Subject:
|
Re: La belle province
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:08:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3096 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Consider yourself lucky you're "stuck" with a country that would probably at
> > > least let you secede without too much of a fight if you ever marshalled the
> > > votes for it. Many people, oppressed far far more than you guys are, are not
> > > that lucky by a long stretch. Consider the Nigerian/Biafran war, consider
> > > the breakup of Yugoslavia, consider Ethiopia/Eritrea.
> >
> > I noticed the examples you gave were from nations where democracy was
> > inexistent at the time of the breakup. So I ask: is a democratic nation
> > immune to separatism?
>
> Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations
> have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about
> separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems
> to have peacefully decided to separate into halves without any major strife
> I am aware of).
Well, in a democracy the people get to self-determine already - so one can
argue about the use of having two states in similar circumstances taking
similar decisions, when this only works to double institutions. The more
states there are, the more bureaucracy. That's why I ask if a democracy
pre-empts any claim for secession as unreasonable, or not.
> > I mean, not the sociological phenomena in itself,
> > rather the effective secession of lands.
> >
> > More: can a democratic nation use repression (in the sense a dictatorship
> > does) to crush separatism?
>
> I think some *have* but I don't think it's justified.
>
> > Under the argument that "a democracy is not
> > violating the rights of the separatist community", can one State claim that
> > a nation belonging to it has no real reason to secede, and then proceed to
> > crush separatist movements as common criminals?
>
> Again, I'm not sure I agree with that as being valid.
I know, it's complicated. There is no easy way to draw a line...
> > > The general track record of nations is that they are very hostile to the
> > > notion that people can decide they don't want to belong to the larger part
> > > and form their own government in a smaller part. That's too bad, really. I
> > > tend to support the rights of self determination and feel secession ought to
> > > be allowed.
> >
> > I agree with your assessment of the historical background, indeed few
> > nations ever alowed peaceful secessions; what should then be the criteria to
> > judge the fairness of a plead for secession?
>
> I don't know! What do you think?
About this subject, I can't really make up my mind:
- a vote on the matter would be nice, BUT it's only a snapshot - so both
sides can request new votes again and again endlessly, if not happy with the
result;
- the criteria "economics" (has the new nation capability to survive?) isn't
easy as well: what about the developments made by the "bigger nation"?
- ethnicity alone is no good either, precisely because of the risk you
mention (marginalization of communities)
The only chance I can see as a reason to divide a nation is *mutual*
interest - that's where Czechoslovakia gets in, IMO.
> > > But on the other hand, I'm usually not so keen to see countries fracture
> > > along ethnic lines, myself as the formerly oppressed minority that is the
> > > new majority in the smaller part has this nasty habit of turning on the
> > > former majority.
> >
> > A very valid point indeed (I'm remembering the Baltic States and Russian
> > communities).
> > But what if the ethnic community wishing independance is dominant (say,
> > 95%), and presents no real threat to the "leftover of the former majority"?
> > To be precise, on what kind of information would you base your stance
> > regarding a nation like Catalonia, for instance?
> > And what if the State has promoted "colonization" of the secceding nation to
> > the point of supplanting the natives? In this case, please consider the
> > example of Euskadi/Basque country as a possible case-study.
>
> Can you give some english links to more information on that situation? I
> only peripherally know what's up with it.
I'll do my best (google is down). Let's see...
Catalunya:
Here's a link to the most important coalition from Catalonia; it includes
the nationalists and participates in the spanish central government:
http://www.convergencia.org/uk.html
(the english site does not have any reference to it, but right now they're
trying to pass a new "Estatut" within Spain, one that they expect to be a
step towards independance)
For some ancient history (before being absorbed by Spain):
http://libro.uca.edu/chaytor/achistory.htm
Also this link for history (less focused on the middle ages):
http://www.gencat.es/historia/aindex.htm
Euskadi:
Here's an extensive historic background (very detailed):
http://www.buber.net/Basque/History/shorthist.html
Here's a link to the Basque Nationalist Party (moderate, in government):
http://www.eaj-pnv.com/ingles/home.html
(read the pop-up! :-P)
I'm afraid any attempt to find links to the Basque separatist movement
Batasuna (aka Herri Batasuna, or Euskal Herritarrok) have been flawed, due
to the recent decision of Spanish courts to illegalize it: it was a
political party designed to "support" a terrorist organization, ETA, which
has been active in Spain since the late 60's. ETA's methods are similar to
IRA's, for comparison, and their rhetoric is of course much more inflamed
than EAJ/PNV's...
Note that the background is radically different in both these Autonomous
Regions of Spain: in Catalonia practically everyone is integrated and
speaking Catalonian currently, whilst in the Basque Country the "100%
Basques" have become a minority in their own land - and only a very low
percentage even speaks Euskera. Despite this, it's the Basque separatist
movement that is more radicalized... :-S
> > > If Quebec got its way, what would you do to ensure the rights of the new
> > > English speaking minority? From what I hear it's not very pleasant to be an
> > > English speaker in Quebec (relatively speaking, mind you... I haven't heard
> > > of any ethnic cleansing, thank goodness) as it is.
> >
> > Then the English-speaking Quebecans would seccede themselves... ;-)
>
> This is the classic separatist problem and one that the LP (which is pro
> separatism) has not come to grips with... what if they are interspersed? If
> the neighborhoods are intermingled? Do we want to force ghettoization? Can a
> nation be non territorial? Can two or more nations coexist in the same
> territory, each with their own citizens?
Indeed.
Does the concept of "Nation" make any sense at all?
I suppose I can better understand the concept of "Country", since it has
more to do with practical administration than alleged affinities between
some people... but then again, I live in a State that can be confused as a
Nation, so my perspective on the matter is forcebly fuzzy.
And in the end, does it matter? Isn't there a European Union everyone (1)
wants to be a part of? So why split, if we're all going to be in the same
boat soon after?
Pedro
(1) - Not "everyone" in Europe wants to be in the EU, but surely most of the
people do.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems to have peacefully (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
