The Ethnic
Question has Helped
Destroy the Century
By JONATHAN
POWER
April 21, 1999
LONDON- As the twentieth century closes it appears more
than ever to merit the French sociologist Raymond Aron's
description, "the century of total war". Just before he died
last year the great British philosopher Isaiah Berlin said,
"it was the worst century that Europe ever had. Worse, I
suspect, even than the days of the Huns". And why? Because
"in our modern age nationalism is not resurgent; it never
died. Neither did racism. They are the most powerful
movements in the world today cutting across many social
systems". He ended: "I am glad to be as old as I
am".
In his book "Pandaemonium", Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
probably the U.S. Senate's most illustrious intellectual,
observes that today "there are just eight states on earth
which both existed in 1914 and have not had their form of
government changed by violence since then". These are the
U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Switzerland,
Sweden and New Zealand. "The defining mode of conflict in
the era ahead is ethnic conflict", said Moynihan on another
occasion. "It promises to be savage. Get ready for 50 new
countries in the world in the next 50 years. Most of them
will be born in bloodshed".
So the twentieth century has come down to this: we decide
whom we love by whom we hate. The American ideal expressed
in its constitution and in the opening words of the UN
Charter, "We the Peoples..." which define a people by
political beliefs rather than blood, has been pushed aside
with vengeance.
This gathering speed of ethnic self-determination
provoked Warren Christopher, the American Secretary of State
during president Bill Clinton's first term, to throw up his
hands in despair, "If we don't find some way that different
ethnic groups can live together in a country how many
countries will we have? We'll have 5,000".
So what's the problem? Let a thousand flowers bloom. The
difficulty is the human psyche--that makes getting from A to
B without war so very difficult. The trouble is that, as in
ex-Yugoslavia, neighbouring, but larger and more dominant
ethnic groups don't want smaller groups moving off into
autonomy or independence, cutting their country down to
size. And even if they succeed for a while in doing it will
they be recognised by the rest of the world? Recognition is
considered one of the most difficult topics in international
law.
Of course, the UN Charter recognises the
"self-determination of peoples". Yet because it implies a
significant erosion of the long held principle of
sovereignty, applying it and accepting it has been a
divisive issue among international law scholars. There is a
vast literature and several advisory opinions of the world
court have failed to settle the matter.
By and large, in most cases, the community of nations has
worked from the opinion of the League of Nations when in
1920 it investigated the request of the Swedish-speaking
inhabitants of the Aaland Islands in the Baltic to be
allowed "self determination" from Finland. "To concede to
minorities", the League's advisors concluded, "either of
language or religion, or to any fractions of the population,
the right to withdrawal from the community to which they
belong, because it is their wish or their grand pleasure,
would be to destroy order and stability within states and to
inaugurate anarchy in international life".
This is why the British government supported, in the face
of a big outcry at home, the right of Nigeria to put down
the revolt in its dissident state of Biafra in the 1960s. It
is why the U.S. today so strongly backs the Turks against
its Kurdish minority, despite the mass killings and
widespread torture practised by the Turkish army. Indeed it
is why the Big Five on the Security Council are united in
accepting the territorial integrity of Iraq, despite the
persecution of the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in
the south.
But today there is obviously a change afoot. The West,
particularly the U.S., has given strong hints that it is now
prepared to consider independence for Kosovo. It certainly
hasn't dealt with Serbia with the long patience it has
extended Turkey. But how far will the West let itself be
pushed? Once the ball starts to roll, where does it end, as
Mr Christopher warned? Ethnic conflicts do not require great
differences; small will do--what Freud called "the
narcissism of minor differences".
For starters, if it wants to be consistent, the West
could usefully agree on the dismemberment of Iraq. Or what
about the creation of Kurdistan, not to mention immediate
recognition, without further ado, of a Palestinian state?
And while it's at it let's officially recognize Tibet as the
country it was!
The West by allowing itself to be drawn in as the
airforce of the Kosovar guerrillas is stepping into very
deep water. And by unleashing its war-machine it is only
making a difficult and complicated situation worse. It is
laying down precedents it will live to rue.
My own long-held suggestion for this growing problem is
the establishment of an International Court of Ethnic
Disputes.
A nation being rent asunder or an ethnic group under
threat could come to the court and ask a ruling on whether
the principles of the Declaration of Human Rights were being
followed. Are the boundaries of our province fair? Are the
rights of language, education and political representation
given to the minority group by the majority reasonable? Are
there reforms of law or administration that the court could
suggest to make the situation more equitable?
In effect this is what the mediators did with the Aaland
Islands dispute in the 1920s. At the time it was a big
issue. Today it is not. The island remains Finnish but the
rights of the islanders to use the Swedish language were
reinforced.
With Kosovo and Serbia no such sustained effort to
mediate was made BEFORE the situation blew up and passions
were roused. At the time of the Dayton Agreement, Kosovo was
ignored. There was, needless to say, no court to refer the
matter to. Instead the West has gone dangerously to war.
What an epitaph to century.
Copyright © 1999 By JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172 and e-mail:
JonatPower@aol.com
|