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.

Europe: No democracy without self determination

© Peter Jósika

European society is changing dramatically. Most of our ancestors were born into predetermined social and economic structures and had little scope to alter their lives considerably. Europeans today have substantially more control over their destiny. The underlying concept behind this development is the principle of self determination. 

Personal self determination includes the freedom to choose our educational and professional path, the people we associate with, the language we prefer to speak, the place we want to live in, but also our religious, sexual or political orientation. All these freedoms are recognised as fundamental rights in Western societies, although they were restricted in the past and remain contested in some parts of the world today.

An important part of personal self determination is the concept of collective self determination. We all belong to a variety of collectives, be it a nation, a region, a commune, a religious group, a family or the company we work for. While in the past most collectives were governed by predefined hierarchies, often based on class, gender, age or race, there is growing pressure to increase democratic participation. This is to ensure that all members of a collective have a voice and can attain at least a certain degree of self fulfillment within the collective.

This trend has also reached public life and politics. Half a century ago democracy meant little more than the right to vote for a political party that represented ones social class or a general political view. The modern notion of democracy is substantially more participatory. People want to be directly involved in the decision making process. They expect for politicians to maintain constant two way contact with their constituencies and for important matters to be put directly to the people.

To a limited extend politics has adapted to the need for more grass root democracy by strengthening direct democracy and community involvement in certain areas of the decision making process. However, our overall political structures remain stuck in the early 1900s. They are marked by Europe's ongoing division into ethnic nation states with centralist political systems that are far removed from the people and the needs of an increasingly individualised and multicultural society longing for more self determination. The calls for secession or more autonomy in many regions across Europe are only the tip of the iceberg, but they highlight how out of step the nation states are with the needs of our time.

Therefore, it is not only the often critizised EU that needs to be reformed, but much rather the centralist nation states themselves. While many parts of Europe would benefit from a leaner but also stronger EU in certain fields, it is equally important that we strengthen communes and regions as they are not only closer to the people, but also much closer to most issues that affect them.

Competencies across all levels of government should generally be divided on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity as already defined in the Treaty of Lisbon. In other words: We need to bring the decision making process to the people by giving local and regional government substantially more power. This should translate into more grass root democracy, less nationalism as well as a more flexible and need-based approach in economic and fiscal matters. 

In turn this will enable for Europe as a whole to become stronger and more effective, and for Europe's regions and communes to become more responsible, self sufficient and competetive. Such a EU-wide decentralization process is not only long overdue, but of critical importance to Europe's future.

Peter Jósika is a Swiss based author. He can be reached via his website www.europaderregionen.com. 

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.

Diverse tongues-Ethnic minorities and languages preserve Europe's rich fabric

Diverse tongues-Ethnic minorities and languages preserve Europe's rich fabric

22.08.2007

By Peter Josika

Opponents of the European Union argue that a multi-ethnic European state destroys diversity and endangers smaller ethnic groups. In fact, the opposite is true, if you look at history and the current state of ethnic minorities in Europe.

Take the Czech Republic as an example. Since the formation of Czechoslovakia in 1918, the historically multilingual Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia have turned into one of Europe’s most mono-ethnic nation states. The Polish population has dropped 50 percent; the number of Sudeten Germans, once the largest ethnic minority in Europe, has dropped more than 99 percent.

Mono-ethnic states destroy diversity.

By contrast, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Belgium are Europe’s only remaining officially multi-ethnic states. They have preserved their linguistic plurality better than any other nation in Europe. Even smaller ethnic communities such as the Reto-Romans and German-Belgians are flourishing today. Nowhere else in Europe have so many dialects survived as they have in Switzerland.

To go back to the Czech example, the national revival itself was a product of the conditions of former multi-ethnic Austria.

If Bohemia and Moravia had become a part of “mono-ethnic” Germany in 1871, most Czechs would be proud Germans now. Multi-ethnic states are, in fact, the guarantors of ethnic diversity.

Minorities in Europe’s mono-ethnic nation-states struggle to survive. Stateless languages such as Sorbian, Kashubian, Breton, Alsatian or Scots Gaelic are in danger of extinction, while the number of Hungarians (in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia), Germans (in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary), Slovenes (in Italy, Austria) and Poles (in the Czech Republic, Belarus, Ukraine) has decreased markedly in recent decades.

So if we remain a divided Europe of mono-ethnic nation-states we will not only destroy Europe’s position in the world and our economic prospects, but we will also maintain prejudice and ethnic tension. This eventually leads to more conflict of the kind we have experienced in the past.

A Europe of mono-ethnic nation states is also the best recipe to endanger the very existence of Czech identity and nationhood. A united Europe, on the other hand, is the only way to overcome national and ethnic conflict in Central Europe and safeguard the position of all ethnicities, including those of the Czechs.

President Václav Klaus is one of a group of influential politicians who continuously try to torpedo the European unification process. This group openly fights for a return to the Dark Ages of the interwar period.

In addition to Klaus, other politicians from Poland and the Czech Republic have sadly become the driving force of this new Euroskepticism. It is interesting to see how two countries that currently benefit the most from the EU have also become her greatest potential adversaries.

Klaus loves to preach “democracy” if it suits his political strategy. However, when it comes to the EU, as a “true democrat” he should have sided recently with those who are against the Polish government’s push to maintain the status quo (where a Polish vote has twice as much weight as a German vote). Klaus sided with the Poles.

In spite of vocal politicians like Klaus, most Czechs and Poles are not anti-European.

Public opinion polls tell us so. In both countries there is underlying support for greater European political integration and a joint foreign policy, more so than in many West European countries.

However, certain populist politicians continue to scaremonger the public by spreading divisive nationalist slogans and wrong and unsubstantiated fears about the loss of property and identity. They like to call the EU “undemocratic” and “supra-national” to discredit the difficult process of getting the identities and interests of two dozen EU countries all under one umbrella.

As we all know, Europe has gone through an unbelievable transformation over the past few decades. A continent once brainwashed and destroyed by nationalism and communism has started to turn into a united force that stands for democracy, human rights, prosperity, diversity and, most importantly, reconciliation among nations, ethnicities and religious groups.

Since the end of the Cold War, Central and East European countries have been given the opportunity to benefit from and enrich the EU project.

As many of those countries join the EU, they become the fastest-growing economies in the world. Billions of euros in investments and subsidies from countries like Germany, France, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have created this Central and East European economic miracle.

The true key to this success was having the political will to overcome nationalist sentiments after two world wars. Modern Europe was born out of the understanding that nationalism creates division and destruction.

No country has been forced into the EU. All have joined by their free will.

Modern-day Czechs have only to look at history to see their mono-ethnic behavior. Founders in 1918 included Czechs (over-represented), Slovaks and Ruthenians, or Rusyns (under-represented). Germans and Hungarians, who constituted almost 40 percent of the population at the time, were barred completely.

Those same Czechs continue to vigorously defend the equally undemocratic ethnic cleansing of the German-speaking population after World War II.

It is ludicrous of Klaus to lash out at the EU for supposedly being supra-national and undemocratic if these terms fit much better his own views of his own country.

 

— The author, a resident of Biel, Switzerland, is coordinator of the Network of European Bilingual Cities project and a correspondent for Eurolang, the news agency of European minorities (www.eurolang.net).

 

http://www.praguepost.cz/archivescontent/4112-diverse-tongues.html

Villains or Victims?

Villains or Victims?

03.01.2006

By Peter Josika

Two different messages about the Sudeten Germans confront Czechs in their day-to-day lives. They are still taught about the German colonialists who turned Nazi and wanted to destroy the country. And yet one cannot escape reports of postwar death marches, expulsions and mass graves, where Sudeten Germans were victims not perpetrators.

While some politicians prefer to talk about gestures of reconciliation, others stress the irrevocability of the postwar order, and with it, the country's No. 1 taboo issue: the Beneš Decrees.

In a state that wanted to completely eliminate memories of Czech-German coexistence, it has become difficult to form a balanced view about the Sudeten Germans, their history and contribution to the country — and also the importance of the German language and culture to the modern-day Czech Republic. Various myths and prejudices about those people that T.G. Masaryk referred to as "our Germans" persist, while there is very little unbiased and complete information about them.

 

Here some myths versus the facts:

 

Myth: The Sudeten German minority consisted of narrow-minded "Bavarian-style" country people

 

Until their expulsion in 1945, Sudeten Germans formed the majority of the population in west, north and south Bohemia, as well as in parts of north and south Moravia. There were also large German-speaking populations in Prague, Brno and Olomouc. Towns with German majorities included Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad), Český Krumlov (Krumau), Znojmo (Znaim) and Liberec (Reichenberg).

The 3.5 million Sudeten Germans were not a homogenous group — they were intellectuals, scientists, aristocratic landowners, members of the urban middle class, farmers, government officials and laborers.

They were Catholics, Protestants, Jews and even Hussites. They spoke Frankish-Egerlandish in west Bohemia, Saxon in north Bohemia, Silesian German in Silesia and north Moravia as well as Bavarian-Austrian in south Bohemia and Moravia. Many dialects of the German language became extinct as a result of the postwar expulsion.

 

Myth: The Sudeten Germans came to the Czech lands as colonialists

 

Germanic tribes actually lived on modern-day Czech territory well before Slavic tribes arrived around 500 AD. However, neither the Germanic nor the Slavic populations of the fifth century would have qualified as German or Czech in the modern sense. While from the second to the fifth century the population was probably mainly Germanic and Celtic, it is generally acknowledged that Slavic settlers became the majority by the seventh century. Most of the remaining populations assimilated with the newly arrived Slavs, although west and northwest Bohemia remained mostly Germanic due to strong Frankish influence. German and Latin remained the prevalent language of the Royal House and the aristocracy, even among the Přemyslid dynasty.

Between the 11th and the 16th centuries, Germans and Dutch were called into the country by Bohemian kings to establish modern forms of agriculture, develop urban centers and introduce new trades. During this period, German also became the prevalent language in south Bohemia and Moravia, as well as in parts of north Moravia and northeast Bohemia. Major cities such as Prague, Brno, Olomouc, Plzeň and the former Budweis flourished in the late Middle Ages due to trade and arts.

 

Myth: The Sudeten Germans all voted for the Nazi Party

 

Sudeten Germans supposedly all voted for the Nazi puppet Sudeten German Party (SdP) of Konrad Henlein with the sole purpose of destroying Czechoslovakia, Central Europe's last island of freedom and democracy at the time.

These accusations are based on the theory of collective guilt, or, as the Constitutional Court argued in defense of the Beneš Decrees, the principle of collective responsibility. The current state uses historic events like the 1935 election to defend and justify the forced expulsion of one-third of the country's historic population and the resulting disappearance of one of the country's historic languages.

Although much literature contains detailed analyses of these elections, few facts have become public. A close look reveals that a substantial part of the Sudeten Germans did not vote for the SdP, despite the enormous anti-Czech propaganda coming from Nazi Germany. Henlein received around two-thirds of the votes of the four main German parties but a strong communist vote also marked the highly industrialized north Bohemia.

Also, some Sudeten Germans did not vote, while others supported Czech or Hungarian parties. The SdP is likely to have received 50 percent to 55 percent of the Sudeten German vote. Among all the German-speaking population, Henlein received only 35 percent. And those who voted SdP voted for an official party program calling for Sudeten German autonomy within a democratic Czechoslovakia.

 

Myth: When Hitler marched into the Sudetenland, he was greeted with flowers and all Sudeten Germans screamed "Heil Hitler"

 

The pictures of Hitler's triumphal arrival are shown regularly here. However, can pictures of a few thousand people screaming "Heil Hitler" really be considered an indication of collective responsibility by an entire ethnic group?

The Nazis were masters at staging events. Every Hitler speech was accompanied by a folk fest with music, food and giveaways. It wasn't difficult to draw the masses to give the impression of unreserved support. In reality, most Catholic Sudeten Germans surely felt as outcasts in Centralist and Czechophile interwar Czechoslovakia, but were equally critical and suspicious of atheist Prussian-style Nazi Germany.

Films about events staged by the pro-Nazi Czech fascists in the so-called Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia remain mostly hidden away in archives, such as those of the German Wochenschau. Do thousands of Czechs participating in regular political demonstrations of the Czech Fascist Party in Prague prove widespread support for fascism?

 

German guilt is black and white

 

European politicians today agree that we must defend pluralist democracies and prevent the re-emergence of dictatorships in Europe. We must also overcome the simplistic theories that make it easy to whitewash collective responsibility.

The victorious powers of World War I — including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy — carry their distinct share of responsibility for the emergence of Nazism in Europe. The tough and uncompromising peace terms forced upon Weimar Germany created a fertile ground for radical nationalism in Germany. And multi-ethnic interwar Czechoslovakia failed to let Sudeten Germans identify with their new homeland.

All occupied territories collaborated widely with the Nazis. In a landmark speech in 1998, French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac conceded France's joint responsibility for many crimes committed during the war.

One can only hope that issues like the controversy surrounding the Czech-run concentration camp at Lety will help to start a thorough self-reflection in the Czech Republic. Perhaps one day a Czech president will dare to follow Chirac with an apology — though it will undoubtedly not be the current one.

— The author, a resident of Biel, Switzerland, is coordinator of the Network of European Bilingual Cities project and a correspondent for the news agency Eurolang (www.eurolang.net).

Playing the blame game- Collective guilt ignores historical responsibility

Playing the blame game- Collective guilt ignores historical responsibility

06.07.2005

By Peter Josika

The postwar mistreatment and expulsion of German speakers from Czechoslovakia remains a European issue, one of the key factors for future co-existence of the nations of Central Europe. It remains of utmost importance that we never forget the terrors of war and ethnic cleansing that led to indescribable suffering by millions of innocents. It remains equally important that we mourn each innocent death, regardless of whether it is Jewish, Czech, German or any other ethnic origin.

This becomes particularly important in a country where the population has always been extremely intermingled. A look at the list of expelled Germans will uncover as many Czech names as there are German names among Czech politicians today — for example, allow me to mention just a few "dangerously" Germanic names like Klaus, Ransdorf and Kühnl.

If anyone 100 years ago had predicted that 40 million people would be brutally killed, and well over 20 million Europeans expelled from their century-old homelands during a mere 50 years, he would have been considered a lunatic. The 20th century, however, provided all nightmares imaginable, and there remains no doubt that all Europeans must take equal responsibility — and we all must do what we can to prevent a repeat of these most shameful and dreadful events.

Any attempt to blame "the Germans" or "the Russians" collectively for all evil, as is still commonly done in the Czech Republic, represents an act of self-denial. Czechoslovakia after World War I, though often glorified as democratic, still had many deficiencies, including its inability to come to terms with its minorities.

In contrast to Switzerland, a country that created a strong multinational identity through a federalist system with a large degree of autonomy for its regions, Czechoslovakia took the opposite course and centralized its political structure. Because of that, the large minorities — Germans, Hungarians and Poles —increasingly felt like outcasts without an identity.

A Constitutional Assembly legislated the Czechoslovak constitution without including any Germans, Hungarians or Poles. No wonder most of the non-Czechoslovaks could barely relate to the identity of this state when it emerged from the ashes of Austria-Hungary in 1918.

The name Czechoslovakia ("land of the Czechs and Slovaks" — hence, others do not belong to the new state's identity) had already been badly chosen for a country in which Germans, Hungarians, Poles and Ruthenians made up 40 percent of the population. Instead of an all-inclusive state for everyone — similar to Belgium or Switzerland — a monolingual state similar to France, Germany and Russia began to take shape.

The most divisive piece of post-World War I legislation, however, was undoubtedly the introduction of "Czechoslovak" as the nation's official language. Historians often take little note of it, but this seriously damaged inter-ethnic relations. It led to the introduction of Czech signage and topographic names across the ethnically German, Hungarian and Polish regions of the country, seriously provoking anti-Czech sentiment among many people.

More importantly, however, the law also cost thousands of German, Hungarian and Polish officials their jobs (mainly in the postal and railway services), as they did not speak the new "national language." Many had been too old to learn a new language overnight, one still virtually unknown in many parts of the country. To make matters worse, thousands of Czechs arrived to fill their former positions.

Add to this a number of other devastating factors: a worldwide recession, which hit German-speaking northern Bohemia the worst; a land-reform policy disadvantageous to Germans and Hungarians; infrastructure developments channeled preferentially to Czech-speaking areas; and Czech schools opening in German-speaking areas for only a handful of students, while larger German and Hungarian schools suffered closures if the German or Hungarian population in town fell below 20 percent. In such an explosive atmosphere, Germans then became bombarded by Nazi propaganda. It is a sad fact that it wasn't until a few weeks before the Munich Pact that Radio Prague even introduced a German radio station for 3 million of its nation's citizens — too little, too late.

These remain historic facts, known well but often downplayed to defend simplistic views on "good vs. evil." The coexistence of Germans and Czechs before 1945 had been much more complex and multifaceted than usually portrayed.

Regardless, if we envision a politically united Europe, or even only the loose economic union supported by Václav Klaus, we must focus on creating a Europe for everyone, one that addresses the identities not only of Germans and Czechs in their respective countries but also of Sudeten Germans, Czech Poles, Serbs, Slovak Hungarians, South Tyroleans, Basques, Bretons and so on.

The treatment of minorities in the Czech Republic, just as in most other European countries, has never been exemplary. The Polish minority in Czech Silesia has decreased by more than 70 percent since 1930 — without an expulsion. The German language, estimated to have been spoken by almost half the population in the mid-18th century, has virtually disappeared. Of the 3.1 million Czech Germans counted in 1931, only 30,000 remain, a decrease of just over 99 percent.

Will this issue go away by ignoring it, as some Czech politicians seem to believe? How can we deal with this issue? Not through half-hearted apologies, like the Czech-German declaration that bypassed the suffering and injustice felt by millions of Czechs, Germans and Jews.

Every psychiatrist knows that we can only cope with emotional pain if we deal with it. Every sociologist knows that disagreements can only be solved through openness, discussion and an appreciation of the suffering of others.

It seems that Czech politicians, however, remain scared to finally, officially reach out their hands to Sudeten Germans, though such an important move would be met with enormous appreciation by many.

Any attempt to heal the wounds may or may not touch controversial issues such as the Beneš Decrees. But Czech politicians can actively recognize the part-German and part-Polish heritage of the country through a number of different gestures: bilingual signage in formerly German- and Polish-speaking areas, for example, or through a greater support of German and Polish minorities by establishing bilingual schools across their traditional settlement regions.

This may be met with more appreciation among Sudeten Germans and Poles than the return of a rusty hut in western Bohemia or a few hundred euros of symbolic compensation for their suffering.

 

— The author resides in Bern, Switzerland.

 

https://archive.today/AAufY#selection-637.0-769.43