What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States, 

a commentary on

What Borders Mean to Europe
By George Friedman, founder of Stratfor
Geopolitical Weekly
June 23, 2015
 https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/what-borders-mean-europe
 
********
   
When it comes to the age-old argument of a state (a country's) right to territorial integrity vs. a local people's right to self-determination, I've always been a supporter of genuine democracy, that is a local population's inalienable right to determine -- through a local democratic election or referendum -- what state (country) they want to join, stay in or leave.

So if the local people of Scotland or Northern Ireland hold a referendum and decide to leave the UK, then we should respect their right and the rest of the UK's population should be able to prevent them from leaving, even on the typical grounds of territorial integrity and national security.

The same democratic standard should be applicable to
- Quebec in Canada,
- Basque country in Spain,
- Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq & Iran,
- Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt, 
- Tyroleans in Italy,
- Darfur in Sudan,
- Igboland in Nigeria,

and countless other populations world-wide who'd like their own state (country) or genuine autonomy based on ethnicity, race, religion, language or other local cultural traits.

Holding a local population hostage in a country where they perceive discrimination, persecution or any other form of second-class citizen status is not democratic, but a vestige of past imperial and colonialist traditions.

When politicians and/or people from other parts of a country in question believe that they're entitled to dictate to a local population where it belongs, that's a perversion, if not an outright denial, of true democracy. 
 
Such a litmus test can have scary repercussions.
What if Alaskans decided in a genuine democratic people's referendum that the government in Washington didn't represent their interests and they wanted to leave the Union?

What if a majority of Texans, residents of an independent republic (country) before it joined the U.S.A. decided to leave the U.S., should the residents of California, Vermont or Florida have the right to prevent them from leaving?

What if residents of a conservative state like Utah, decide that they don't want to accept gay marriage and leave the Union?

Sound familiar? It should, because I bet that any state which tries to leave the U.S. will find out (even at the receiving end of a gun barrel) what territorial integrity means and how even the self-proclaimed cradle of democracy just pays lip service to a people's right to self-determination.

Movements for governmental self-determination through  autonomy or the creation of a separate independent state usually encounter resistance through the following:
 
1. Constitutional requirements or other state laws that prohibit any challenges to the country's territorial integrity by

- outlawing separatism or any individual or organized efforts that challenge the current governmental or constitutional regime through demands for autonomy or independence.
- demanding that any autonomy or independence be decided not just by the local population (true democracy) but by the majority of an entire country's electorate and parliament.  
 
2. Prohibitions against local referendums on autonomy or independence.

- these can be constitutional or based on other laws. Regardless, even if the local population, through local political parties or acts of local (municipal) legislatures, decides overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, it will be prohibited by law.
 
As a result, the only alternative is to hold an unofficial people's referendum with all ensuing consequences -- legal invalidity, criminal prosecution of organizers & participants and, if necessary, military (national guard) intervention to prevent or stop the vote.

- some past movements for autonomy or independence, when confronted with a prohibition against a referendum and the bigger country's ability to enforce it, elected to first secure their local territory's borders with insurgents and then hold a referendum to affirm the local population's democratic choice for autonomy.

While this practical approach ensured the holding of a referendum unfettered, it also provided the bigger country's government and its allies with justification to fight the local separatist movement since the local separatists first staged an armed revolt, any subsequent local referendum should be considered null and void.
 
3. Refusal to recognize and deal with the results of a local referendum.
 
- if the referendum takes place anyway (even a verifiable democratic people's referendum with more than sufficient voter turnout), the the country's government, media and its foreign allies will refuse to recognize it, not only from a formal legal perspective, but also as a valid democratic expression of a people's will. 

4. Police, military and economic crackdown on separatists

If, based on the results of a local referendum, the local population decides to declare autonomy or independence and refuse to accept the bigger country's government authority in the local -- now autonomous or independent -- territory, then the state will enforce its territorial integrity through the use of police and military power, no matter how brutal its application or consequences for the local civilian population.

Police and military measures are supplanted by an economic blockade of the insurgent territory, even it results in civilian deaths from starvation, disease, loss of shelter and utilities.
The above measures are always justified by a country's sovereign (almost holy) right to territorial integrity and self-defense on national security grounds, true or not, as the separatists could collude with the bigger country's enemies.
Now add economics into the mix. As they say, always follow the money trail, since money don't lie. What if the region that wants autonomy is wealthier than the rest of the country due to industry or valuable natural resources?

What are the chances that the bigger country would allow its population to have genuine economic & political autonomy or independence and take away the contributions to the country's economy -- often so substantial or irreplaceable that their loss could cripple the bigger country's economy or result in default before its foreign creditors?
 
So what does this all mean in the 21st century for countries (not just in Europe), their borders and a people's right to democratic self determination?

If you're a people living in a small and poor region without any strategic value (political, economic, military or cultural), then you may have a chance at securing greater autonomy or outright independence from your country, since it's probably tired of supporting your population without any clear returns in the present or future.

If you're a people living in a strategically  important or wealthy region and you insist on autonomy or independence, then get ready to learn the true value of democracy in a brutal civil war -- a war that you're likely to lose militarily without substantial foreign military, economic and political assistance.

And that type of assistance, given its political and economic costs for the sponsor country, will only come from  your former country's competitors (enemies) and/or countries where the local population will support you (and, if necessary, fight for you) as one of their own on ethnic, religious and/or political ideological grounds.  

Now take the the above premises and apply them to any current civil conflict and movement for greater autonomy or independence.
So what do you think the future holds for those movements?

Do you think
- Iraq will just give up oil-rich Kurdistan in the name of democracy and historical justice for the Kurds?
- Nigeria will give up oil-rich Igboland?
- Ukraine will give up industrial & coal-rich Donestk Coal basin?
- The United States will ever give up Alaska or Texas if the residents of those states chose to leave?

Now, if you're a true supported of democracy and, consequently, a people's right to political and governmental self-determination, what do you think is the right thing to do, regardless of the economic consequences for you or the bigger country in question?

Will you act and vote with or democratic hearts & souls for self-determination or with our wallets and/or pride (committed to ethnic, religious or cultural allegiances) for territorial integrity?
 
Actually, many ordinary folks, especially those who know the horrors of war, will support the status quo and forfeit democracy just to avoid the prospect of bloodshed in a civil war. 

Regardless of your position, the Strafor article is food for thought, including its discussion of Ukraine.

Contributor: Greg Krasovsky
 
See The Ukrainian-Russian-American Observer's Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143739658973505
******

Selected quotes from "What Borders Mean to Europe"
    "The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need. The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states.
...
Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved. The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.
It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered.
...
The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self."