THERE IS NO BRITAIN:

June 19, 2006

Power of Scottish MPs ‘a threat to UK’ (Toby Helm, 20/06/2006, Daily Telegraph)

Growing anger in England over the power that Scottish MPs wield at Westminster could destroy the 1998 devolution settlement, a powerful Commons committee said yesterday.

The report by the Labour-dominated Scottish affairs committee makes grim reading for Gordon Brown by highlighting how a majority of people in the United Kingdom now oppose a Scot becoming prime minister.

The MPs say that the West Lothian Question – the anomaly giving Scottish MPs a say over English laws but English MPs no similar rights where power has been devolved – is a time bomb that urgently needs to be defused. “It is a matter of concern to us that English discontent is becoming apparent,” they said.

Scotland is a nation–it oughtn’t have any say in how Engalnd is governed & won’t.


THERE IS NO SPAIN:

June 19, 2006

Catalan Voters Endorse Greater Autonomy (John Ward Anderson, June 19, 2006, Washington Post)

Voters in northeastern Spain overwhelmingly approved a referendum Sunday giving their region, Catalonia, broad new autonomous powers, according to nearly complete preliminary returns. Many analysts see the autonomy measure as a model that could help promote peace talks between Spain’s government and separatists in the Basque part of the country.

About 74 percent of the voters who cast ballots in Catalonia, a region of about 7 million people centered on the cosmopolitan Mediterranean city of Barcelona, approved the autonomy measure, according to a tally of almost 99 percent of the vote that was posted on the Internet by the region’s government. About 21 percent voted no.

Dreams of a unified Europe were never going to withstand the reality of continental nationalism.


ALL THE EU-NIKS GOT WRONG WAS HUMAN NATURE:

May 22, 2006

Montenegro vote finally seals death of Yugoslavia (Ian Traynor, May 22, 2006, The Guardian)

Montenegro voted yesterday by a comfortable majority to split with Serbia and establish a new small independent state in the Balkans, killing off what remains of Yugoslavia. In a referendum that attracted a turnout of almost 90%, much higher than at any election since democracy arrived in 1990, voters decided by a majority of 56% to 44% to opt for independence rather than a creaking dysfunctional union with Serbia, according to a projection by an independent monitoring organisation last night.

A people who thinks of themselves as a nation is one.


BOY, THAT HARPER WORKS FAST:

April 14, 2006


Uproar as artists turn backs on sovereignty
: Stars’ remarks a cause célèbre in Quebec (INGRID PERITZ, 4/14/06, Globe and Mail)

Artists have always been in the vanguard for Quebec independence. So when two of the province’s artistic luminaries questioned their sovereigntist faith this week, their remarks fell like a bombshell.

Michel Tremblay, the world-acclaimed playwright whose works have helped capture Quebec’s soul, declared that he was no longer a separatist. It was as if the Pope were renouncing Catholicism. Mr. Tremblay’s words were front-page news.

Then another light of the Quebec stage, Robert Lepage, enjoined that he, too, was “less convinced” about independence. The theatre director even admitted to ambivalence about his Quebec identity, since he considered himself Canadian when he travelled the world.

“When I’m here in Quebec, even in Ottawa, I don’t feel Canadian,” Mr. Lepage said. “But when I travel abroad, I don’t know what happens, I feel that Canada is a reality, and I’m part of it.”

The pair’s avowals had the entire province talking. And the backlash within independence circles, especially against the iconic Mr. Tremblay, was fast and ferocious.

Stop thinking of yourselves as a nation and you aren’t one.


EASY ENOUGH TO PREDICT:

January 1, 2006

A mixed year for a valiant Arab people (Rami G. Khouri, December 31, 2005, Daily Star)

A look back at eventful 2005 in the Middle East shows three broad and significant developments in historical terms, related to the citizen, the state and the foreign powers that intervened in the region. Important changes are underway at all three of these levels of identity discernable today, though we need not predict where they will lead.

The most positive development has seen the citizen in many Arab countries start to rebel against the many indignities and inequities that he or she has endured in silence for decades – mostly variations of abuse of power by unelected, unaccountable elites from their own country or abroad. [...]

Changes at the level of states were largely negative this year, the most troubling one being the continued fragmentation of 20th-century sovereign Arab states into much more brittle collections of ethnic, religious and tribal groups. [...]

The Arab state is in the midst of being fractured, retribalized and redefined into much smaller configurations. Three principal causes of this process would seem to be: the largely incompetent, often brutal rule practiced by the reining Sunni Arab-dominated power elites during the past half century, a clear Israeli penchant for weakening Arab states and promoting the emergence of smaller, weaker minorities with whom it can engage to its advantage (as it has done for years with Kurds in Iraq and some right-wing groups in Lebanon), and, the current American formalization of ethnic politics in Iraq as a possible model for the entire region.

This leads to the third important trend that has defined the Middle East this year, but without clear indications of whether the end results will be positive or negative for the people of the region. This is the stepped up international direct engagement in the internal affairs of countries, including Arab states, Iran and Turkey.

The Arab states were artificial creations of the Europeans, left to dictatorial rule by Realist elites who didn’t care about the people so long as they were kept quiet. Engagement by an idealist America means those states get broken apart and the dictators removed to be replaced by self-determined, democratic entities. The idea of sovereignty is collateral damage.


FIRST AND FOREMOST:

December 16, 2005

Kurds vote, first and foremost, for Kurdistan (Edward Wong, 12/16/05, The New York Times)

By all appearances here, the elections Thursday for national parliamentary seats may as well have been about Kurdistan and Kurdish dreams. Iraq, or the idea of Iraq, seemed as distant as the moon.

“I will vote for 730,” said Fakhri Muhammad, 32, referring to the ballot number of the main Kurdish coalition, as he stood in line outside the village’s primary school. “The list is Kurdish, and it represents the Kurdish people.”

So went the refrain throughout much of the north, with Kurdish voters shying away from Arab candidates and siding only with Kurdish groups, particularly the Kurdistan Alliance, the coalition made up of the two main Kurdish parties. It was a stark illustration of how much the vote across Iraq had split along ethnic and sectarian lines. For many Kurds, a vote for the Kurdistan Alliance was first and foremost a bid to secure autonomy for the mountainous Kurdish homeland in the north, and only secondarily a vote for the general welfare of Iraq.

Political fervor was especially rampant here in dry, windswept Tamim Province, whose capital is Kirkuk, about 25 kilometers, or 15 miles, south of Altun Kopri. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, the government deported Kurds and Turkmens and moved in Arabs to better control the oil fields.

Kurdish leaders have made no secret of their desire to incorporate Kirkuk and other parts of the province into Kurdistan, rather than allowing the central government to administrate it.


THINK BALTICS, NOT BALKANS:

November 14, 2005

An idea whose time has come (Bruce Walker, November 14, 2005, Enter Stage Right)

What is the solution to our national security problems? Balkanization. Those unfamiliar with history (almost anyone who has passed through public schools and our system of universities) may never have heard that term, but it was all the terror in foreign ministries throughout most of the 20th Century. But Balkanization has worked in the Soviet Union, where constituent republics have become peaceful, free and relatively democratic. It has worked in the “Velvet Divorce,” the naturally ending of that unnatural union of Czechs and Slovaks in the former Czechoslovakia. The smaller states of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia work better than the old polyglot Yugoslavia. Pakistan and Bangladesh get on better than the single nation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan ever did.

Balkanization would work well in Iraq: split this unnatural imperium into three natural nations of Shia, Kurds and Sunnis. America could offer to defend each from aggressive invasion by the others, but then leave these nations, naturally suspicious of each other, to rely upon American friendship as the sure guarantee of political success.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson made it popular such ethnic self-determination has had a grip on peoples’ imaginations and the evidence continues to roll in that smaller states fare better than larger, with the exception of the U.S., the exceptional nation.


THE THISTLE IN THE NOSEGAY:

November 5, 2005

War-Weary Chechens Eye Ballot Box: Many in the Russian republic doubt that a Nov. 29 parliamentary vote will bring change. Even so, the race has drawn 400 candidates. (Kim Murphy, November 5, 2005, LA Times)

The elections scheduled for Nov. 29 are the final stage of the Kremlin’s peace plan for Chechnya, a process that began with a 2003 referendum affirming the separatist republic’s permanent place in Russia and that was sealed with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s announcement that more than a decade of war was at an end.

But the continued fighting leaves some unconvinced.

“They say everything is normal. But the skirmishes continue. The bombings continue in the forests,” said Laila Khalakova, 49, another Tsa-Tsa Yurt resident, whose son-in-law disappeared when Russian troops entered the town in 2000.

“I have this opinion: Never between the Chechens and the Russians, whatever they say, whatever beautiful words they say, will there be anything but constant enmity and fury toward each other,” she said. “My 3-year-old granddaughter says, ‘I wish I had a gun; I would shoot down all those Russians who have entered our houses.’ “

Despite the turmoil that continues to envelop this devastated republic in southern Russia, more than 400 candidates from eight parties have registered to run for a parliament that could become Chechnya’s first forum for broad civic debate since the second war with Russia began in 1999.

Since then, there have been no official means to vent popular anger over brutal and arbitrary arrests, continuing corruption in the government and the fact that 474,000 Chechens remain unemployed, far outnumbering the 154,000 who hold jobs.

“The economic situation is catastrophic. And unfortunately, many of these questions — the poverty of the population, the violations of human rights and people’s security, the healthcare situation — remain insufficiently analyzed by the executive authorities,” said Vahit Akayev, a sociology professor at Chechen State University and an independent candidate for parliament.

Already, the parliamentary election campaign is shaping up as a contest between clans and between alliances over the future leadership of the republic.

How many decades or centuries do the Russians have to keep making the same mistake before they grasp that Chechnya is going to be free?


TEXTBOOK ILLUSTRATION:

October 21, 2005

Pollster talks of priority shift among Palestinians (Daily Star, October 21, 2005)

Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, says there has been a profound shift in the attitudes of Palestinians since the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in August. Shikaki, whose organization is the leading public opinion group in the Palestinian Authority, says that prior to the Gaza withdrawal, Palestinians overwhelmingly gave the “end to the occupation” as their top priority.

Now, he says, the priority is for an improvement in the economic life in the Palestinian areas, with an end to political corruption and an end to the occupation falling far behind. “For the first time, after the Gaza disengagement, we have economics coming on top … And the second one is in fact a virtual tie between fighting corruption and fighting occupation. The gap between the first, which is improving economic conditions and the second which is corruption and ending occupation is wide. It’s 15 percent.” Ironically, he says, the Palestinians now are strongly in support of a permanent cease-fire, even though most of them believe the Gaza pullout was due to the Palestinian use of force.

Which is exactly what Natan Sharansky, George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon said would happen.


NOT A FIGHT MOROCCO CAN WIN:

August 21, 2005

Prisoner release gives hope for W. Sahara peace: The Polisario Front freed 404 Moroccan prisoners of war held captive for, in some cases, 20 years. (Lisa Abend and Geoff Pingree, 8/22/05, The Christian Science Monitor)

This desert region has been controlled by Morocco since 1975. For the Saharawi people, it is their home, a place for which the Polisario Front has fought for decades. For the Moroccans, however, Western Sahara – the “southern provinces,” as the government prefers to call the area – is an integral part of their national territory.

Western Sahara became a source of contention in the mid-1970s, when Spain officially ceded sovereignty of the territory, and the Polisario Front sought to secure the land as an independent state for the Saharawi people. Although the International Court of Justice had established the Saharawi’s right to self-determination, Morocco sent a massive force to occupy Western Sahara in 1975, initiating a war with the Polisario.

In 1991, the United Nations brokered a cease-fire – the terms of which required a self-determination referendum for Western Sahara – and installed a peacekeeping force, called MINURSO. After political wrangling delayed the referendum, UN special envoy James Baker attempted in 1997 to negotiate a solution. But his efforts failed when Morocco rejected the plan in 2003.

Today, Moroccan officials profess willingness to discuss a solution to the 30-year conflict, but they refuse to negotiate an open referendum. Laayoune councilman Moulay Ould Errachid backs a federalist approach to the problem, one that would allow greater autonomy to Western Sahara. “But,” he says, “we will not debate Moroccan sovereignty with anyone.”

Morocco’s refusal to hold the referendum is, for Brahim Gali, the Polisario’s representative in Spain, a violation of international law and a clear indication that Morocco fears such a vote.

“We don’t know if a majority of Saharawi would vote for independence,” says Mr. Gali, “but we’re not afraid of elections. The one who is afraid is the one who won’t let the vote go forward.”

Ali Lmrabet, a Moroccan journalist, takes a more forceful position. “If you believe the official Moroccan press, then only a few Saharawi want independence. If that’s the case, then why not hold the vote? Because the truth is that most Saharawi don’t want to be Moroccans. Personally, I’d prefer that Western Sahara remain part of Morocco, but the important thing is that the Saharawi choose for themselves. I can’t force anyone to be a Moroccan.”

Any people who think of themselves as sovereign will be.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.