Tweet
POST-SOVIET REFERENDA: THE DREAM OF IDEALISTS
Al-Jazeera, Qatar
May 13 2014
Can the international community apply a blanket policy supporting
the territorial integrity of all states?
Last updated: 13 May 2014 10:35 Vartan Oskanian, a member of Armenia's
National Assembly, a former foreign minister and the founder of
Yerevan's Civilitas Foundation.
Self-determination is an elusive concept. It means different things
to different people. A referendum is a potent instrument to enable
democratic decision-making and actions based on the will of the
majority. The controversy is over who has the legal and legitimate
right to decide to conduct a referendum.
Now put the two together - a referendum to practice self-determination
- and you get the confusion and chaos that has been created throughout
the world over the so-called parade of sovereignties. In addition to
legal discrepancies and political bickering, the situation is further
exacerbated because of the lack of clear international rules on the
legitimate timing and choice of referenda. To top it all off, there
is the matter of the double standards of the major powers in pursuit
of their geopolitical interests.
Most governments in the West recognise Kosovo as an independent
state; Russia does not. Russia and just a handful of other countries
recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. The US and
most Europeans do not. In both cases, one side accuses the other of
violating international law.
When Kosovo conducted a referendum for independence in 2007, the West
determined that Serbia's consent was not required. Yet the absence
of Kiev's consent has led the same Western countries to consider
Crimea's referendum illegal.
Indeed, the line between the legality and non-legality of a people's
right to determine their own fate and destiny through a referendum
has been irrevocably blurred.
Fate and destiny
On May 11, this confusion was taken to a whole new level when the
Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk voted on self-rule. Clearly,
these referenda, and before that Crimea's secession from Ukraine,
were geopolitically motivated moves in response to Ukraine's decision
to align itself with the West.
Such expedient actions should not in any way detract from and discredit
the more legitimate self-determination claims where whole ethnic
groups have been striving to gain or regain their rights.
There are 192 United Nations member states, more than 1,000 ethnic
groups and a few dozen simmering, frozen or dormant self-determination
movements in the world. If the world of nation-states resembles an
onion, and each layer represents a new wave of self-determination
movements, one may say that the onion is barely peeled.
US President Woodrow Wilson was the first in modern times to
embrace the right of self-determination. It was right after
World War I, at the Versailles peace talks, that the principle of
self-determination assumed its two distinct meanings. One is (external)
self-determination seeking full sovereignty, and the second is for
(internal) self-determination - to secure the right to meaningful
participation in a domestic political process.
When Wilson said, "No people must be forced under sovereignty
under which it does not wish to live", even then Secretary of State
Robert Lansing was highly critical of this categorical embrace of the
principle of self-determination. In his notes at the Peace Conference,
he wrote: "The more I think about the president's declaration as
to the right of self-determination, the more convinced I am of the
danger of putting such ideas into the minds of certain races...The
phrase is simply loaded with dynamite. It will raise hopes, which
can never be realised. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In
the end, it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of
an idealist who failed to realise the danger until too late to check
those who attempt to put the principle in force. What a calamity that
the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause!"
Lansing was half right. Since his days, a great many peoples have
realised their dreams of statehood, some indeed paying a high price
and experiencing painful calamities. There were 51 states when the
United Nations was created in 1945, today there are more than 190. The
newest joined just a couple of years ago. The process has not ended.
Dreams of statehood
Just as the world was not prepared to address and peacefully resolve
the self-determination claims at the Paris Peace Conference, so was
it not ready to address the wave of self-determination claims that
came right after the end of Cold War. It was a given that with the
collapse of the mother state, the individual Soviet republics and
the constituent parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would
emerge as independent states. The problem for the international
community was the autonomous regions within those new states, with
the exception of Crimea and Montenegro, immediately opted to exercise
their own self-determination.
In our time, we have witnessed East Timor's independence made
legitimate through a referendum; we witnessed the independence of
South Sudan, too, on the basis of a referendum. We witnessed the
growing number of countries that recognised Kosovo's independence
after its referendum. Among the political, legal, academic experts
working in and around those places, there is a growing awareness of the
possibility and reality of recognising the right of self-determination
in certain circumstances.
The UN's growing membership is evidence that self-determination
through referendum is a mechanism that works.
The challenge is to have the right criteria to transcend the seemingly
contradictory principles of international order: territorial
integrity and self-determination. The key is to judge existing
self-determination struggles each on their own merit, each in terms
of their own historical, legal circumstances, as well as the realities
on the ground.
Certainly, we need to make a distinction between stability and
forced maintenance of status quo. A status quo in political life is
never inherently permanent. A viable policy of stability requires
the mechanisms to pursue a dynamic process of managing change. The
international community has to be ready to adopt a policy where it
can manage change in this quickly changing and dynamic international
environment. This is where the focus should be, instead of simply
applying a blanket policy supporting the territorial integrity of
states. Such a standard approach cannot be applied to every case
of self-determination.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/post-soviet-referenda-dream-ide-201451354751962586.html
Al-Jazeera, Qatar
May 13 2014
Can the international community apply a blanket policy supporting
the territorial integrity of all states?
Last updated: 13 May 2014 10:35 Vartan Oskanian, a member of Armenia's
National Assembly, a former foreign minister and the founder of
Yerevan's Civilitas Foundation.
Self-determination is an elusive concept. It means different things
to different people. A referendum is a potent instrument to enable
democratic decision-making and actions based on the will of the
majority. The controversy is over who has the legal and legitimate
right to decide to conduct a referendum.
Now put the two together - a referendum to practice self-determination
- and you get the confusion and chaos that has been created throughout
the world over the so-called parade of sovereignties. In addition to
legal discrepancies and political bickering, the situation is further
exacerbated because of the lack of clear international rules on the
legitimate timing and choice of referenda. To top it all off, there
is the matter of the double standards of the major powers in pursuit
of their geopolitical interests.
Most governments in the West recognise Kosovo as an independent
state; Russia does not. Russia and just a handful of other countries
recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. The US and
most Europeans do not. In both cases, one side accuses the other of
violating international law.
When Kosovo conducted a referendum for independence in 2007, the West
determined that Serbia's consent was not required. Yet the absence
of Kiev's consent has led the same Western countries to consider
Crimea's referendum illegal.
Indeed, the line between the legality and non-legality of a people's
right to determine their own fate and destiny through a referendum
has been irrevocably blurred.
Fate and destiny
On May 11, this confusion was taken to a whole new level when the
Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk voted on self-rule. Clearly,
these referenda, and before that Crimea's secession from Ukraine,
were geopolitically motivated moves in response to Ukraine's decision
to align itself with the West.
Such expedient actions should not in any way detract from and discredit
the more legitimate self-determination claims where whole ethnic
groups have been striving to gain or regain their rights.
There are 192 United Nations member states, more than 1,000 ethnic
groups and a few dozen simmering, frozen or dormant self-determination
movements in the world. If the world of nation-states resembles an
onion, and each layer represents a new wave of self-determination
movements, one may say that the onion is barely peeled.
US President Woodrow Wilson was the first in modern times to
embrace the right of self-determination. It was right after
World War I, at the Versailles peace talks, that the principle of
self-determination assumed its two distinct meanings. One is (external)
self-determination seeking full sovereignty, and the second is for
(internal) self-determination - to secure the right to meaningful
participation in a domestic political process.
When Wilson said, "No people must be forced under sovereignty
under which it does not wish to live", even then Secretary of State
Robert Lansing was highly critical of this categorical embrace of the
principle of self-determination. In his notes at the Peace Conference,
he wrote: "The more I think about the president's declaration as
to the right of self-determination, the more convinced I am of the
danger of putting such ideas into the minds of certain races...The
phrase is simply loaded with dynamite. It will raise hopes, which
can never be realised. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In
the end, it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of
an idealist who failed to realise the danger until too late to check
those who attempt to put the principle in force. What a calamity that
the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause!"
Lansing was half right. Since his days, a great many peoples have
realised their dreams of statehood, some indeed paying a high price
and experiencing painful calamities. There were 51 states when the
United Nations was created in 1945, today there are more than 190. The
newest joined just a couple of years ago. The process has not ended.
Dreams of statehood
Just as the world was not prepared to address and peacefully resolve
the self-determination claims at the Paris Peace Conference, so was
it not ready to address the wave of self-determination claims that
came right after the end of Cold War. It was a given that with the
collapse of the mother state, the individual Soviet republics and
the constituent parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would
emerge as independent states. The problem for the international
community was the autonomous regions within those new states, with
the exception of Crimea and Montenegro, immediately opted to exercise
their own self-determination.
In our time, we have witnessed East Timor's independence made
legitimate through a referendum; we witnessed the independence of
South Sudan, too, on the basis of a referendum. We witnessed the
growing number of countries that recognised Kosovo's independence
after its referendum. Among the political, legal, academic experts
working in and around those places, there is a growing awareness of the
possibility and reality of recognising the right of self-determination
in certain circumstances.
The UN's growing membership is evidence that self-determination
through referendum is a mechanism that works.
The challenge is to have the right criteria to transcend the seemingly
contradictory principles of international order: territorial
integrity and self-determination. The key is to judge existing
self-determination struggles each on their own merit, each in terms
of their own historical, legal circumstances, as well as the realities
on the ground.
Certainly, we need to make a distinction between stability and
forced maintenance of status quo. A status quo in political life is
never inherently permanent. A viable policy of stability requires
the mechanisms to pursue a dynamic process of managing change. The
international community has to be ready to adopt a policy where it
can manage change in this quickly changing and dynamic international
environment. This is where the focus should be, instead of simply
applying a blanket policy supporting the territorial integrity of
states. Such a standard approach cannot be applied to every case
of self-determination.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/post-soviet-referenda-dream-ide-201451354751962586.html