THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTRIBUTION TO CONFLICT PREVENTION

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF EXPERTS HELD IN BARCELONA

FROM 21 TO 27 NOVEMBER 1998

Organised by the UNESCO Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace and the
UNESCO Centre of Catalonia

.
EXCERPT

Consensus Self-determination in its Broad Sense

Self-determination should be understood or re-cast in its broad sense. If so,
it can truly and profoundly contribute to the prevention and resolution of
conflict. Participants to the conference arrived at this conclusion after
extensive discussion on the meaning and nature of self-determination. This is
consistent with understanding and placing self-determination in the overall
context of international law, the principal purpose of which is to preserve
peace, friendly relations among states and security. It is also the context in
which Article 1 of the United Nations Charter places self-determination.

Self determination is a Process with no Predetermined Outcome

Self-determination is a process rather than an outcome. There is, in fact, no
one prescribed outcome for the exercise of self-determination. The United
Nations General Assembly, in its Declaration on Principles of International
Law
Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States stipulated that
[t]he establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association
or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other
political status freely determined by a people constitutes modes of
implementing the right of self-determination by that people.[1]

According to the International Court of Justice, the essential requirement is
that the outcome corresponds to the free and voluntary choice of the people
concerned. [2]

Self-determination is a Right of Choice, of Participation, and of Control

At its core, self-determination means simply that human beings, individually
and as groups should be in control of their own destinies and that
institutions of government should be devised accordingly. It is this idea that promoted the
downfall of classical colonial structures and the abolition of apartheid and
that today promotes democratic reform the world over.

Self-determination has its roots in and continues to be inseparably linked to
the core concept of democracy, understood to mean the right to choose one s
rulers and to participate in decision-making. Rulers of a polity based on
these principles govern by consent of the governed. In this sense, the right to
self-determination is a right of choice and a right of participation. But the
exercise of self-determination may also involve a choice by a people to be
ruled by the leaders of its own community, whether within the framework of an
existing state or outside that framework.

Self-determination is an Ongoing Process

Self-determination should not be viewed as a one time choice, but as an
ongoing process which ensures the continuance of a people s participation in decision
making and control over its own destiny. It is this approach, according to
Paul Arthur, which made it possible for Gerry Adams to argue that although the
Northern Ireland agreement concluded in 1998 does not result in the immediate
creation of a united Ireland, it sets in motion a process of
self-determination in which the parties can work towards a change of status through democratic
political means. F?lix Mart? also viewed the process in which Catalonia is
engaged as a dynamic process of self-determination. This view makes it
possible for incremental changes to be implemented rather than forcing parties to agree
on definitive changes which can be too radical for some and insufficient for
others. In this sense, self-determination should not be regarded as
antagonistic to the state or to the situation in which a people finds itself.
Rather, it should be seen as a process by which parties adjust and re-adjust
their relationship, ideally for mutual benefit.

Self-determination is a Process for the Satisfaction of Human Needs

The object of the exercise of the right to self-determination was
formulated in terms of human needs by Joe Washington. Peoples and communities strive to gain
control over the means to satisfy the human needs of their members. The most
important of these are the needs for human security and welfare. By security,
in this view, is included economic, health, environmental, and food
security as well as security of the person from physical violence, communal security (for
example in terms of cultural integrity), and political security, meaning
respect for human rights and freedoms. Thus, a variety of means, political
structures and arrangements can be conceived which would satisfy the human
needs of communities and their members. Johan Henriksen pointed out that such
security exists when the people and its individual members have both
verifiable legal and political guarantees for the implementation of their fundamental
rights and freedoms, and have the feeling of security as well. This subjective
element is particularly important at the collective level in the context of
self-determination. Especially for peoples who have been disfranchised,
oppressed or subjected to deportations, forced assimilation, religious
persecutions etc. the need for security can be a prime objective in the
struggle for self-determination. Care must, however be taken in the use of the
term security so that it does not serve as a pretext for the military to take
on unwanted roles in the provision of security.

Cultural Identity

Culture, being a core element of distinctiveness of peoples and other
communities, is often at the centre of a claim for self-determination when the
cultural identity and expression of a community is suppressed or threatened.
Respect for distinct cultural values and diversity is fundamental to the
notion of self-determination. For some communities the recognition within the
state of the value and distinctiveness of a group can be an expression of the
implementation of their right to self-determination. For others, the authority
and capability to exercise full cultural autonomy within a set territory
(or to exercise it in a non-territorial manner) is an essential component of their
exercise of self-determination.

Control of Natural Resources

Control, management and, in most cases, possession of land and the other
natural resources on and in the land can be of crucial importance to a people
or community in its struggle to maintain its identity, culture, way of life
and autonomy. This has special importance in regard to indigenous peoples whose
bond with the land and natural environment is especially strong. But other
peoples too may derive their spiritual, cultural or economic strength and
vitality from the land and its natural resources. The United Nations, in
General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII), proclaimed the right of peoples and
nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources, [3]
and the International Covenants on Human Rights affirm, in their common
Article 1(2), the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural wealth and
resources.

The importance of this aspect becomes particularly evident where a people is
denied the right to control its land and natural resources by the state. This
is typically the case where those resources have great economic value. They
are then exploited by the dominant people or elite for their own benefit, for the
state as a whole or to benefit foreign (transnational) corporations. This
exploitation usually results in major changes to the living environment of the
people whose territory is being used. Sometimes sacred places are desecrated,
pristine forests are destroyed, fertile lands are ruined, entire villages or
towns are displaced, and communities are no longer able to maintain their way
of life. Stated differently, the people s right to self-determination is
violated in a fundamental way and sometimes irreversibly.

The Indigenous Peoples Conception of Self-determination

Indigenous peoples advance their claims primarily in terms of
self-determination. This is often interpreted as a challenge to the
territorial integrity of existing states, because it is feared that indigenous peoples
want to form their own states. Underlying this fear is the assumption that the
state is the basic but also the highest form of organisation to which all
communities, including indigenous peoples, aspire. But indigenous peoples
articulate their right to live freely and to determine their own destiny
without relating this to the idea of states with mutually exclusive
territories and sovereignties, according to James Anaya and others. Instead, the backdrop
is interrelationships. Emphasis is not so much on separation rather, the goal
is relations and connections. Separation in this context is only a transition
to break away the negative, to create new bonds. [4] Although the backdrop is
different, the aspirations of indigenous peoples relate to the core concept of
self-determination the need for governing institutions to exist in such a way
as to allow the people to live freely and determine their own destiny. The
determination of indigenous peoples to change the situation under which they
live today derives from the experience that the institutions under which they
have been forced to live since they were colonised were established
illegitimately and suppress their ability to live freely and determine their
own destiny.

A central part of the indigenous way of life and spiritual belief is the
maintenance of a nurturing bond with nature, with Mother Earth which is the
very source of our sustenance. The destruction and over exploitation of the
earth and its resources not only damages the living environment, but destroys
the ability of the earth to sustain future generations and violates our
duty to protect and care for Mother Earth and her natural resources. No one, in this
view, owns nature nor land. It does not exist for the personal benefit or
enrichment of any individual or group, but for the collective benefit of this
and future generations. At the same time, the human security need of
indigenous peoples always includes proper guarantees concerning ownership, possession or
control over the land and natural resources. This is because under present
realities the lack of such guarantees makes it impossible for indigenous
peoples to maintain their fundamental relationship with the land and natural
resources which is at the core of their diverse cultures.

External Elements of Self-determination

The external aspect of the right to self-determination is generally considered
to be the right to separate from the existing state. But there are other
external aspects which are of considerable relevance to the exercise of a
peoples right to self-determination, but which do not necessarily entail the
creation of an independent state. A good example is provided by the importance
given by indigenous peoples to the need to protect and nurture Mother Earth
and
her natural resources. This need transcends artificial administrative and
state
boundaries. The earth and its resources cannot be protected by one
community if
the they are being subjected to large scale destruction elsewhere. Indigenous
peoples, therefore, consider it important to participate in the decision
making
processes at national and international levels relating to the conservation of
nature or its exploitation. By the same token, any people or community may
consider it of importance to include in its exercise of self-determination the
authority to participate in international discussions or be included in
international organisations where decisions are taken that affect core aspects
of their existence and development. This could include participation in
economic fora (examples are Tatarstan s separate representation at
international economic conferences and Hong Kong s separate membership of
international economic organisations), in regional organisations (examples
include the Sami Council s membership in the Nordic Council and the
Circumpolar Conference), global organisations (the establishment of a Permanent Forum for
Indigenous Peoples within the United Nations system could be an example of
such participation) or in cultural or religious organisations (Catalonia s
desire to participate in UNESCO could be regarded as an example). Peoples may also wish
to claim the right to be included and not excluded from decision making
processes on such vital matters as war and peace, issues typically reserved
for the exclusive authority of states. There are examples of regions or
communities declaring neutrality or nuclear free zones, despite the fact that they are
part of states with contrary policies. Exercise of self-determination could also
entail the non-participation of an autonomous unit in an international
organisation of which the state is a member (an example is provided by the
withdrawal of Greenland from the European Union, of which Denmark remains an
active member).

The perception that only fully independent states can conduct international
relations and participate in decision making leads to the interpretation that
demands for international participation by non-independent peoples threatens
the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states and is even tantamount to
separatism. To be sure, the extent to which non-independent entities can
participate in decision making at international levels is limited by the
concept of state responsibility in international law. Under current
international law only states are endowed with legal responsibility and can be
held responsible for the implementation of international treaties.
Nevertheless, non-state entities can be recognised as representing legitimate
interests internationally without threatening the continued existence of the
state of which they form a part. Thus, under the constitution of Finland, the
Sami not only have regional autonomy, but their elected body, the Sami
Parliament, also possesses the authority to represent the Sami community of
Finland at the international level. Similarly, Catalonia and Quebec have their
own representative offices in foreign capitals for the promotion of tourism
and trade.

Secession or Separation from the State

In the broader context of self-determination, separation or secession from the
state of which a people forms a part should be regarded as a right of last
resort. Thus, if the state and its successive governments have repeatedly and
for a long period oppressed a people, violated the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of its members, excluded its representatives from decision making
especially on matters affecting the well-being and security of the people,
suppressed their culture, religion, language and other attributes of the
identity valued by the members, and if other means of achieving a sufficient
degree of self-government have been tried and have clearly failed, then the
question of secession can arise as a means for the restoration of fundamental
rights and freedoms and the promotion of the well being of the people. This
right could be regarded as analogous to the right of last resort of rebellion
against tyranny and oppression referred to in the Preamble to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

Peoples and communities may attempt to secede because independent statehood
appears to them to form the only means of obtaining the level of freedom and
security which they aspire to. In part, this is because the international
legal and political system does not provide adequate forms of protection and
guarantees to communities that are within the borders of independent states,
regardless of their status within that state. Concepts of minority rights,
indigenous peoples right, and human rights have many a time proved
insufficient to protect communities against collective persecution, exploitation and
suppression. Even genocide, such as that in Rwanda, and massive armed attacks,
such as that in Chechenya, have taken place without effective action being
taken by the international community. But the desire for independent statehood
also exists because insufficient attention has been drawn to the positive
experiences resulting from the implementation of other forms of
self-determination than secession. The more it can be demonstrated that
individual and collective human needs of communities, especially those for
survival and development within a secure environment, but also for dignity and
international acceptance, can be adequately guaranteed through arrangements
that do not amount to secession, the more attractive these other options will
become.

Self-determination is not an Absolute Right

Hardly any right recognised by law is absolute. This is true also of the right
of self-determination, which is not self-executing nor unilaterally
applicable.
When the right, in the manner in which it is claimed, clashes with other
international legal principles and rights, all of these rights and principles
should be weighed and balanced, keeping in mind the overall international law
objective of maintenance of peace and security.

Other rights and principles which may have to be considered in this process
include the rights of minorities or indigenous peoples and other peoples and
population groups within the territory of the people claiming the right to
self-determination; the territorial integrity of the state, where a people s
claim may entail separation from it; rights and obligations to which the
parties involved may be bound, for example, by treaties; and provisions of
human rights law. Most often, reference is made to antagonism between the
right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity of states.

Participants in the conference remarked that whereas the principle and
right of self-determination had a profound ethical and moral basis, this was not the
case with the principle of territorial integrity, which is a legal, political
and pragmatic construct. On the other hand, the principle of territorial
integrity serves a very important practical purpose in the overall
objective of maintenance of peace and security, and is based on the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of states. The principle of
territorial integrity is clearly invoked in connection with self-determination
in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples ( 1960), the Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970), and most
recently in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993). The latter
Declaration (which uses virtually the same language as the Declaration on
Friendly Relations) recognises the right of all peoples to self-determination
but states that this  shall not be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would
dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or
political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance
with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus
possessed of a Government representing the whole people belonging to the
territory without distinction of any kind. (Emphasis added).[5]

This paragraph imposes a requirement of legitimacy on a state invoking the
principle of territorial integrity against a self-determination claim which
threatens that integrity. This means that a state that oppresses, destroys or
unduly exploits a people or community instead of protecting it or representing
its interests has no legitimate right to invoke the principle of territorial
integrity against that people or community. A state that gravely violates its
fundamental obligations to its citizens loses the legitimacy to rule over
them. This also applies with respect to a state s obligations towards a distinct
people or community within its boundaries.

Jose Ramos-Horta concluded that the maintenance of territorial integrity lies
in the hands of the governments in power. By accepting its obligations,
including full respect for the right to self-determination with all its
consequences, and engaging in dialogue with all sectors of society, a
government can maintain the territorial integrity of the state or ensure that
peaceful change occurs in a manner beneficial to the state.

Self -determination also imposes responsibilities on the claimants to respect
the human rights, including the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples
and of other peoples and communities within their jurisdiction, and to
constructively resolve problems that arise from the implementation of the
right.

The Broad Concept of Self-determination

The above analysis results in a concept of self-determination which is much
broader and more flexible and complex than a definition which limits
self-determination to separation. Understood this way, self-determination need
not threaten the territorial integrity of states and can be quite compatible
with its preservation. The major obstacles to an understanding and acceptance
of this concept of self-determination are attachment to the dogmatic
concept of the nation state, the extreme notion of sovereignty as an exclusive attribute
of independent statehood, and territorial fixation.

Application of the broad concept of self-determination can lead to numerous
arrangements in relations between states and population groups within those
states tailored to the precise needs of the parties concerned. These
arrangements can have territorial dimensions but also non-territorial
functional ones. They can have internal but also external components. In
developing appropriate arrangements, the most important attributes are
creativity and flexibility and a profound understanding of what the people
claiming self-determination seek to achieve in concrete terms, and what the
vital legitimate interests of other parties concerned are. It is helpful
not to be limited by traditional concepts of statehood in developing solutions
appropriate to each specific case. It is also essential to develop forms of
self-determination which provide sufficient guarantees for the long term
effective implementation of agreements that are arrived at.

John Packer explained how the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
approached the question of division of jurisdiction between the Ukrainian
state and the Crimean autonomous republic. Instead of exploring what could fall
within the jurisdiction of the Crimean authorities, the High Commissioner
chose to work backwards from what would reasonably not be within their jurisdiction.
He found only four subject-matters national defence, monetary policy,
maintenance of national frontiers, and certain aspects (not all) of
international diplomacy (including notably the capacity to be held responsible
at international law). [6] Other creative examples include the Philippines
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (1997); provisions of the Finnish Constitution
relating to the territorial and functional autonomy of the Sami people;
Greenland home rule, which has far reaching internal and external aspects; the
Nunavut arrangement in Canada with respect to the Inuit people, who now have a
separate government, including a representative assembly, an executive branch,
a court and a civil service and a limited capacity to engage in international
diplomacy; the territorially based autonomy of the Kuna Yala in Panama, which
recognises and incorporates indigenous institutions of leadership and provides
for protection of the virgin forests which form the basis for the Kuna way of
life; and the Chittagong Hill Tracts accords which, if implemented properly,
could provide a considerable degree of self-government to the indigenous
peoples of this region of Bangladesh. Johan Galtung suggested models of
confederation of autonomies of peoples of the same nation (e.g. Kurds or
Mayans) across the boundaries of the different states in which they find
themselves, in ways that would not affect the territorial integrity of the
respective states. Northern Ireland provides a recent very creative example
which allows for multiple identities that have been de-linked from the
limiting concept of territory and exclusive jurisdiction.

Effects of Increased Interdependence, Regionalisation, Globalisation and
Supra-national Structures

The increased interdependence in economic, environmental and political spheres
of all states has resulted in a dilution of the traditional notion of state
sovereignty. State sovereignty is also being eroded by the growth of free
market economies and the increasingly important role played by some 18,000 to
20,000 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) world wide.

A factor in the development of arrangements for autonomy and self-governance
and other expressions of self-determination may be the role of supra-national
institutions, such as the European Union, the North American Free Trade Area
and the Commonwealth of Independent States. These kinds of institutions and
international agreements have the effect of breaking the monopoly of the
state.
Sovereignty is no longer exercised exclusively by the state, but also by
supra-state bodies. Together with this, the progress of democracy and
increased relevance of human rights all strengthen the potential for the expression and
realisation of the right of self-determination in its broader sense.

On the other hand, the current domination of world affairs by the United
States and the growing globalisation, which increases the concentration of power in
very few hands, could have a negative impact on a greater acceptance of
self-determination.

The Broad Concept of Self-determination in International Law

Although, as stated above, the Conference reached full agreement on the
incorporation of the right to self-determination in international law, there
was considerable discussion among participants on whether the broad
interpretation of the right to self-determination is also recognised in
international law.

One view articulated was that international law today only recognises the
right to self-determination of a narrow category of peoples, namely those under
colonial or alien domination and subjugation or racist regimes. This form of
self-determination, it was argued, entails the right to form a separate state.
Other arrangements, such as regional or functional autonomy do not fall within
the legal concept of self-determination and should therefore be handled under
other rubrics. Such arrangements fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
state, and are therefore not a matter of international law. It is for the
authorities of the state alone, without external interference, to define the
form of self-government or other arrangements.

The other view presented was that the broad concept of self-determination is
accepted under international law and that its implementation does not fall
exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the state but, on the
contrary, is very much the concern of the international community. In the first
place, it is argued, international instruments, in particular the Declaration on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation
among States, state that the modes of implementation of the right to
self-determination extend beyond the right of secession. The Declaration
states


the establishment of a sovereign an independent State, the free association or
integration with an independent State or emergence into any other political
status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the
right to self-determination by that people&(emphasis added).

This language clearly covers autonomy, self-government and any other
arrangements whether within the framework of the state or not. Since
self-determination is part of the human rights law, as was stated earlier, it
is by definition not a matter that falls exclusively within the domestic
jurisdiction of states, but is very much a matter of international
responsibility and concern.

In the second place, international law is constantly evolving, and state
practice as well as the opinion of international law publicists and scholars
(which are also considered valid sources of international law) increasingly
interpret self-determination to include forms of self government, autonomy and
other arrangements within the framework of the state. The many self-government
and autonomy arrangements implemented within states, such as those relating to
Greenland, the Innuit, the Kuna Yala and other cases described elsewhere in
this publication, attest to an evolving state practice which views
self-determination as including these arrangements. This view is supported by
the current language of the draft Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
which has been adopted by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and by
the UN Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities. Article 31 of this draft declaration states that

Indigenous peoples, as a specific form of exercising their right to
self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters
relating to their internal and local affairs, including culture, religion,
education, information, media, health, housing, employment, social welfare,
economic activities, land and resource management, environment and entry by
non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous
functions.

Article 31 is not regarded as a qualification of the right to
self-determination (as recognised in Article 3 of the same draft Declaration)
but as a particular way of implementing it with regard to indigenous
peoples.[7]

In order to promote acceptance and application of the broad concept of
self-determination --which all participants felt to be an important step in
preventing the outbreak of armed conflict-- it was stressed by some that it is
important to highlight the emerging customary law in this regard.

Means of Attainment of Self-determination

The exercise of self-determination requires, by its very nature, the
expression
of the will of the people. This can be conceived of in terms of one or more
well defined acts or by ongoing processes of consultation, participation and
inclusive decision making.

The holding of a referendum in order to establish the will of the people with
respect to a change of status and other matters is a widely accepted act of
self-determination. Difficulty arises, especially in referenda on issues
related to territorially based rights, in areas which the community wishing to
exercise self-determination shares with other peoples and communities. Where
those other inhabitants are settlers, it was felt by many of the participants
to the conference that they should not be entitled to take part in such
referenda. This is particularly true where settlers have been moved to
indigenous regions or encouraged to do so under a government program aimed at
changing the demographic composition of the region in question. Such
practices, whether overt or covert, have caused many peoples to be reduced to a numerical
minority in their own homelands. Western Sahara, New Caledonia, but also West
Papua, Hawaii, Zanzibar and Tibet were mentioned as examples of regions where
large numbers of settlers have changed and continue to change the demographic
balance. In these cases, a referendum in which all inhabitants have equal
voice can not be deemed to be an act of self-determination by the aggrieved
people. A case in point is the referendum in the Western Sahara which is now
scheduled to take place in December of 1999. The United Nations has decided that persons
transferred to the region or encouraged to move there by the Moroccan
government, since 1975, do not have the right to vote in the referendum.

Implementation of self-determination does not necessarily require a one time
act. The will of the people can be effected within a democratic system by use
of the existing institutions of the state. This assumes a truly democratic
fully participatory system, not one that limits the concept of democracy to
decision by the numerical majority. Where only votes count, a people or
community which is numerically inferior, has no control over its destiny.

Self-determination can also be realised through one or more processes of
negotiation, dialogue, and the conclusion of agreements between the state
authorities and representatives of the people concerned. Sometimes the
assistance of third parties can be useful in such processes. The good offices
of the United Nations Secretary General and others have been used, most
recently in advancing the peace process in Bougainville. Dialogue at the
community level is just as important in a self-determination process. This was
undoubtedly an important factor in making the Northern Ireland peace accords
possible. Both in Bougainville and in the Basque country, major initiatives
are also under way to build consensus among the people through a very inclusive
processes of dialogue and consultation among all sectors of society as primary
instruments of self-determination. The act of self-determination is not
reduced to a referendum, but is seen as an integrated process of which the referendum
is but one element.

There are few well defined procedures for adjudication of claims for
self-determination or for their implementation. This is part of the reason why
so many disagreements over self-determination lead to armed conflicts.

The International Court of Justice has rendered judgements and advisory
opinions on issues involving self-determination, notably in the case of the
right of Sahrauis to self-determination, but it has no ability to enforce its
decisions. Other international judicial avenues include the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.

To the extent that self-determination claims involve demands for the
respect of
human rights or rights of minorities, the procedures of the United Nations
Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination can provide
avenues for addressing them. The UNESCO procedure on cultural rights can also
provide a useful avenue. But these bodies also lack the means to enforce any
decision.

What is lacking is an effective international body, for example within the
United Nations system, which adjudicates claims to self-determination and is
mandated to actively assist in ensuring its peaceful implementation. The state
of Liechtenstein, at the initiative of its Head of State, H.S.H. Prince Hans
Adam II, presented a draft convention on self-determination through
self-administration for consideration by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1993. That proposal does contain provisions for procedures and structures to
assist in the peaceful implementation of self-determination. Unfortunately it
has thus far received no meaningful support from UN member states.

Armed Conflict

In all regions of the world conflicts turn violent over the desire for full
control by state governments, on the one hand, and claims to
self-determination (in a broad sense) by peoples, minorities or other communities, on the other.
Where governments recognise and respect the right to self-determination, a
people can effectuate it in a peaceful manner. Where governments choose to use
force to crush or prevent the movement, or where they attempt to impose
assimilationist policies against the wishes of a people, this polarises
demands and generally results in armed conflict. The Tamils, for example, were not
seeking independence and were not using violence in the 1970 s. The government
response to further deny the Tamil people equal expression of their distinct
identity led to armed confrontation and a war of secession. The tendency of
the international community to accept self-determination primarily when presented
with a fait accompli, and to give attention to conflicts only when they turn
violent, encourages violence and penalises those who attempt to use peaceful
and democratic means.

In many cases self-determination struggles turn into armed conflicts. A
case in point is the thirty year struggle of Eritrea. The inaction of the United
Nations and its members left Eritreans no choice. The Albanians of Kosova,
under the inspired leadership of Ibrahim Rugova, have tried for a decade to
obtain the necessary international support in keeping their movement
non-violent. The issue was taken seriously abroad only once armed conflict
finally did brake out. The conflicts in Abkhazia (which was not triggered, as
often assumed, by a claim to secession) and in Chechenia (initiated by a
massive Russian military attack) received serious attention only when the
horrors of war were displayed on television screens world wide. Despite the
attention, however, the issues at the base of these conflicts remain
unresolved. At the same time, it should be recognised that some armed
struggles, such as that of the Gagauz of Moldova and of the Jummas in the
Chittagong Hill Tracts, have led to agreements for a considerable measure of
autonomy.

Even if self-determination is achieved after an armed struggle, the armed
conflict does not itself secure its realisation. Armed confrontation is often
perceived as a necessary element of struggle and can force an unwilling party
to the negotiating table, but a lasting solution rarely comes from it, even
from victory. Here too, for a lasting solution a mutually satisfactory
agreement must be reached through dialogue.

Many industrialised and other countries support corrupt dictators and other
repressive regimes to safeguard their own economic or political interests.
This, together with the unscrupulous sale of arms to them and to equally
repressive non-state actors, reinforce the conditions for armed conflict
within
states.



---------------------------------------------