Re: Catalonia
4/10/17 09:48![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
asthfghl posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSerbia accuses world of double standards over Catalonia and Kosovo
See, two principles have reigned over international politics ever since the end of WW2.
1) Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.
2) Peoples have the right of self-identification.
These two ideas were supposed to keep international peace. And to a large extent, they did. For a time. But there's a significant problem here. As you can see, these two principles are in direct conflict with each other. Various sides have often referred to either #1 or #2 in their political endeavors, particularly when the ethnic, religious and hence territorial identification of certain groups, nations and countries is in question.
When the Kosovo Albanians (a majority in Kosovo) decided to self-identify as a separate territorial entity, they cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be. Naturally, Serbia cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side in this conflict, seemingly because they were horrified by Milosevic's atrocities, but in Realpolitik terms, because Serbia was Russia's last remaining geopolitical proxy in the Balkan region, and they had to be brought out of the big game.
When the Crimean Russians (a majority in Crimea) decided to self-identify and split away from Ukraine, then join Russia, they also cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be, and join whomever we want. Naturally, Ukraine cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side here as well, seemingly because the Russian separatists were doing Putin's bidding, and he wanted to teach Ukraine a lesson for wanting to join the West. But in Realpolitik terms, because Crimea is a key strategic area that grants control over the Black Sea region, and Russia had to be denied that.
In the former case, the Kosovo Albanians got their independence with NATO's and mainly America's support, they had the power of the strong on their side so they succeeded. In the latter case, the Crimean Russians got their secession with Putin's support, they had the power of the regional force on their side so they succeeded. The difference is, in the former case the international community cited principle #2 when crafting its position, while in the latter case they cited principle #1.
Which now brings us to Catalonia. According to the Spanish constitution, Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct. But Spain is a EU member, and according to the EU constitution, EU citizens have the right of self-identification. So which is it, now? When Catalonia decided to make an independence referendum, Spain was naturally opposed to it. They even resorted to violent methods to prevent it from happening. Because, from their standpoint, even if the referendum ended up with a "No" result, it would've legitimized independence referenda in Spain for the future, and that's exactly what the Basques want. A possible independence referendum in the Basque country would've resulted in secession. And the domino effect would've started. So I understand why Madrid is so desperate.
As for the EU, it has been asked by the Catalans to mediate this conflict. To be an arbiter. But they've refused, saying that this is an entirely internal question for Spain. Well, this is cowardly. Because this is not an entirely domestic question. It's an issue of great importance for the entire EU. Because the EU, and the so called international community by extension, often likes to pose as the paragon of the principles of peace and democracy. But the problem is, they don't know what they're doing. They've created a system that's based on two mutually irreconcilable principles, #1 and #2. Each of them sounds great on its own, but when put together in the same place, they create a disaster and confusion. And the international community has failed to respond adequately. Rather, it has created the impression of double standard, of ad-hoc approach, of Realpolitik. Of "we do whatever suits us".
The EU and the rest of the international community should get their shit together, because the domino effect is threatening to become an avalanche. Scotland is next, now that the terms of the UK/EU relations have changed fundamentally. Scotland has always wanted to stay in the EU, and they'll want to secede now. Flanders is a goner too, Belgium is perhaps the most unstable territorial entity in Europe overall. And let's not forget that the Basque country includes parts of Southern France. And that the Northern League in Italy has been pushing for secession for a long time now.
A change is needed in the post-war principles of international politics, and urgently. Principles #1 and #2 cannot continue to exist together with presumably equal validity. I don't know how this system should be modified - if I did, I'd probably be a Nobel Peace prize nominee. Any suggestions are more than welcome. But one thing is for sure: this can't continue much longer.
See, two principles have reigned over international politics ever since the end of WW2.
1) Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.
2) Peoples have the right of self-identification.
These two ideas were supposed to keep international peace. And to a large extent, they did. For a time. But there's a significant problem here. As you can see, these two principles are in direct conflict with each other. Various sides have often referred to either #1 or #2 in their political endeavors, particularly when the ethnic, religious and hence territorial identification of certain groups, nations and countries is in question.
When the Kosovo Albanians (a majority in Kosovo) decided to self-identify as a separate territorial entity, they cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be. Naturally, Serbia cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side in this conflict, seemingly because they were horrified by Milosevic's atrocities, but in Realpolitik terms, because Serbia was Russia's last remaining geopolitical proxy in the Balkan region, and they had to be brought out of the big game.
When the Crimean Russians (a majority in Crimea) decided to self-identify and split away from Ukraine, then join Russia, they also cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be, and join whomever we want. Naturally, Ukraine cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side here as well, seemingly because the Russian separatists were doing Putin's bidding, and he wanted to teach Ukraine a lesson for wanting to join the West. But in Realpolitik terms, because Crimea is a key strategic area that grants control over the Black Sea region, and Russia had to be denied that.
In the former case, the Kosovo Albanians got their independence with NATO's and mainly America's support, they had the power of the strong on their side so they succeeded. In the latter case, the Crimean Russians got their secession with Putin's support, they had the power of the regional force on their side so they succeeded. The difference is, in the former case the international community cited principle #2 when crafting its position, while in the latter case they cited principle #1.
Which now brings us to Catalonia. According to the Spanish constitution, Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct. But Spain is a EU member, and according to the EU constitution, EU citizens have the right of self-identification. So which is it, now? When Catalonia decided to make an independence referendum, Spain was naturally opposed to it. They even resorted to violent methods to prevent it from happening. Because, from their standpoint, even if the referendum ended up with a "No" result, it would've legitimized independence referenda in Spain for the future, and that's exactly what the Basques want. A possible independence referendum in the Basque country would've resulted in secession. And the domino effect would've started. So I understand why Madrid is so desperate.
As for the EU, it has been asked by the Catalans to mediate this conflict. To be an arbiter. But they've refused, saying that this is an entirely internal question for Spain. Well, this is cowardly. Because this is not an entirely domestic question. It's an issue of great importance for the entire EU. Because the EU, and the so called international community by extension, often likes to pose as the paragon of the principles of peace and democracy. But the problem is, they don't know what they're doing. They've created a system that's based on two mutually irreconcilable principles, #1 and #2. Each of them sounds great on its own, but when put together in the same place, they create a disaster and confusion. And the international community has failed to respond adequately. Rather, it has created the impression of double standard, of ad-hoc approach, of Realpolitik. Of "we do whatever suits us".
The EU and the rest of the international community should get their shit together, because the domino effect is threatening to become an avalanche. Scotland is next, now that the terms of the UK/EU relations have changed fundamentally. Scotland has always wanted to stay in the EU, and they'll want to secede now. Flanders is a goner too, Belgium is perhaps the most unstable territorial entity in Europe overall. And let's not forget that the Basque country includes parts of Southern France. And that the Northern League in Italy has been pushing for secession for a long time now.
A change is needed in the post-war principles of international politics, and urgently. Principles #1 and #2 cannot continue to exist together with presumably equal validity. I don't know how this system should be modified - if I did, I'd probably be a Nobel Peace prize nominee. Any suggestions are more than welcome. But one thing is for sure: this can't continue much longer.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 06:27 (UTC)You know, as an actual Bulgarian who's been paying attention to events in Ukraine, particularly ones concerning the Bulgarian minority there, I can't help but be disgusted from the decision of the Ukrainian parliament to pass a law prohibiting the teaching of the mother's tongue in Ukrainian schools, which practically deprives my fellow Bulgarians of the right to exercise their cultural and ethnic identity. The EU has remained silent about it so far - you know, the same EU that insisted that Ukraine should be given the right to democratically define its own future.
If my fellow Bulgarians in Ukraine demand to have their cultural autonomy restored to its previous state, the state it has been in for decades, would you call that fait accompli too?
> I think it's a little silly
Why, thank you. You're very kind.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 11:55 (UTC)There's nothing "normal" about dynamic systems like international relations. There are just periods of temporary stability (as in lack of change) alternating with relatively brief periods of dynamic change, at most times accompanied with turmoil.
And even if we don't mention Crimea, the Kosovo/Catalonia comparison still remains to be addressed.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 12:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/17 00:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 07:09 (UTC)In that case, could you please point me to a comprehensive guideline about the motivations for expressing people's will that should be considered acceptable? I mean, so we could establish the boundaries of "silliness" here.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 11:57 (UTC)I'm still trying to figure out what the actual standard here is. Not the one that politicians like to recite in front of the cameras, the real one.
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 12:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/17 00:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/17 05:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 07:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 11:59 (UTC)https://talkpolitics.dreamwidth.org/1926625.html
(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 12:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 12:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/10/17 12:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/10/17 00:53 (UTC)To prevent the breakup of Iraq, the USA presides over....the breakup of Iraq with anti-Iraqi terrorists who've been de facto rulers for more than a decade now with US approval. At least two decades, if not more. These people getting independence requires the simultaneous fatal weaknening of three states at once. That scenario did happen in 1914-9 to three great powers in Europe but however weak Iraq is, Turkey and Iran are not and they will gleefully massacre the Kurds into line and save Iraq for an advantage if nobody else will. And what's the USA going to do about that or Europe?
Go to war with the Iranian Mullahs they're rim-jobbing no matter what they do or how provocative they are with it?