The U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The term did not exist until it was first coined in 1944 by Ralph Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer, seeking to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the extermination of European Jews.
While this definition has generally been accepted, countries have traditionally been reluctant to recognize genocidal activity outside of their own boundaries. This, unfortunately, has most often led to genocidal extermination being allowed to continue under cover of the excuse of "national sovereignty." (It took the U.S. 40 years, from 1948 to 1968, to finally ratify the U.N. Convention.) Consequently, we continue to see genocides happen right before our eyes, and we will do nothing about them.
Case in point - less than 9,000 miles from Washington D.C., Myanmar soldiers are burning Rohingya infants alive, gang-raping teenagers, shooting villagers fleeing their homes, and wiping out entire villages, while the world continues to contemplate if it should define what is taking place as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just an internal military action. Since late August, during a timespan of just eight weeks, Myanmar's military killed thousands, and forced 600,000 surviving Rohingya Muslims, 58% of which are children who witnessed atrocities no child should ever see, to flee to Bangladesh.
The sentiment of most observers is that, if history is a guide, the international community will abet the situation. Even though U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that it is "an absolute priority" to stop all violence against Myanmar Rohingya Muslims, and a simultaneously approved statement issued by the Security Council condemning the violence, the organization has stopped well short of identifying the activity as genocide. If it had, the U.N. would have been legally bound to intervene, which is why most member states will be reluctant to initiate such a move. Myanmar's State Controller Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace laureate, while facing universal criticism for not vocally objecting to the violence, was never even confronted with the subject when she attended the ASEAN Summit in Manila this past week.
This callously predictable non-response has permeated similar unresponsive reactions to previous equally horrific events throughout history.
During and immediately following WWI, Turkey killed, deported and starved to death as many as 1.8 million Armenians. Modern Turks generally refuse to acknowledge that what happened to have been genocide. However, most scholars consider it to have been an orchestrated effort at exterminating an unwanted ethnic group that had lived within the borders of the crumbling Ottoman Empire for centuries. The world just watched.
From 1939 to 1945, during the Holocaust, when the Nazis systematically killed 11 million people, 6 million of which were Jews, the world looked the other way. There was ample evidence about what was taking place. However, the information remained classified, and reports were either denied or catalogued as "unconfirmed," while millions were literally exterminated.
In 1975, in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, which wanted to establish a "Communist utopia," annihilated two million people (20 percent of the population) who were considered "enemies of the state." We all knew, but we declined to interfere.
In January 1994 the leader of the U.N. troops in Rwanda was warned that a plan for genocide was in place. His intent to act was nixed by his superiors in the U.N., and most of the 25,000 peace keeping troops were withdrawn from the country. The U.S. government avoided admitting that the subsequent massacre constituted genocide. We argued that we had no business involving ourselves in the internal conflict of another country. Within a 100-day period the Hutu majority killed an estimated one million Tutsis, 70 percent of its ethnic group and 20 percent of Rwanda's population.
Other examples are plentiful. The world shamefully watches, head in sand, claiming "not our problem."
Gregory Stanton. president of Genocide Watch, lists eight stages of genocide: Classification (us against them); Symbolization (attaching labels); Dehumanization (denying the humanity of the other group); Organization (training and planning for genocidal killings); Polarization (involving propaganda and passing new, discriminatory legislation); Preparation (identifying the victims); Extermination (the killing begins); and Denial (it's the victims' fault, hide the bodies). At each stage preventive measures could have stopped the process.
Genocide is the world's worst intentional human rights problem. But it is different from other problems, and it requires different solutions. Because genocide is almost always carried out by a country's own military and police forces, the usual national focus on law and order cannot stop it. International intervention is usually required. However, because the world lacks an international rapid response force, and because the U.N. has so far either been paralyzed or unwilling to act, genocide continues to go unchecked.
With genocide and ethnic cleansing in Myanmar continuing unabated, we should keep in mind that the numbers that are being reported from the area are not just statistics, they refer to real people.
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Saturday, November 11, 2017
THE POLITICS OF EMPATHY
Empathy is defined as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." The term has been used in conjunction with "sympathy" and "compassion," and has surfaced occasionally and conceptually during political campaigns. While "sympathy" emphasizes the feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune, "compassion' refers to "sympathy" accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. A series of studies have claimed to show that conservatives score lower on "empathy" than liberals. Republicans contest these findings, arguing that such studies tend to favor Democratic principles of compassion and care over Republican philosophies of autonomy and self help. (Mark Honigsbaum, The History of Emotions Blog, Dec. 3, 2012).
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
While the discussion of these concepts may appear somewhat convoluted, there are substantial practical consequences at play when individuals act on them, especially when these individuals happen to hold leadership positions. The degree to which our leaders exhibit the capacity to demonstrate any or all of these influences their reaction to situations that require a decisive response. Political consultants from both parties argue that people want many things from their president, but near the top of that list is the ability to play consoler-in-chief when the moment demands it. Unfortunately, we have had too many opportunities to exhibit these this year.
Psychologists have argued that empathy is not helpful in public discourse or decision making, because it is biased. (Paul Bloom, Yale). Studies show that it is dampened or constrained when it comes to people of different races, nationalities or creeds. Daryl Cameron, a social psychologist at the University of Iowa, talks about the "collapse of compassion." He and others make the point that "empathy is actually a choice." (New York Times, July 10, 2015.) And, to a significant degree, that is the point. The extent to which our policy makers have a focused empathetic capacity often dictates the substance of their decisions.
To illustrate, contrast our response to the devastating effects of hurricane Maria on the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico with our actions after the January 12, 2010 earthquake shattering Haiti. Before dawn, the day after the earthquake hit, the U.S. mobilized as if it were going to war. An Army unit was airborne to control the main fairport. Within 2 days we had 8,000 troops en route. Within 2 weeks 33 U.S. military ships and 22,000 troops had arrived, and more than 300 military helicopters delivered millions of pounds of food and water. The morning after the earthquake the president proclaimed that we were going "to respond in Port-au-Prince robustly and immediately," which gave the entire government clarity of purpose. (Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2017). One week after Maria hit Puerto Rico, seriously affecting the lives of 3.4 million U.S. citizens, supplies were still not flowing. A few days later just 4,400 government employees were participating in federal operations to assist the devastated island, and about 40 helicopters were helping to deliver food.
The "conversation" between Carmin Yulin Cruz, Mayor of San Juan, and President Trump might be indicative of the role empathy played in our response to the devastation. Ten days after the hurricane hit, Mayor Cruz pleaded for more federal assistance, saying: "We are dying, and you are killing us with the inefficiency and the bureaucracy. This is what we got last night: four pallets of water, three pallets of meals and twelve pallets of infant food - which I gave to the people of Comerio, where people are drinking out of a creek. I am done being polite. I am done being politically correct. I am mad as hell." Trump's response, tweeted from his New Jersey golf club, was: "Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help. They want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort," while referring to Puerto Ricans critical of the response as "politically motivated ingrates."
Even though analysts may not concede a definitive relationship between a leader's empathy and the intensity of a response to the needs of a population, these two examples inescapably suggest that such a connection exists. President Obama's compassion for the plight of the people of Haiti prompted a massive outpouring of assistance. While hurricanes Harvey and Irma did tremendous damage in Texas and Florida, existing infrastructure support systems kicked in automatically. However, Puerto Rico, an off-shore territory, required empathetic leadership from the top to counteract its total devastation. The consequential banter between President Trump and his critics on the island appeared to have affected our federal response. Mr. Trump seemed more consumed by his tweeted criticism of demonstrations by NFL players than by the calamity experienced by Puerto Ricans. It was only when others in his administration recognized the political fall-out of our tepid reaction that he was given a teleprompter speech designed to express his concerns. Unfortunately, his impassive delivery, lacking appropriate inflection, failed to convey sincere compassion for the victims' plight. Mr. Trump's consistent referral to the island's pre-existing financial problems, coupled with the enormous "budget-busting" cost of eventual reconstruction, and a referral to the "limited number of deaths" incurred when compared to those resulting from previous hurricanes elsewhere, highlighted the administration's insensitivity.
The question may well be asked whether leaders with significant narcissistic inclinations possess a demonstrable empathetic capacity. Empathy is a choice, and, coupled with politics, these choices can have significant consequences.
ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE, A LETHAL COMBINATION
A little more than two years ago I published a letter chastising Congressional opponents agitating against ratification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. The political push-back reached a fevered pitch, even bringing Israel's prime minister to Washington to argue against it before Congress. My take on the conversation back then was that ignorance permeated the dialogue. Steadily increasing sanctions dating back to 1979, enhanced in 2006, after which they were also supported by Russia and China, had not resulted in slowing down Iran's nuclear enrichment program. In fact, by 2015 Iran was only 6 months away from developing the capability to field a nuclear weapon. Sanctions had already begun to unravel. This was a multi-lateral agreement. Our participation was not essential, although it did give the arrangement significantly greater emphasis.
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
WILL SEPARATIST MOVEMENTS LEAD TO FRAGMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
The "Peace of Westphalia," which was concluded in 1648, ended the 30 years' war fought between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Europe, and the 80 years' war between Spain and the Dutch Republic. This historic event was said to have created a basis for the concept of national self determination.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
On January 8,1918, 270 years later, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented his "Fourteen Points" speech, a statement of principles for peace to be used for negotiations to end World War I. His proclamation reiterated that "the right of people to self determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law," a fundamental concept that was later also prominently included in Article I of the U.N. Charter. However, the European Union, a supra-national organization, founded in Maastricht, The Netherlands, in 1993, has remained very quiet on the subject. It essentially pledges to defend the sovereignty of its member states as they are, and jealously guards against the Union's cohesion.
Although th E.U. has seen significant growth since its inception, it has recently appeared to be moving from one emergency to the next. The planned British exit (Brexit), the migration an refugee crisis, fiscal problems in several of the predominantly Southern European countries, and the festering populist opposition to relinquishing sovereignty to Brussels, count among the most important. Enter Catalonia's regional parliament voting to declare the region an independent republic, a revolutionary act, which prompted Spain's national government to assert control over the area, dissolve the Catalan parliament, sack its leaders (one of which, Carles Puigdemont, promptly left for Belgium, which offered him asylum), and to encourage 300,000-plus Catalans to join a demonstration for national unity, and we might easily conclude that this development could well lead to a further fragmentation within the European Union.
While Catalonia's drive for independence has recently captured most of the headlines, we ought to remember that Brexit dominated the discussion in 2016, as did the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. Brexit negotiations are still progressing, be it very slowly, but Scotland will likely initiate another attempt at acquiring independence in 2019, once Brexit is concluded. (Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent to remain in the E.U.). Moreover, the consequences for Ireland, and the complex predicament of Gibraltar, a British territory isolated on the Southern tip of Spain, which voted 93% to remain in the Union, are by no means clear. However, thus far few observers suggest that any of this will lead to further unraveling of the European Union.
While Catalonia is featured in the headlines, and while some assert that the disturbances in the region contain some of the same elements that contributed to Spain's civil war in the 1930s, which led to the lengthy dictatorship of Francisco Franco, the Catalan independence movement, although currently the most prominent, is by no means the only identifiable European separatist campaign in existence. In March 2014, 89 percent of the voting public in Venice, Italy, declared in favor of independence. This led to the foundation of a party called "Veneto Si." South Tyrol, which prior to WWI belonged to Austria, became part of Italy after the Treaty of Versailles concluded. The majority of its population, 70 percent, still speaks German, and still prefers to be aligned with Austria. Similar situations have cropped up in other countries, including in Denmark, which has the Faroe Islands, France, which has Corsica and shares the Basque region with Spain, Belgium has Flanders, Germany Bavaria, and Ukraine the Donetsk People's Republic. Thus far none of these appear to have prompted an increased fear of fragmentation among the E.U.'s 28 member states.
History tends to suggest that the consequences of active separatist movements, while threatening cohesion, may, in fact, not turn out that way. Some of the most contentious, and substantially successful drives for independence in Europe actually resulted in expanded E.U. membership. The 1992 dissolution of Yugoslavia created seven new states, five of which have already applied for full E.U. membership. The 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, which created the Czech Republic and Slovakia, ultimately resulted in both countries becoming full-fledged members.
One campaign tactic pro separatist politicians like to use is to suggest that a newly independent state can continue to exist inside the E.U. without suffering any consequences. However, since the E.U. is pledged to respect the sovereignty of its existing members, it will support the heavy-handed efforts by national governments to subdue separatist attempts. Additionally, the process allowing new states to join the union requires unanimous consent of all existing member states. None of these have an incentive to reward a movement that could at some later date be encouraged to fester within their own boundaries.
Given today's turbulence contesting traditional governmental authority, we should probably consider revisiting a fundamental question: "What is a nation in the 21st Century?" (See Michael Goldfarb in the N.Y. Times International Edition of October 28, 2017). Is it a country? Is it the same as a state? Does it need to be ethnically cohesive? What does national sovereignty really mean? Albert Rivera, leader of the Spanish "Citizens Party," former member of the Catalan Parliament, decidedly anti-independence, and one of the organizers of the demonstration for national unity, puts it this way: "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country and Europe is our future."
Many Europeans may agree with his sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)