't be easy, but it is indispensable to pull Europe out of crisis, politically and economically.

---

Peter Jósika is a Swiss based author, historian and political scientist. He can be reached on facebook.com/peter.josika and twitter.com/PeterJosika. More information at www.europaderregionen.com.

http://www.praguepost.com/viewpoint/41517-from-scotland-to-eastern-ukraine

  

Let Crimea be Crimean

© Peter Josika
Let Crimea be Crimean

The Russophile regional government of Crimea called a referendum on the future status of the region for March 16. The people will only have two choices- to remain Ukrainian or become part of Russia. The option of Crimean independence, neither supported by the West nor by Russia, will not be given.

The new pro-European, but increasingly nationalist Ukrainian government, has centralized power, abolished regional autonomies and weakened minority rights. In its current form it has nothing to offer to the majority non-Ukrainian population of Crimea.

Russia, on the other hand, did the same over the last few years. Under Putin it also started glorifying its questionable history of subjugation and Russification. Becoming part of Russia would make the non-Russians of Crimea, constituting more than 40% of the population, to second class citizens.

The indigenous inhabitants of Crimea, the Tartars, are a prime example of a people that became a minority on their own land due to Russian centralism and nationalism. After Ukrainian independence in 1990 the Russification process turned into a more modest form of Ukrainization. In the nineteenth century still the majority, Crimean Tartars only make up 12% of the population today. 58% are Russians, 24% Ukrainians and the remaining 6% mainly Belorussians, Crimean Germans, Bulgarians and Armenians. The modern day Crimea is therefore a melting pot of languages, ethnicities, cultures and religions. Logically it does not fit into the structures of nation states like Russia or Ukraine.

Only a Swiss style federalist set up with strong regional and local governments can give all peoples of Crimea an identity and protect the regions unique diversity. The US and the EU should learn from past mistakes and support the path to Crimean independence. After World War I the Western powers forced various regions with local German and Hungarian majorities into newly created or expanded nation states like Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania or Yugoslavia causing unnecessary internal conflicts and unsolvable disputes between these states and their neighbors. The rise of extremism, the Second World War and the Cold War were a logical consequence. If the West wants to avoid for Crimea to become another Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland, it should help create a strong federalist and non-ethnic Crimean state like Switzerland that is inclusive rather than exclusive to its diverse population. A new independent Crimea would also function as a buffer zone between the Ukraine and Russia. It would become a place were Ukrainians and Russians meet rather than fight each other.