Discuss the Rise of the States’ Decolonization, Independence/Secession Processes that succeeded in the Last Years as well as the Current Independence/Secession Processes going on in the World Now.
Historically, decolonization has been occurring in stages, from 1776 to 1991, designing the current global order of the states through revolutions. It is a term used to refer to the process of ending the colonial rule in all facets, including different political, economic, social, and cultural aspects of this process. For around 200 years, the colonial rule, represented by the European monarchs has impacted the relationship between similar and opposing forces (Klose 1).
Successful Decolonization Process of the USSR – An Example of the Past
Let’s discuss the fourth stage of decolonization that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991. Earlier, the Soviet Union played a leading part in the break up process of the European colonial rulers by adhering to the Marxist-Leninist tradition, paving the way for huge tangible and ethical support to the anti-colonial struggles all across the world. It was a strategic move of the USSR to get a decisive advantage over the topmost rival, the USA, in the newly appearing states in Asia and Africa. Geographically, the USSR was expanded from the Baltic to the Pacific; it was a union of 15 republics with their individual demarcations. The borders of Baltic and the Caucasus were merged forcefully with the USSR (Klose 33).
Later, as the decolonization of the USSR happened, it was a surprise to the whole world. Happening speedily between 1985 and 1991, it not only brought about a basic change in the inner but outer periphery of the erstwhile USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leading man, as selected to be the General Secretary of the Communist Party on March11 1985 (Klose 34).
It was a time of economic downturn, necessitating reforms from the above. The purpose of Mikhail Gorbachev was not to disintegrate the USSR; it was to reinvigorate the economic structure towards a different direction, and to democratize the political order, as was evident from the usage of the two catchwords ‘Perestroika’ (restructuring) and ‘Glasnost’ (openness). This restructuring was also evident in the foreign policy, as troops from Afghanistan were called back to declare an end to the prolonged war that started in 1979 (Klose 34).
The foreign policy shift also culminated in the rebirth of many new states, independent from the central control of Moscow, Russia. The satellite states of the "outer" dominion were allowed to choose their own political and social order, breaking them free from any kind of intruding activity from Moscow in the internal matters. It formed a revolutionary disconnection from the then prevailing foreign policy, based on Brezhnev’s philosophy. By recalling back the Red Army from the Eastern Central Europe, Moscow went on a spree of leaving its hold over these states. It paved the way of peaceful separation of states on the Eastern Central Europe from Moscow. Military support to these states was totally taken back, resulting in preparing an environment for a democratic form of government, otherwise put on hold by the previous pro-Soviet governments in these states. The year 1989 culminated in the end of the old regimes in Poland and Hungary, to be followed by a non-violent revolution in the GDR and the crumbling down of the Berlin Wall on November 9 1989. Yet to be followed was the fall of the Communist regimes in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and a bloody overthrow in Romania also (Klose 35).
What is secession?
Secession is defined, as “the creation of a new state by the withdrawal of a territory and its population where that territory was previously part of an existing state” (Radan and Pavković “Chapter 1: What is Secession,” 5). The secession of the ‘seceded state’ from the ‘host state’ happens by following a process. Independence is declared by the spokespeople of a population residing on the land under the host state. Internationally, in most of the cases, organizations accord recognition to the newly declared state, which is the proof that the newly formed state fulfils the normally agreed upon parameters of statehood. When a sizeable number of other states provide recognition to the newly seceded state, it is the completion of the secession process.
This secession is mostly violent, happening through the use of force against the host state. When a sizeable number of people of a region express their desire by words or deeds to become an independent state or choose to become affiliated to another state, it is secession (Radan and Pavković, “Chapter 1: What is Secession,” 6).
Rise of the new state materializes when among other nations of the world the United Nations provides accreditation to the new state by exchanging diplomatic spokespersons with it. Any secession is represented through four basic elements. New political and legal entities are devised, such as assemblies, judiciary, government, police force, military or the concurrent state and local level institutions are given new names and independent powers. New state borders are demarcated to control the entry and exit of people and commodities. Other states recognising the emergence of new state exchange diplomats for maintaining relations with the new state (Radan and Pavković, “Chapter 2: Secessions and Secessionist Movements,” 1).
Any secession is either violent or non-violent. The use of violence generally precedes secession between the military of the host state and the secessionist elements, as it happened in the case of Bangladesh. It became a new state through violent show-offs against the central government in Pakistan, waging guerrilla war against the Pakistani military, and a military attack by India. There are also examples of non-violent secession of Norway, Slovakia, and Iceland in the twentieth century (Radan and Pavković, “Chapter 2: Secessions and Secessionist Movements,” 1).
Difference between Academic Perception and Actual Ground Reality
Writing over secessionism and separatism, Pavković differentiates between scholarly principles and secessionist programs wherein there is a tussle between the leading nationalist group and the targeted group in the host state. The leading national group claims its right to the land, as based on the ancestral affiliations, while the targeted national group is sidelined and cornered not to reap the benefits of state resources like the leading nationalist group, therefore, demands a separate state of its own (Pavković , “Secession and Secessionism,” 5).
Religion based Secession and National Identity
Considering the above secessionist program in the current context of secessionist, Islamic State and in the ideated Caucasian Emirate (in Russia), claiming their right to their self-ruled state, they are recognized by their religious beliefs, not nationality. Other than that, secessionist programs in certain EU states and Canada have managed support of not only the target nation, but also the backing of the people belonging to all walks of life and groups on the land. There is difference in their secessionist programs for pivoting around or not over national identity. Nevertheless, national identity and connected nationalist narratives still function as robust tools for secessionist support. These tools are not the only tools and might be or not be losing their past primary role at least in some secessionists’ programs (Pavković, “Secession and Secessionism,” 6).
Opposing views over Secession
Secession is a ‘legal exercise’ of deciding in favour of individual interests, when there is a planned attack on one’s human rights, and when the person is financially strong. It conveys the meaning that a total rejection of secession is not right. Therefore, policy makers should not differentiate between taking a decision for the self and other types of human rights. Similarly, Alan Romberg of the Department of State underlined the importance of the right to secession for not sidelining it always on the basis of principle. The rights to take your own decision and secession may not be similar, but they are also not totally incompatible. Saying that it is the means and not the objective of self-determination movements that should worry the United States, Romberg advised that some parameters of behaviour for attaining the mission of independent state may be important to follow. An opposition to secession movement should not result in divisive policy alternatives. Such partiality on the part of secession movement leads to large scale violence. Definitely, it does not imply that the United States should be worried over the unhindered crowding of states, but the question is whether the United States is prepared to bear it in the name of territorial character (Carley 24).
Kurdistan – A Secession Process in the Making
The example of likely secession of Iraqi Kurdistan is a live example, full of outcomes inherent in the future. Before the US attack on Iraq in 2003, the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq had been autonomous from Baghdad for nearly eleven years. The resulting likely secession of the Kurdish states to declare an independent state of Kurdistan has been a political motive of the Kurdish people. The reality is that the new generation of Kurd people is more adapt to speaking English rather than Arabic, and there is restlessness all across the state of Iraq, which came into existence in 1920. Till the 1970s, there was no visible movement for a separate state. The idea of grand Kurdistan by including the Kurd inhabited areas of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey were understood to be rhetorical gestures, not a violent gesture, giving no credit to the various objectives of the different Kurdish political parties and movements run in the three states. Otherwise, there has been a history of various Muslim states and Israel and the place of Kurds in Turkey, putting limitations on their identity in Turkey (Doyle 319-320).
The movement for an independent Kurdistan is not a threatening rehearsal for attaining secession. Definitely, the Kurd people have not been treated at par with other communities in Iraq and Turkey although it can be used as an ethical reason of revolt against these states. The notion of an independent state of Kurdistan has become complex in the host states of Iraq and Turkey because Kurdish political parties have set opposing milestones there. For instance, the Patriotic Union of (Iraqi) Kurdistan, established in 1976, was necessarily a separated state that came into being because of the irritating tactics of the Iraqi-based Kurdistan Democratic Party. Besides, all Iraqi Kurds do not talk in the same Kurdish dialect, while some others speak the Turkish dialect, and some other Iraqi Kurds speak the dialect of Iranian Kurds (Doyle 320-321).
This complexity of the situation might be a call for the Iraqi Kurds to struggle for an independent state. Opinions differ on this issue, but so far as the crisis is related, the situation might worsen for the region, as the freedom movement of Kurd people would get sympathy from the global community (Doyle 321).
Current Secession Processes
The rise of the states in the context of current independence processes brings to mind the nationalist movements being run in some of the European Union (EU) states. Some EU states are relatively more autonomous than others because of their sheer size and strength. They face fewer complexities on the global arena relatively to smaller states. This is truer in the context current independence processes going on in Flanders, Scotland, and Catalonia, as these states are on the sidelines of a state-based global system and an encompassing continent. In the wider contours, although the aim of these nationalist movements seems to be the attainment of autonomous states, yet study of these movements reveals the realities of the supranational system, enclosing them in. According to Stephen Tierney, “it is simplistic to caricature [the sub-state nationalist phenomenon] as a last desperate attempt to leap aboard the sinking ship of statehood, just as this vessel disappears beneath the waves of globalization,” (qtd. in Connolly 99). From realism perspective, one can understand that the nationalist movements of Flemish, Scottish, and Catalan, seeking independent states, know very well and actually support the line demarcated by the EU over their freedom rights. Leaders of these movements are involved in para-diplomacy, desiring to gain local sovereignty; they are striving to create a distinct space within the European supranational order along with the constitutional systems of their parent states. As a result, the leaders of the movements welcome a reconsideration of the content and boundaries of statehood and self-rule. This distinct sub state nationalism confronts the global community with its challenging approach. The leading state-based perspective of international law is a hurdle to the conventional agreement over the realities of a global order in which autonomous statehood is increasingly intermingled both inside and outside state demarcations. Acknowledging the incessant supremacy of statehood in the global order, possibility of a basic change in the international law in its advances to attaining the right to statehood or secession seems a distant reality (Connolly 99).
Support for secession is, in fact, hard to come. It is discouraging, as countered by Susanna Mancini that support to the “demonizing secession, turning it into a constitutional taboo, often adds fuel to secessionist claims. On the other hand, if secession is constructed as one among the many rights and options offered to a state’s sub-national groups, chances are that it will lose much of its appeal,” (qtd. in Connolly 100). If an aspiring nation sees through the possibility of “Independence in Europe,” it may redesign the motives, distancing the movement from separatism by shifting focus towards other kinds of adjustments within the parent state and the EU. Additionally, the response of the EU towards the separatist claims could have significant meanings beyond Europe. Definitely, the EU’s degree of supranational involvement has no parallel in other continents. Additionally, the non-violent and democratic kind of Western Europe’s secession disputes is not visible elsewhere. It becomes visible that extremist activities are adding fuel to the not-extinguishing fire, creating political upheaval (Connolly 103).
A comparison between Scotland and Kashmir presents actual difference between the EU separatists and the rampant violence in Kashmir. Incidentally, the spoilt environment of the Western Europe presents a learning lesson to the violent movements run in other regions of the world, as their distinct solutions to the right of freedom have the potential to offer a resolution to the issues of separatism elsewhere too. These resolutions might not fulfil the separatist expectations of the people regarding their right to political freedom, but might be based on more refined explanations of statehood and autonomy (Connolly 103-04).
Why Secession of Bangladesh succeeded?
The secession of Bangladesh needs to be understood in the context of presence of the right to unilateral secession. There are three grounds to contest and argue the case of Bangladesh for secession from Pakistan. First, the case carries a specific kind of a denial of internal self-rule along with the presence of over-the-board violations of basic human rights. According to the philosophy of a qualified right of secession, if circumstances on the human and internal level are not conducive for a community to live honourably, it may provide that community the right to unilateral secession. Secondly, the situation of this case makes it evident that the global community knew well that Bangladeshi people were discriminated at by the central government in Pakistan, the reality of this successful secession. Lastly, it can also be argued that the use of the right to secession states the global community’s stance for recognising or not recognising the statehood of the entity concerned; whether they fulfil the criterion of efficient government when declaring independence and awarded recognition as State by the global community (Raic 333).
All secession attempts don’t succeed; some are doomed to fail if political ill-will is the basis of secession. For example, Pakistan was behind the demand of Khalistan some decades back to settle the score with India, with whom it has enmity since the freedom of India and birth of Pakistan from the colonial rule of Britain in 1947. The secession of Bangladesh was successful unlike that of the demand for a separate state for the Sikhs outside India.
The discussion above signifies the importance of national identity of a people to be recognised globally for their all-around development. The division of USSR was the result of peaceful, non-violent and political initiative taken by Gorbachev. It is a unique example of adopting a liberal attitude by freeing the populations from any dictatorial administration, not securing the interests of the citizens. Thus, Liberalism of Gorbachev presents a contrast to the example of Bangladesh, which is based on realism. The birth of Bangladesh is a realistic example of getting justice for your people on economic, political, and social fronts through secession.
Works Cited
Carley, Patricia. Self-Determination Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession. Report from A Roundtable held in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State’s Policy Planning Staff. Available at <http://www.naiaupuni.org/docs/pres/ze/pwks7.pdf>.
Connolly, Christopher K. “Independence in Europe: Secession, Sovereignty, and the European Union.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 24.51. <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=djcil>.
Doyle, Don Harrison. “Secession As an International Phenomenon : From America's Civil War to Contemporary Separatist Movements”. 2010. Ed. Athens, GA, USA: University of Georgia Press. Print
Klose, Fabian. Decolonization and Revolution. European History Online (EGO). 2014. The Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG). <http://www.ieg-ego.eu/klosef-2014-eN>.
Pavković, Alexandar. “Secession and Secessionism.” Secessionism and Separatism Monthly Series. 20 October 2015. Available at <https://networks.h-net.org/node/3911/discussions/90459/secessionism-and-separatism-monthly-series-secession-and>.
Radan, Peter, and Pavkovic, Aleksandar. Creating New States – Ch 1: What is Secession? 2013. Abingdon, GB: Ashgate. Print
Radan, Peter, and Pavkovic, Aleksandar. Creating New States: Chapter 2: Secessions and Secessionist Movements. 2013. Abingdon, GB: Ashgate. Print
Raic, David. “Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination.” 2002. Leiden, NLD: Brill Academic Publishers. Print
