Gavrilo Princip; Archduke Ferdinand leaving the Sarajevo City Hall; Gavrilo Princip arrested; Yalta Conference, February 1945; SFOR soldiers guard Sarajevo's Lateiner (a.k.a. Princip) Bridge in 1999.
Posted on 11/11/2001 8:01:05 AM PST by annalex
National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie
Ralph Fucetola III
Men have suffered under a strange misconception for the past several thousand years: the idea that they are in need of political control - of being ruled by an elite group calling itself the State. This political elite has maintained its monopoly over the energies and properties of all men by developing a series of political lies to convince men of the necessity of rule and the justice of particular rulers.
THE CONCEPT OF SELF-DETERMINATION
At one time the lie was that men's rulers were divinely ordained. In more recent centuries men have been taught that "just" states are the expression of the will of a majority of the people; and therefore, that such states are an exercise in self-determination. The actual history of this rationalization for state power has been somewhat less satisfying than the theory.
"The President of the United States and Prime Minister of Britian respect the right of all peoples to choose the the form of government under which they will live."
The Atlantic Charter
Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt met at Yalta on the Crimean coast, in February 1945. They had made and would continue to make national self-determination a war aim of the Allies. But at Yalta, the conquerors proceeded to divide the world: to apportion mankind without regard for the wishes of the inhabitants of any area. As in the First World War, the concept of self-determination of peoples became a rhetorical device con cealing the imperial activities of the warlords.
Yet the concept of self-determination is grounded in human social relationships. Men do associate: it is in their interest to do so. From this basic fact of social cohesion, rulers have developed the concept of national self-determination : the idea that involuntary associations of individuals, called "nations" or "peoples", are entities capable of acting toward certain ends. Human beings are able to determine their own lives as they have the ability to engage in goal-directed activity. But can this concept be applied to groups of humans?
THE COLLECTIVIST FALLACY
National and international politicians speak as though a group were able to determine its "life". All political activity is based on this assumption. The very idea of a state presupposes that a group can behave like a single person. By that "single person" we mean one capable of rational, self- generated, goal-directed activity: a self-determining being. The attempt to apply this concept to "nations" or "peoples" rather than to individuals is an example of anthropomorphism. In the past, tribal groups ascribed human characteristics to natural forces. Today, in men's mythologies, the Nation has taken the place of those unknown natural forces.
This anthropomorphism is understandable in primitive societies, but it is absurd in the modern world.
Collectives actually cannot have goals. A business corporation is spoken of as having certain goals or plans, but it is commonly understood that these goals, or plans, are those agreed upon by a majority of a group of individuals: a board of directors who control the assets of the corporation. In the case of a "people", the same holds true: the most that can be said is that various individuals have certain goals which they intend to impose on all the inhabitants of a certain area. A corporation is a voluntary association for a limited goal. A "people" is an involuntary grouping whose mythical and mystical overtones are used to maintain or impose absolute political control in a particular area, for the benefit of a ruling elite.
The idea of national self-determination has had a major effect on men and their societies. Not all of the applications of this complex concept, developed over at least several centuries, have been as blatantly imperialistic as in the Second World War. By tracing the history of the concept, the final flowering of this idea in that war can be understood.
THEORY AND PRACTICE: A BRIEF HISTORY
The American Declaration of Independance reflects the use of of the principle of national self- determination:
"When in the course of human events it becomes necesary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect for the opinion of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation ..."At this early date, three important factors are considered. Separation is justified when (1) divergent "peoples" are living under one government, which is oppressing one of these groups; (2) a right, granted by natural law, exists in each "people" to form a state; and (3) in some sense, the international community, "the opinion of mankind", is involved. These characteristics of the principle of self-determination of peoples have not remained static, but are continuing themes in the history of the concept. The American revolt has been judged successful. The rulers appointed by, or somewhat subservient to, the British Crown, were replaced by native rulers. In the centuries that have followed, there have been many revolts. Many territories have been annexed to growing states, and in recent years many sovereign states have been created in colonial areas.
The actions of the French Revolutionary armies exemplify the first instances of a formalized recognition that the wishes of the inhabitants should be considered before a territory is added to a state. As the French armies conquered Europe after the French Revolution, various areas were incorporated into their state. These annexations were accompanied by plebiscites or other electoral acts. Of course, the nascent French Empire won all these elections. Who could refuse the blessings of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity of- fered by the massive French armies? Nonetheless, as the army entered each area it declared, "From this moment the French nation proclaims the sovereignty of the people ..." (the Proclamation of 1792). As the "French nation" turned ever more expansionist, the conquered populace's self- determination became a concealment for imperial control: the French state sent commissioners after its army to insure the success of annexation by plebiscite.
In the American experience, the concept of national self-determination was used to justify a change in rulers and as a new foundation to attempt to legitimize the authority of the state. The French rulers, on the other hand, used the forms of self-determination of peoples to legitimize the expansion of their power.
The "unification" of Italy also was accompanied by various forms of popular expression. Perhaps the most open explanation of this was given by Giuseppe Mazzini in his instructions to the secret society known as "Young Italy":
"Every nation is destined ... to form a free and equal community ... all true sovereignty resides essentially in the nation ... a popular government is urged because when monarchy is not - as in the Middle Ages - based upon the belief, now extinct, in divine right, it becomes too weak to be a bond of unity and authority in the State ..."Once more the concept of popular sovereignty - the right of the people to determine their own future - is used as a substitute for the divine right of kings, as a new excuse for state power. The rulers of the kingdom of Italy had little love for the republican Mazzini. They did, however, utilize the forms of popular consultation in each step of their drive for unification.
THE MODERN THEORY AND PRACTICE
The modern history of national self-determination began with the First World War. At least the American President considered it to be a peace aim of the Allies:
"National aspirations must be respected ... `Self-determination' is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their own peril ..."Indeed, he considered it "the central principle fought for in the war". Writing a generation or more after the War, Revisionist historians question Wilson's assertion:
"In general, this principle was stretched to the limit whenever it would work to the disadvantage of the defeated powers and disregarded when it would operate in their favor. So there was no self-determination for six- and-a-half million Austrians ... or for three million Sudeten Germans ... or for other ethnic minorities belonging to the defeated powers ..."The Allies carved up the defunct empires of Austria, Germany, and Russia, to some degree along linguistic and cultural frontiers. It was certainly in the interests of the Allies to dismember these empires. Nevertheless, the statements of the American President and the nation-creating result of the Allies' dissections firmly established national self- determination as an element in international discussion, if not in international practice.
William Henry Chamberlin America's Second Crusade (Regnery, 1950)
The Allied leaders during the Second World War clearly made self-determination of peoples a major war aim. The Atlantic Charter indicates this, as does the communique issued by the Big Three after the Teheran Conference:
"We look with confidence to the day when all peoples of the world may live free lives untouched by tyranny, and according to their varying desires and their own consciences."Perhaps not even the German National Socialist propagandists could have equalled the hypocrisy of the Big Three. There is only slight evidence that national self-determination was ever a guiding principle in any of their decisions. Not only were the people in annexed areas not consulted, not only were their interests not considered, but tens of millions (14 million in East Europe alone) were forced from their homes by the arbitrary realignment of borders which followed the war. Thus, it is evident that the concept of national self-determination became a rhetorical device to convince people that they would benefit. This was a necessary propaganda ploy for the Allies: some crumbs had to be tossed to conquered people across the world if American-Soviet hegemony was to be achieved.
The present status of self-determination extends directly from the decrees of the conquerors at the end of World War Two. The principle is included in the United Nations Charter, the basic document of the international organization created by the victors to maintain the peace they had imposed by force of arms:
"Article 1. The purposes of the United Nations are .... To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the prin- ciple of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ..."The principle of national self-determination is coupled with the principle of equal rights. At first, this was thought to mean that a right to self-determination for dependent peoples or minorities within states had not necessarily been recognized: the principle "conformed to the purposes of the Charter only insofar as it implied the right of self- government and not the right of secession ...". (UNICO Documents VI, 296)
By 1960, with the gathering strength of anti- colonial movements among native elites throughout the world and especially in Africa, the attitude of those in control of the world organization seemingly changed dramatically. In the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the General Assembly proclaimed that the subjugation of a people to alien rule constituted a denial of human rights, was contrary to the Charter, and endangered world peace; it declared: "All peoples have the right to self-determination ..." Unfortunately, as the people in Biafra, murdered by the millions with weapons supplied by both Britain and the USSR, "all peoples" does not mean all peoples. Merely fitting the definition of a "people" (a common culture, etc.) is not enough. The Declaration stated:
"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity of a country is incompatible with the Charter ..."This guarantee of political stability to the emerging empirettes was first tested in the Congo when the Katangese (justified by the usual claims to peoplehood and desperate to escape the madhouse of the Congo) seceded and a United Nations army suppressed their revolt. As with Latin America a century and a half before, new nations built on the ruins of colonial empires were to be coextensive with the former colonial possessions, regardless of the actual characteristics of the populace. The concept of national self-determination has, again, played its historic role. International jurist Harold Johnson suggests in his book, Self-Determination Within the Community of Na- tions
: "The existing political frontiers bear little relation to ... cultural frontiers ... There are no `nations struggling to be free' but only political parties struggling for control of administrations ..."New nations are not created because of a supposed right to national self-determination, but rather because of the various political forces revolving around the clash and crash of empires From the beginning of the concept's development in political thought, it has been thus. It is so now. In fairness, though, it should be noted that in the case of white-minority dominated southern Africa, the international community has taken a stand on "principle"; it supports the "leaders" of the black majority as opposed to the "leaders" of the white minority. But this slight departure from total support for elitist, imperial rule is not sustained when the interests of the major imperial powers are involved. Witness the inaction of the world organ- ization in the face of American intervention in south east Asia, or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Perhaps the only time "national self-determination" is an operative principle is when the empires are in conflict in an area where none have absolute power. The revolt which created Bangladesh is a prime example. With the Americans, and, uncharacteristically, the Chinese, supporting the oppressing power, Pakistan, and the Russians supporting the Bengali - with India's army, a new state was created. But, as with all states, it came into being by force of arms. Thus, the principle is always coupled with the gun.
THE REALITY OF NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION
The concept of national self-determination (the idea that the majority of a "people" have a right to impose a state on a given area) has always been subservient to the reality of international power politics. The idea fails to exert real influence because it is based on irrationality: on the twin error that a "people" is (1) an entity capable of having goals such as statehood, and that (2) grouping individuals together into states has other beneficial effects beside the most widely known effect of states - limitation of population through war and oppression. A concept constructed on invalid premises and implemented within a world order based on brute force - a world in which principles serve as rationalizations for imperial excesses - can have no compelling significance. Indeed, can any principle have binding force in such a world?
Self-determination on the part of the individual, not of "peoples" is the only principle which can ensure men of a world in which brutish coercive politics does not make a mockery of their best hopes.
Ralph Fucetola is an attorney, who has written for numerous American Libertarian Publications.
An earlier version of this essay first appeared in Rap magazine.
Defense of Liberty: Attila In a Boeing
This week, let's look into the libertarian theory on the subject.
Gavrilo Princip; Archduke Ferdinand leaving the Sarajevo City Hall; Gavrilo Princip arrested; Yalta Conference, February 1945; SFOR soldiers guard Sarajevo's Lateiner (a.k.a. Princip) Bridge in 1999.
My take also. Small "d" democrats and small "r" republicans will disagree; small "l" libertarians will see the truth but most will be uncomfortable with where it leads.
If one believes it is just as immoral to impose the will of the majority on the minority as it is to impose the will of an individual on another individual, it's hard to see how any but the smallest group of individuals can ever form a just government.
While a consitutional republic comes closest, there are unavoidable flaws, most notably in the interpretation of the meaning and limitations of national defense and law-enforcement. Someone will be given the authority to make decisions about where to draw the lines, and many citizens will disagree with whatever lines are drawn.
I don't know if Fucetola is anarchist or libertarian, but I believe that national self-determination is at best misleading and usually evil concept from the libertarian perspective.
Individuals may voluntarily form collective enterprises in defense of their natural rights. The individuals may form such enterprises without regard to geographical location of the constituents or their ethnic, racial or cultural makeup. Those collective enterpises can go about defense of their client's rights anywhere on the planet. When such enterprises are chartered to operate inside a contiguous territory, they are called governments (or "the state"). The circumstance of a territorial mapping of the enterprise may be a practical convenience but it doesn't add or subtract anything from the rightfulness of its actions: when the enterprise defends individual rights, it is acting rightfully, and when it violates individual rights (of its clients or, more typically, someone else's), it is acting unrightfully. Similarly, the circumstance of common language, culture or ethnic stock may facilitate the forming of the enterprise, but the ethnic cohesion of the constituents is not a significant fact under natural law.
A government of a nation has no more naturally-lawful powers than a private security firm hired by any motley crew of clients. Thus the national government of a big nation does not have a naturally-lawful power to govern over an ethnic enclave if it is peaceful and wants to have its own government. At the same time the enclave does not have a naturally-lawful power to prevent an outside agent from enforcing individual rights. Thus, contrary to the conventional wisdom of national sovereignty/national self-determination, the US government may justly use force to restore American ownership of oil fields nationalized by the country where the fields are located; at the same time, the US government may not tell Texas (or a county in Texas) what laws to have as long as the lawmaking in Texas is consented to by the Texans and US citizens outside of Texas maintain their individual rights.
I disagree that the above is a recipe for geographical smallness and outwardly impotent government. As we discussed previously (Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention), a government may have an aggressive foreign policy and represent a large nation, as long as the rules of the social contract that empowers the government's warmaking are clear, opting out of the social contract (e.g. through emigration) is possible, and the goals of the government are rooted in individual rights.
Didn't seem to be a problem with our forefathers in 1776, the idea of a republic of and by the people satisfied the conditions of a just government, since then it has been a slow slide into the abyss.
Yes, and I'm glad they did, but the philosophical kicker is that some of the people didn't agree. Was it OK for them to force those already living here to thereafter live under their authority? Is it that Might makes Right, as long as it is used justly (according to whose conception of justice)?
If 100 of us are on an island and 51 of us agree that there should be no alchohol, tobacco, "nekkid pitchers," firearms, or high cholesterol foods (all of which in their own ways pose some potential detriment to self or others) is it OK to form a government approved by the 51 and forbid those things? Just about everyone agrees that our Founders were wrong on a few things. Was it unjust for them to impose "wrong" laws on those who didn't agree with them or even agree with the formation of government?
All of this is meaningless except as (for me) a thought-provoking exercise. If people can only form governments when there is 100% agreement, there will be a million+ "countries" and that ain't ever gonna happen. As the article says, those with the power to do so will form governmental structures which they perceive to serve their own, sometimes narrow, interests.
... since then it has been a slow slide into the abyss.
Sometimes not so slow.
Thanks for the reply, and FReegards.
It's true that there's been a lot of violence attached to the idea of national self-determination in the 20th Century. It's also impossible to satisfy everyone's desire for a state of one's own. But I would point out that the empires that the nationalists were in revolt against were themselves oppressive usurpers.
The article raises a lot of questions. If laws have to be made and taxes have to be collected (assumptions the author would reject, but that should be considered), isn't it better that they be collected locally? Won't localities know better what people want? What about the secession-mania of the rockwellites? What about the basic assumptions of the author? There are plenty of people who rightly or wrongly call rights-based individualism into question. One can imagine them applying a similar analysis to the author's own assumptions of individual sovereignty. What kind of world does the author envision? Is the world of sovereign individuals ultimately a world without cultural differences? Is it itself an "empire"?
Local government is not the same as local sovereignty. Sure local government is preferable; using local government as a tool of oppression because of some mythical "right to self-determination" is not justified.
Also see #8.
It depends on how our island government was formed. If we 100% agreed that things are banned if a panel of three chicken slaughterers justifies the ban by looking at chicken entrails, then that's what is rightly banned, regardless of percentages that want nekkid pitchers, etc. banned. The solution to the "tyranny of the majority" quandary is that a 100% agreement should be sought to the process of lawmaking -- i.e. the island's constitution. Each specific law should be made as per the process, -- be it chicken entrails or simple majority, or whatever.
We sure agree about the 100% agreement in the formation of government, and that's what led to my statment in #7 to the effect that only small groups of people would ever be able to form a just government. If I read you correctly, in order for the formation and operation of a government to be rightful and just it must:
1) Recognize and protect inalienable (natural) rights;
2) Establish and implement laws which follow a process as set out in the founding document, which document must...
3) Enjoy 100% support from the populace over whom it proposes authority.
I agree, but outside examples similar to my island with 100 inhabitants, ain't gonna happen, and the founding of our Republic, the best ever, did not meet the criteria.
It's a brain-twister.
If I am asked to write a constitution (hammach once started such project), I will not write the US Constitution word by word, not even thought by thought. Does it mean I don't support the US Constitution?
The criterion of support must be "agreement to live under given a choice not to".
Our US Constitution does enjoy such support from 100% of the US citizens by definition of citizenship.
I propose replacing your (3), which I just rendered tautological, with mine:
(3A) Allow inimpeded renunciation of citizenship and freedom of emigration.
Why is this notable? Why should I care?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.