Is Separatism the Latest International Rage?
February 18th, 2008Does anybody remember a time when creating utopia on earth seemed so easy … that all we had to do was hold hands, sing songs, and drink Coke, regardless of our identity?
Well brothers and sisters, get over it. Building a sense of community is hard work, and it’s never been so obvious as it is lately considering that separatism seems to be beginning to take its stand front and center on the international stage. I just can’t help but wonder if we are starting to see the handwriting on the wall … Are we seeing the early stages of an international trend?
Given the national aspirations of various communities and ethnic groups, could the future wind up with a Middle East that looks like this?
I’m not sounding alarm bells, because I don’t think that is necessary; and, anyway, I am not completely convinced the trend is afoot, but we cannot ignore that parts of the world are fractionalizing. It’s probably a natural occurrence for some ethnic groups considering that they were thrown together into one national identity without their consent. However, the reason why I do mention this is because we — builders and advocates of positive intercommunal relations — better keep our eyes open so we truly understand where all these different and diverse groups of people are coming from. We know trust between groups and communities is not always easy to come by, and if a group of people feels they would be better off taking care of their own needs rather than rely on those who traditionally have not taken very good care of them at all, well … can we really blame them for wanting to split off and try it on their own?
In a word, no. Seeking coexistence sounds great, but without a viable pathway actually to make it happen, it’s just a word.
However, if we prefer the road to immediate gratification and just want to blame someone, then let’s blame the international community at large for it’s utter failure to foster community between neighbors, and lack of interest to build cooperative partnerships where they are needed. The international community has a dismal record of building new bridges, cultivating equality, and creating peace. Without strategic allies, and proof that they won’t suffer merely because of their identity, separatism — at times, which is often really more like escape — seems to be the only viable option for the oppressed, and, let’s face it, whose fault is that?
Independence certainly sounds sexy, but without the capability and infrastructure to make ones own dreams come true, small, undeveloped communities will remain largely reliant upon the larger international powers — starting with who will recognize their bids for independence.
Kosovo, for example, has the luck of the USA and some powerful European powers acknowledging it, and now things are getting … oh well, you fill in the blank.
Serbia has recalled its ambassador from Washington in protest at US recognition of Kosovo’s independence, saying the US has “violated international law”.
Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica also threatened to withdraw envoys from other countries which recognised the territory’s secession from Serbia.
Mr Kostunica said the envoy’s recall was Serbia’s “first urgent measure”.
France, the UK, Germany and Italy have all recognised the new state following its declaration of independence.
Russia, on the other hand, is upset about it, given their alliance with Serbia, so they decided on a little tit for tat by, supporting the separatist notions of northern Cyprus.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised eyebrows in Cyprus after he said that Turkish occupied northern Cyprus has been a de facto republic for four decades.
The comments came after the Russian president rejected arguments by European nations that Kosovo is a “special case” in seeking independence, and accused the countries of employing double standards on the issue.
During his final annual news conference as Russian president, Putin said: “I don’t want to offend anyone, but Northern Cyprus has been a de facto independent republic for 40 years. Why then don’t you recognize it? Aren’t you, Europeans, ashamed of applying double standards in solving identical problems in different parts of the world?”
The Turkish- occupied areas of Cyprus are only recognised by Turkey.
Although, not to be outdone, Russia has even one-upped the West with support for other separatists:
THE breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are planning to ask Russia and the UN to recognise their independence following the declaration of independence by Kosovo, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported.
“In the near future, Abkhazia will appeal to the Russian parliament and the UN security council with a request to recognise its independence,” self-declared Abkhaz president Sergei Bagapsh was quoted as saying by Interfax.
“South Ossetia will in the near future appeal to the Commonwealth of Independent States and the UN with a request to recognise our independence,” South Ossetian president Eduard Kokoity was quoted as saying by the news agency, referring to a grouping of ex-Soviet states that includes Russia.
Both leaders said the moves were prompted by Kosovo’s decision to declare independence today.
Meanwhile, the question remains, how will other communities with long-standing claims and previously demonstrated aims of their own respond to what is going on lately?
Chisinau – Leaders of the renegade Moldovan province Transnistria were closeted in meetings on Monday over Kosovo’s recent declaration of independence, the Infotag news agency reported.
Russian-speaking Transnistria seceded from Romanian-speaking Moldova after a civil war ending in 1992. No country has recognised the region as a separate state, despite Transnistria’s de facto independence.
Top members of Transnistria’s leadership, headed by Transnistrian leader Igor Smirnov, began meetings early on Monday to decide the region’s best move given Kosovo’s new status.
Now, if this post were just going to talk about severely oppressed groups, with no options for equality, seeking and/or creating independence for themselves, I wouldn’t consider all this something new. It would be clear that the desire to separate is due to lack of opportunity and access to improve a communal situation, whether it’s human rights abuse, cultural repression, or brutality — a direct result of no other choice but to break free. However, when separatism seems to come as something other than a last resort, and is largely from being fed up with socio-economic stagnation, then we can begin to wonder if we’re beginning to witness a new trend.
Take the case of Belgium, for example:
Belgium has been called an “artificial country”, a conglomeration of three individual states that have no real affinity for each other: Dutch-speaking Flanders, French-speaking Wallonia and a small German-speaking community. The Dutch and French speakers have their own parliaments, media and schools and rarely intersect. Now there is one thing all have in common: no federal government. The increasing animosity has added fuel to long-simmering talk of splitting the country apart.
It’s not even in Belgium and Europe that this is occurring. We’ve heard about French-speaking Canada seeking its independence. Now it is even happening in the USA.
The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.
“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.
A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.
The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
These examples may not represent anything. They may be a bunch of independent an unrelated issues although undoubtedly, there are many more examples around the globe I have not mentioned here. Is separatism becoming an international trend? Who knows, it’s just a question at this stage. But if it is becoming globally trendy, then it would appear to be a symptom of a much bigger problem of disassociation people and groups feel toward each other because they seem either out of options, or are just fed up. The international community better get a new paradigm to engage downtrodden people.
Yet, even with all this said and done, as people grow increasingly closer with digital technology, communications are more open then ever, providing us with new chances to get to know and experience each other. Clearly the future is up for grabs, and I, for one, am not going to be one of those people who just sits back and watches what happens.
Loading ...
Loading...
Is the fragmentation of larger nations into smaller, more homogenous groups a negative thing? That would certainly depend on whether or not one was part of the dominant group in the larger nation or the smaller group wanting independance. Separatism does not necessarily entail isolation or deprivation, and in fact political and economic models are beginning to be built that emphasize the feasability of loose federations of autonomous states (the EU being probably the most successful example. It is worthwhile noting that most of these “shaky border” nations were either constructed arbitrarily in the aftermath of war, occupied during a war by a larger neighbour, or simply swallowed up against their collective will.
A truly democratic political principle would recognize the right of ANY self determinant group or area providing an impartial independance vote is undertaken, and then assist the fledgling state along the universal princples of freedom, security, and human rights.
You mentioned Canada in passing, and the question of Quebec as a separate country. Quebec has had the opportunity to separate twice, and both times has declined, since, after decades of political wrangling and a strong provincial authority, it functions virtually like a state within a state, almost entirely self-determinant, but sharing military security, federal economic and currency powers, and free borders.
World unity is an excellent principle, but not at the expense of identity or heritage.
Eric:
that might only be a functional idea if there were no other concerns. regardless of legal basis of Kosova’s independence, I think that breaking up already weakened countries is only in favor of those who want to further advance their preferred international order. in addition, US administration follows a dual standard again in this case; why is this ‘positive thing’ good for some and bad for others?
I would never blame a disenfranchised group for demanding control over their own affairs. So the answer to your question is no, I don’t look at fragmentation in and of itself as a problem, especially since it’s considered a problem-solver for many burdened peoples. Fragmentation is symptomatic of deeper root causes — lack of positive intergroup relations, inequality, institutional bias, lack of development, limited empowerment, etc. — that are the real problems some parts of the world are facing. Questioning whether fragmentation is becoming a trend makes us try to understand why it’s happening, gives us a better understanding of the state of intercommunal affairs the world is in, and therefore guides us where our efforts belong to foster a new level of community amongst diversity.
I can understand the desire of the “haves” to seperate themselves from the “have nots”. The “have nots” will always gravitate to the “haves” to try to feed off their power. If the “havenots” have overwhelmed the “haves” (as in Kurdistan in Iraq and the oil fields) then it is the “haves” again that want a separation. The power group will always demand either separation or continued association according to their advantage. Everybody wants to control the golden goose. The question is: How powerful are the “haves” and how long will they tolerate the parisitism of the “havenots”? Keep in mind that, often, the powerful became more powerful by exploitation of the lesser.