The Creep of a Crisis

From the desk of George Handlery on Mon, 2007-07-16 19:34

Bad news share a feature: today’s festering sores began as neglected pickles. An issue that might upset Europe in the future flows from a casually committed earlier global error. Colonial empires and the treaties ending the world wars have created states with artificial boundaries. These deals ignored the foundations of good and stable settlements: these leave all parties relatively satisfied. A stable state has consenting inhabitants have reasons see it as representing them. It helps if the populace is ethnically, by faith and culture homogenous. Ignoring this created contemporary problems such as in Iraq and Africa. Recent symptoms include the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia (actually a Greater Serbia) and the still fermenting issue of Kosovo. Historically, the origins of the world wars were states seen as prisons by their subjects and the territorial rivalries this fueled.

The international community is committed to uphold the territorial integrity of its members. Unfortunately, this prevents minorities locked into “foreign” states from getting attention and makes it easy to react to the signs of creeping crises by ignoring them. The more so, since the underlying problems are complicated and inconvenient to discuss. Furthermore, accepted prejudices, as well as the desire for tranquility are interpreted as demanding silence.

Sanctified by US President Wilson – but ignoring his real program – under French leadership the victors of WWI reorganized central Europe. In the process, Hungary lost two thirds of its territory and population to successor states. Some of these losses, while counteracting historical claims but by responding to ethnic realities were legitimate and enjoyed popular consent. However, the new arrangements created large local Magyar majorities separated by a new border from their kin. The result: instability of use only to Mussolini, then Hitler and ultimately Stalin.

The great dictators – and their local minions – benefited because the successor states – today Austria, Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia – were not national states. They held a suspected minority and therefore had an enemy within. This insecurity still sets limits to democratization. To protect their existence from the assumed enemy inside, the answer is still often centralization and not pacification through a generous federalism. Ironically, the desire for protection by France, Italy, then Germany and the USSR undermined the sovereignty it was to bolster.

The decades since 1919, also the collapse of regional great powers (1991) has changed the demographic situation and altered aspirations as well as the possibilities available.

Regarding Austria and Slovenia, but also Croatia and the Ukraine there is no serious “Magyar question.” Nor does the issue exist in Hungary itself. She dropped revisionism long ago and wishes to secure the collective rights of Magyars within existing states. Still, discrimination by their hosting states is a reality for hundreds of thousands of Magyars in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. Looking away – which is also the policy of Hungary’s current rulers – is not solving the problem. The first bomb to explode will make the point. Clearly, regrettably and belatedly.

The Magyars, who are not the only problem-minority in Europe and outside it, ask for less than what some comparable groups demand. This lends the solution the character of an applicable precedent that transcends the fate of ten or fourteen million Hungarians. It is suited to reduce ethnic dissatisfaction without undermining existing sates or the international order. At the same time, it assigns to international organizations, such as the EU, a significant role.

Magyar demands are based on the assertion that community rights are a component of personal rights. Autonomy (not independence) for provinces, districts and communities follow. Based on language, religion and a sense of belonging, local government with a say in finances, development, education and the free use of local idioms, is to be the upshot. Accordingly, boundaries between states are not to be used to punish those “on the wrong side.” Their significance for the life of individuals should be what the Lichtenstein-Swiss border means to those that share backyards along it. Significantly, autonomy is long-standing practice for Swedes in Finland or Austrians in “Südtirol,” Flemings in Belgium, and in Switzerland in the case of the Rumuntsch, Italians, French and the Alemanic Germans. Therefore, while the principle might be revolutionary to some unenlightened rulers and their parties, the examples demonstrate that, the concept does not undermine implementing states.

Theoretically, the European Union’s federal features offer a framework to overcome the old issues that still divide its newest members. Recent entrants have formally committed themselves to constructive policies. The reduction of the significance of political boundaries is officially a special endeavor of the community. The hindrance blocking the solution of the problem is simple to identify – but not easy to overcome.

A missed opportunity complicates matters. Admission should have included as a precondition the enforced implementation of the kind of minority rights that candidates needed to adhere to verbally. Accepting promises in lieu of deeds created the impression that the EU is not really interested. Even now, not all is lost if Brussels does not collude to ignore grievances. Investigating these and sanctioning violations will bring results. Naturally, the EU may subordinate the community’s principles and those of good governance to pacifying chauvinists. However, these will interpret the lenience, meant to give time for a natural healing process, as consent. Giving in will keep the hardliners on the national question happy while aggravating long-term problems. The EU has excellent cards to resolve old problems among its new members. Alas, its preferred pusillanimity in dealing with global issues support the fear that the existing opportunity will not be converted into new solutions.

To Armor

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2007-07-21 00:37.

Very interesting post.Liked it much.Especially the idea of Bretons,along with the rest of us,saying "Kenavo" to France.That prospect certainly appeals to me.

European Minorities and the EU

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2007-07-20 16:32.

GH wrote: "Magyar demands are based on the assertion that community rights are a component of personal rights."

The Magyars are right, but I think the EU has a different opinion. For example, I read this statement on the EU website: (The values of the Union)

"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities."

As I understand it, it means no collective rights for minorities, only the basic individual human rights (no torture, etc). They should have said "including respect for the collective rights of minorities".

The next sentence, on the EU website:

"These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

I think what they mean by pluralism is not respect for European minorities, but a policy of continued immigration, and subsidized encouragement to the gay thing.

GH: "Admission should have included as a precondition the enforced implementation of the kind of minority rights that candidates needed to adhere to verbally. Accepting promises in lieu of deeds created the impression that the EU is not really interested. Even now, not all is lost if Brussels does not collude to ignore grievances. Investigating these and sanctioning violations will bring results."

Maybe we could start the investigating in france? It is interesting to note that European "minorities" living in france do not enjoy the collective rights that the EU says should be granted to the Magyars living in Romania. For example, the french administration keeps sabotaging the efforts of the Breton activists who want their language to be taught at school. Currently, I think about 2% of children are allowed to learn the language at school. It is no longer spoken in everyday life except by people over 80 years old. Breton history is not taught either.

Another example: Alsace is a piece of Germany currently owned by france. Alsatians are not a minority, they are Germans, the largest group in Europe. But the french administration has maintained its policy of imposing french as the main or sole language, and third-world immigration is destroying the Alsatian society. They do not have any more collective rights than the Magyars in Romania. And the German government does not care. In Corsica, the language is a variety of Italian: --> now replaced by french ! It is the same policy everywhere, and the EU doesn't care.

I used to be a supporter of the EU because I thought they would help us get rid of the french state. But in the last 50 years, the EU has done nothing to help us. And now it has begun to turn into another france. It seems they have a project of creating an ideal rootless European citizen. Since they have embraced the immigration ideology, it is unlikely that they will start supporting the collective rights of minorities. I think they will see European minorities who defend their rights as racist organizations, and an obstacle to immigration.

GH: "Therefore, while the principle might be revolutionary to some unenlightened rulers and their parties, the examples demonstrate that, the concept does not undermine implementing states."

In france, applying democracy and granting autonomy to the various regions would soon lead to a dismantling of the french state. But no one in the world would complain.

Kapitein Andre wrote: "If Brussels is committed to discarding nationalism in favor of a single unified European state, whose constituent states are reduced to the status of provinces, it will neither support Spanish nor Basque nationalism. If nationalism is an archaic and negative affinity, then there is no need to encourage it."

Exactly !

The Crisis of Creeps

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-07-17 09:44.

This just in:

The Portuguese writer and Nobel Laureate Jose Saramago ... urging Spain and Portugal to unite in a single country.

 

Portugal would not lose its identity as part of Spain,Saramago says,but would become an additional autonomous region in a country that already enjoys greatly devolved power...

 

http://news.independence.co.uk/europe/article2776124.ece

 

Title: Writer calls for Portugal to be province of Spain.

 

In Reply to George Handlery

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-07-17 06:24.

Handlery: "Colonial empires and the treaties ending the world wars have created states with artificial boundaries."

 

What makes national boundaries and therefore a state "artificial"? The United States is more multi-ethnic (national), multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural, etc., than those territories comprising the former Yugoslavia, and Canada is as geographically diverse as the Russian Federation.

 

Handlery: "A stable state has consenting inhabitants have reasons see it as representing them. It helps if the populace is ethnically, by faith and culture homogenous."

 

Ethnicity is based primarily in a group's common ancestry or bloodline, genetics (and incidentally race), lineage, etc. Religions often include more than one ethno-national group and cultures can be sub-national and international; moreover, cultures are subject to change both from internal and external pressure. Common ancestry provides an anchor (not unlike a family) around which a group can over time construct a common culture and/or religion/philosophy, erect a state and delinate the extent of their territory. In any event, homogenous societies have historically fared better than heterogenous ones due to the inability of the latter to unify and act when facing major challenges.

 

Handlery: "The international community is committed to uphold the territorial integrity of its members. Unfortunately, this prevents minorities locked into “foreign” states from getting attention and makes it easy to react to the signs of creeping crises by ignoring them. The more so, since the underlying problems are complicated and inconvenient to discuss. Furthermore, accepted prejudices, as well as the desire for tranquility are interpreted as demanding silence."

 

The vast majority of states are either concerned that extending support to secessionist or irridentist movements would result in an increased likelihood of such activities with regards to their own borders, or that such support would result in failed states, etc.

 

Handlery: "Sanctified by US President Wilson – but ignoring his real program – under French leadership the victors of WWI reorganized central Europe."

 

Unfortunately, Wilson is not innocent. His emphasis on national self-determination contradicted his calls for collective security, which would undermine the former as nation-states had traditionally sought security with the balance-of-power system. Neither goal was completely pursued ultimately, because it would have been impractical to carve up Central and Southeastern Europe along ethno-national lines given the sheer might of Russia and Germany. Furthermore, national self-determination cannot be achieved for every nation simultaneously: nation-states are either expanding or receding. Therefore not all borders can be perfectly matched, despite the hopes of each nation.

 

Handlery: "Theoretically, the European Union’s federal features offer a framework to overcome the old issues that still divide its newest members. Recent entrants have formally committed themselves to constructive policies. The reduction of the significance of political boundaries is officially a special endeavor of the community. The hindrance blocking the solution of the problem is simple to identify – but not easy to overcome."

 

If Brussels is committed to discarding nationalism in favor of a single unified European state, whose constituent states are reduced to the status of provinces, it will neither support Spanish nor Basque nationalism. If nationalism is an archaic and negative affinity, then there is no need to encourage it.

 

Handlery: "A missed opportunity complicates matters. Admission should have included as a precondition the enforced implementation of the kind of minority rights that candidates needed to adhere to verbally."

 

These "rights" would then undermine those of the majority nation of the state in question. If the European Union could re-arrange national boundaries to match the current ethno-national situation, it might work, however, then London would revert to Nigeria and Paris to Morocco.