25 September, 2018

Blog

Recent European Self-Determination Exercises

By Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

Prof. Kumar David

This essay, except in the two introductory paragraphs and in one irrepressible comment, avoids reference to Lanka; readers can draw their own inferences. Had I attempted a comparative discussion with Lanka, a document three times longer would have snapped my editor’s forbearance. Folks in Lanka are emotional and irrational, hence every time one approaches this topic the rudiments of self-determination theory have to be restated. A barebones summary is: (a) if a reasonable sized group, forming a goodly majority in a territory, wishes to secede; it has the moral and political right to do so. Nevertheless (b) a person who accepts (a) has the right to campaign for or against secession, depending on judgement of benefits and losses.

Now to Lanka; if folks in the North plus Baticaloa wish to exercise this right what do I say? I say, OK you have the right to secede or not to secede, but I also say: Taking into account contingent social, economic and international factors at this time, the Tamils, in their own interest, would be fools to secede. If circumstances change, for example if this regime persists in disrupting, damaging and obstructing the Northern Provincial Administration and grinds it into the dust, then it’s hopeless. The conclusion that the Tamils will never be permitted self administration, devolution and material improvement would be irrefutable. They would then need to ponder if they could be better off in a state of their own; it may not be foolish to secede.

Recent European self-determination drives

I will touch on Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991 and 1995–Dayton Accords), Kosovo (2008) and Scotland (2014) and comment on the hot topic of the day, Crimea (2014). To keep it manageable I will pass up Papua New Guinea (1975), Slovenia (June 1991), Croatia (October 1991), Macedonia (1993), East Timor (2002), South Sudan (2005) and Montenegro (2006). The independence date is in brackets, except Scotland where a referendum is due in September. Some in this list are politically stable and making economic progress; others are struggling – drowning would be too strong a word.

Scotland

The British are setting about it in a civilised way; there has been no mayhem and the demand by the Scottish Independence Party for a referendum has been accepted by society and the political establishment. This is not because secession is likely to be defeated; it was not obvious when a date was agreed. More interesting is that more English are glad to be rid of Scotland than the Scots are to go. It costs more to retain Scotland (population 5.2 million) in the union than the revenue it brings in, and most North Sea Oil has been pumped out. Asymmetrical devolution (Scotland Act of 1998) assures the Scottish Parliament and Administration space to manage its affairs and collect a sizable net subsidy from the Exchequer in London. A Scottish vote for independence would be like “a turkey voting for Christmas” James Callaghan quipped. The Scots would be worse off and have to give up sterling and establish its own currency. Alternatively they could join the EU and adopt the Euro, but what would Scottish identity gain by exchanging one union for another? Most opinion polls show the turkey saying no to Christmas by a hefty majority of about 20%.

Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia are now separate countries Albania was always separate

Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia are now separate countries
Albania was always separate

The significance of the issue for this essay is not the outcome (it will not make much difference to the rest of the UK or to Europe) but the civilised way in which society is going about it. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is support for holding the referendum. In Scotland itself 70% support holding a referendum though only 30% in that sample say they will vote yes. There is a mature understanding of the right of the Scottish people to self-determination.

Yugoslavia and India

Why did Yugoslavia fly apart while the Indian Union has increased its cohesion in the last half-century?  The answer lies in history, material rationality and consciousness. Much of India was in a single empire in the Maurya and Gupta periods, but more crucially, the entire subcontinent was unified by the British Raj. “Britain carried through the only social revolution in the history of India”. A unified administration, judiciary and legal code, industry and railways, currency, a national market, a modern education system, and the pervasiveness of a language that trickled down from the elite into all-India embrace, formed the bedrock of a modern bourgeois-democratic nation. Ah, did I say democratic? Yes without democracy and all its messy clutter modern India cannot hold together. These factors were not strong enough to hold Pakistan in the union or satisfy Kashmir and Jammu though fissiparous trends in Madras State and the Punjab have abated and now Tamil Nadu and Haryana are firmly wedded to the India concept. In mythology and culture there has always been a notion of one-India and the swaraj movement shrewdly tapped into this sentiment.

The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created in 1918, at the end of the war, and succeeded by Tito’s Socialist Yugoslavia when by 1944 his partisans had driven out the Axis powers. Yugoslavia had been overrun by the Germans, Italians and Hungarians in 1941, later joined by Bulgaria in the carrion fest. The country was torn up and fragmented and local fascists set up a state in Croatia. There was no 200 year British Raj to institutionally underwrite a modern nation state, nor was the regions ancient history cohesive in comparion to the mythology of a single India. Tito’s nation was neither institutionally nor materially as unified as independent India. It is true that ethnically the people are all Southern Slavs and all their languages derive from a common Serbo-Croatian root, but this was not enough to withstand the ravages of history. Tito’s death in 1980 loosed ties, but the coup de grace was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Yugoslavia fragmented because of its historical, material and institutional desiderata; the past and the present are a palimpsest.

Bosnia-Herzegovina (BH)

The significance of BH (population 3.8 million) is that a bitter three and a half year civil war was brought to an end by the Dayton Accords of late 1995. Following the declaration of independence in 1991 (opposed by the Serb minority) war broke out between the Bosniaks (48%), Serbs (37%) and Croats (15%); the Bosniaks are Muslims, Serbs Orthodox and Croats Catholics. In BH, previously a Serbian province bitter fighting erupted among the denizens of the new state after it seceded, though Belgrade too poured fuel on the fire and armed the Serb minority. This is an example of the messiness of forcibly forming a separate state; ‘external’ war was followed by internal war within the infant state. There was even a period of NATO bombing in March 1995.

Bosnian Serbs were accused of genocide in Bosnia and General Ratko Mladic was charged in 2011 before the international courts. The Serbian state was acquitted of genocide but accused of crimes against humanity. Serbian president Slobodan Milosovik was charged in 1999 with genocide in Kosovo but a year later charges of genocide in Bosnia were added. The 1990s was an execrable decade in Balkan history as new nations sprouted forth from a hellish cauldron of fire.

Kosovo

In 1989 Milošević amputated Serbia’s Kosovo Province’s autonomous rights (I am biting my tongue not to say Rajapakse and the Northern Province!). Kosovo Albanians responded with a non-violent separatist movement, civil disobedience and created parallel structures in education, medical care, and taxation, with the goal of achieving independence. Kosovo (population 1.8 million) declared unilateral independence in 1991. A bitter civil war with Serbia (population 7.2 million excluding Kosovo) broke out. Kosovo’s population is over 90% Albanian Muslims and less than 5% Serb. Tensions between the Albanian and Serb populations resulted in inter-ethnic violence and the brutal 1999 Kosovo War.

In 2008 Serbia sought an opinion was sought from the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The ICJ ruled that it did not violate international law which contains no “prohibition on declarations of independence”. Serbia and Russia do not recognise Kosovo’s independence and only 86 of 193 UN members do. The Security Council has not ratified independence.

Crimea

The reason Russia annexed Crimea was not in deference to Crimean self-determination; it was concern about the security of Russia; Putin’s sharp reaction was a response to fears that Russia’s security was at risk. The overthrow of kleptocratic but democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych by popular protests, hijacked at the last stage by ultra right-wing fascistic paramilitary, and the prospect of NATO expansion left Putin no choice.

Nazi snipers, anti-Semitic violence, and inclusion of the ultra-right Svoboda Party in the new government created a fearsome scenario. Grassroots fascists and German and/or American clandestine units may have been involved. NATO has been pushing ever closer to Russia’s near-abroad for two decades; Ukrainian NATO membership would have been intolerable. None of this is an apology for ex-KGB Putin’s autocratic regime or an excuse for kleptocratic oligarchs surrounding his throne.

Did the Crimean people want to secede and join Russia? International observes present during the referendum made no reports of electoral fraud. The yes vote was 95%, the turnout 80%, which means 75% of the population supported change. True, Ukrainian and Cossack minorities boycotted, the presence of Russian forces would persuade many to join the winning side, there was irrational euphoria and a rushed referendum, not preceded by a campaign and debate, would bias the result. Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that a properly organised referendum would also have shown a sizable majority in favour of seceding from the Ukraine and joining Russia.

My objective today is to state that while finally bowing to people’s right to self-determination, including secession, whether one should campaign for or against secession up to a referendum, depends case by case. Facing a secessionist choice people need to consider the prosperity of the hypothesised state (democratic prospects, economic outlook, international relationships) and whether its birth will be peaceful (Slovenia, the Czech-Slovak velvet divorce, Crimea, Scotland if it goes that way) or blood soaked (East Timor, ex-Yugoslavia except Slovenia, South Sudan).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 2
    0

    A very good analysis. Of course given the opportunity an overwhelming majority of the Tamils in North Sri Lanka will opt for greater autonomy rather than secession. But the greatest tragedy is that in the South, people look upon autonomy as a step towards secession. How could this dilemma be overcome?

    Sengodan. M

    • 3
      2

      Sengodan. M,

      Your contributions to the ongoing debate on the Tamil predicament have been consistently pragmatic. However, the present question of yours, – How could this dilemma be overcome?, has caused some disbelief, in me!

      It appears, from the wording of the question that you pose, that there is still a chance to overcome the dilemma.

      I am scratching my head!

      People in the South, do not look upon autonomy as a step towards secession. No, they do not.

      A good many people in the South, are so spiteful, they would cling on to every pretence, to oppose autonomy for Tamils.

      I would be happy to hear that I am wrong.

      • 2
        1

        Nathan

        “People in the South, do not look upon autonomy as a step towards secession. No, they do not.”

        May be.

        Please take into account the noisy minority. They may be small in numbers, they know how to destroy peace, progress and self destruct. Therefore don’t under estimate them.

        • 1
          0

          Native Vedda,

          I am an admirer of your wit. Your wit not withstanding, I stand by my remark.

          I am not discounting anybody.

          I take into account the noisy minority. But, the occasion of my remark did not call for including them into the equation.

          I hope you’ll see where I am coming from, – metaphorically and literally!

      • 2
        0

        We have to live in hope until we exhaust every possiblity of gaining some real autonomy. If all efforts fail, then as even Prof Kumar David infers, the inevitable will happen!

        Sengodan. M

      • 3
        0

        I do not say with certainty that you are wrong. But secession will incur a terrible price (civil war) and I am still reluctant to concede that this MUST be paid. As Sengodan says Tamils will be satisfied with genuibe autonomy.

        Must we now itself make an irreversible choice that autonomy is impossible? Is it foolish to belive that with international and progressive Sinhalese support it may still be possible to make progress along this road? Rajapakses come and Rajapakses go but life goes no for longer.

      • 3
        1

        Self determination of newly formed states was established because of the geopolitical circumstances created in those cases.

        It is up to Tamils to create geopolitical conditions favorable for the creation of their nation/state. Of course Sri Lanka can also create these favorable conditions indirectly by resorting to grossly negative actions towards the Tamil people as they do now: In many examples of the newly formed nation states these negative actions of the oppressors contributed immensely to the liberation of these peoples.

        Tamils can consider all options to preserve their historically endowed nation by its forefathers including as the 29th state of India, if this the only way to extricate themselves from the constricting Sinhala yoke trying to suffocate and kill the Tamil nation.

        It is the duty of the present generation of Tamils to protect what our forefathers left for us for 3 millennium or more.

  • 3
    1

    SL needa a decentralizwd system, NOT just for Tamils, but the Vaddhas, Muslims, Christians, Kandyans, othe mountain, planes and coastal people.

    In India (our mother) they have this, a Sikh PM, Aryan, Dravidian Pms Prezes, Dalits (Bhuddists), Muslims, Barhmins and Urine Drinkers included..

    We are yet primitive….with our imported (primitive mother country) outdated concept..

    • 0
      2

      The description of Buddhists as Dalits is interesting, to say the least.

    • 0
      1

      (J)Emil, it is good to hear your mother also desired many divisions along ethnic lines. I always thought that to be the case.

      You are primitive, clinging on to hymie tribal conspiracies!

  • 0
    1

    Yugoslavia had never being a unitary state previous to 1918. It’s provinces had been parts of different empires at various times. Though the great majority of the peoples were (Southern) Slavs, and Christian (Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs) there was a significant Muslim minority, from the old Ottoman days. The Dayton accords, which you refer to so casually, were imposed on Yugoslavia after a 78 day relentless bombing campaign, carried out by NATO, when Milosevic had refused to sign the Rambouillet document, which no self-respecting nationalist would have done – A victory for Operation Gladio, and the IMF which had ‘saved’ the economy with the closure of some 250 companies and making a quarter of the working population jobless.

    Yugoslavia therefore cannot be equated to India. Neither the Mauryans nor the Guptas had conquered the south. If not for the British Raj, India would today be a majority Muslim, multitude of separate entities.

  • 0
    1

    You must have been biting your tongue when you described the Kosovan ‘resistance’ as non-violent. The terror outfit Kosovan Liberation army (KLA), operating mostly from Albania is the ONLY such group known to have tortured and removed human organs from the victims (Serbs) for commercial purposes. Who said war was not profitable.

  • 2
    4

    Hello there Tamil people,

    Perhaps you have been doing it for so long the awareness and training for moderation does not come easy.

    Allow me to allude you to the fact what you are doing now is rabid communalism. Its communalism, casteism and sectarianism that has resulted in Tamils being marginalised, brualised and banned in over 52 countries.

    The continouing failures are a result of your narrow mindedness. Therefore the first port of call must be introspection. Introspection is not enough. Steps must be taken to begin on the journey towards moderation.

    First of all, steps must be taken to re-settle and find employment to over 100,000 Moslems ethnicly cleansed from the north. The same must be done to over 23,000 Sinhalase whom have been left homeless in the north.

    Then there must be an apology for all acts of terrorism done in the name of Tamils. These include attacks on civilians and places of worship.

    Finally, all Tamil parties must enter the forum setup in the Parliment to bring the whole saga to a conclusion. There are no other short cuts. Lets not waste anymore time.

  • 1
    0

    “Finally, all Tamil parties must enter the forum setup in the Parliment to bring the whole saga to a conclusion. There are no other short cuts. Lets not waste anymore time. “

    The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) says it will not take part in the Parliament Select Committee (PSC) on the National issue as the Government had **********failed to fulfill promises***** given in the past.

    Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh told a group of visiting Sri Lankan journalists in New Delhi last week that the Government of Sri Lanka must resume a substantive dialogue with the TNA for a political settlement and reconciliation. “India has consistently urged the Sri Lankan Government to take forward the process of broader dialogue so that we can see some concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers including the implementation of the 13th Amendment and beyond,” she said.

    In response to her comments, Sumanthiran told The Sunday Leader that the Sri Lankan Government has consistently agreed with India that they would ‘implement the 13th amendment in full and go beyond that to achieve meaningful devolution’ and this is even contained in joint communiqué between the two governments.

    However, he noted that the promise has not been kept and far short of even implementing the 13th amendment in full, the Government has not allowed the Northern Provincial Council to function in the way other provincial councils function. “The law requires the Chief Secretary to be appointed with the concurrence of the Chief Minister. But after repeated assurances even that simple action has not been taken,” he said.

    Sumanthiran also noted that India has consistently urged the government to engage with the TNA to arrive at an acceptable political solution. “The Government, after commencing dialogue with the TNA in January 2011, did not respond to the TNA’s proposals for a full year and then, contrary to agreement walked away from the bilateral talks. Thereafter the Government keeps insisting the TNA join the Parliamentary Select Committee. This too is contrary to the agreement reached with the TNA, which are all recorded and confirmed in the minutes of the bilateral talks. This is the reason the TNA is unable to join the PSC,” he added.

    The TNA MP also said that the Indo-Lanka Accord is a bilateral treaty between two sovereign nations, which provides for genuine power sharing arrangement with the Tamil speaking people in the North-East of the country, and therefore it is legitimate and obligatory for India to raise these matters with the Sri Lankan Government and urge them to comply with their obligations under the treaty.
    http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2014/02/16/tna-stands-ground/

  • 0
    2

    David in his haste has left out one glaring fact – Southern Rhodesia and it’s UDI under Ian Smith. Some 250,000 white settlers who had taken over almost all of the arable land in the country, wanted to be released from British hegemony which had served them well in the past, but was then under pressure to grant independence to the nation of the dispossessed. How did that pan out ?

    The 4% of the population living in the ethnically cleansed Northern Province in Sri Lanka demand the rest of the nation to bend to it’s will in order to give credence to their description of the word ‘nation’.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.