Secessionism
Secessionism or separatism is a common cause of wars in the 2020’s, being involved in a quarter to a third of them.
It is defined as the advocacy of withdrawal of a group from a political entity. It is capable of being resolved by non-violent means within the United Nations.
Politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism, in order to extend the reach of politics to cover this common political situation. If it is truly the will of the people of a region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then politicians should give attention to their wishes.
So the question is, does the majority of the people in a region truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply the intense desire of an unrepresentative political group? This is a question that can be answered by a carful and we–designed referendum, or series of referenda. Since it is unlikely that the state will be happy to offer a referendum, the process will have to be initiated by a people’s petition, which in some cases will have to be organised in secrecy.
The UN should form an agency specifically responsible for separatist issues.
Once this agency has received a peoples’ petition, they can research and evaluate the situation. If they decide that there is a case, for secession of some description, negotiations leading up to a referendum can start. If the result of the referendum shows that a two thirds majority (say) is in favour of autonomy, negotiations can start, under the guidance of the UN or regional authorities.
Negotiations will be complex. No state wishes to lose bits of itself, just as no patient likes to go under the surgeon’s knife. However, people do agree to surgery if they are convinced that it is ultimately going to be good for their health. By allowing secession, the state is avoiding a war, with all its financial, human and environmental costs. Politically, it is gaining a cooperative neighbour on its doorstep, instead of a hostile enemy. By agreeing to negotiate, they may end up with an autonomous region rather than a total loss of territory.
The arguments for secession are simple: the people do not feel themselves to be citizens of the present state. They feel ethnically or linguistically different. They may feel like second class citizens, or may even point to evidence of bias, repression or human rights abuses. The people will need a good team of lawyers to put this case, because the arguments against secession will be complex and legalistic.
The government may claim that loss of the region would make it difficult to defend the rest of the country. It may express anxieties about the safety of its ethnic minorities left behind, and guarantees for their property. They may argue that secession will have unwanted effects on the secessionists themselves. The precedent argument will be rolled out: Who will be next to secede? There will be legitimate arguments about who owns and pays for state’s previous investment in infrastructure. Any natural resources in the breakaway region will be a matter of legal argument.
These are all matters susceptible to study, discussion, debate and negotiation. The negotiations may well be difficult and protracted, but discussion and agreement is always preferable in human and financial terms than violent conflict. In the end, it is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy rather than to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.
Therefore there is clearly a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence.
Conclusion: Making allowance for Secessionism leads to a More Peaceful World
There should be a UN agency that will monitor separatist aspirations, and offer its services at an appropriate moment in the unfolding of separatist aspiration,
Separatism is a promising area where there is a rational alternative to the psychotic destructiveness of war.
A More Peaceful World 