The Limits of the Principle of Self-Determination

...

That being said, from my point of view, why would the use of that right be labeled as an employment of something originally not dedicated to that purpose? In centralize countries; it is possible to find some regions with very different cultures, economies and political lives. In the example of Catalonia and Spain, every one knows Spain as a whole country but if one cares to take a deeper look at its history, it is clear that Catalonia and Spain present different histories, cultures and even language, that is to say that the Spanish and the Catalonians have each different characteristics that give them a certain subjective relationship to their homeland. However because it has been for a long time united, they are a part of the same country and therefore the independence of Catalonia is for some observers irrelevant. It is true that Catalonia has been given a lot more of freedom lately when it recovered and extended the power it had been given in the Statute of Autonomy in 1978 but the fact that the central power in Madrid rejected the new political status “the Estatut” in 2010 gave much more influence to the Catalonian separatist party. One of the main reasons of this separatism movement is naturally related to the economy. As Margaret Thatcher eloquently said in her time, the “I want my money back” slogan is one of the strongest arguments. Indeed Catalonia represents roughly 6% of the Spanish population, and is responsible for over 20% of the national wealth. In a country with a wealth’s redistribution system, “the separatists estimate that the fiscal deficit is to high and feel that they give to much and receive to less” (Henry Laguérie, journalist for The Echos).

The Catalonian example is useful in order to point out the semantic issue of the self-determination right. Catalonia should have the right to decide whether or not it can be independent on a political scope. However the stakes overcome the political side of the situation. Ideally it is great to affirm that every people has the right to decide for themselves what political, social, economical and cultural development they want but the real issue is to confront the ideology and the theories to the reality of the situation. From my point of view, yes every group of peoples that can legitimate this position –that is to say the position where claiming independence is relevant in the scope of all the aspect previously mentioned- should have the right to be freely independent or at least to have the chance to become independent. For instance, in the case of Catalonia, a referendum has been done in the region in order to evaluate the number of separatist, and more than 80% of the people did say “yes” to independence (however the referendum was unofficial and cannot be taken as universal proof). Ideologically speaking, Catalonia presents every possible aspect of a nation on its way to independence but all of that aside, the reality of the European crisis, of the possible exclusion of the European Union or the fact that it would be very expansive to become independent (for instance the infrastructure budget would make their finance collapse), all of this make the idea of becoming independent irrelevant. The future of both Spain and Catalonia is bind, and in the scope of reality, a separatist approach may be a bit early.

Keeping in mind this pure empirical argument anchored in reality, it is interesting to have a look at the origins of the right to self-determination. When the late American president Woodrow Wilson affirms the fourteen points he certainly has a liberalist approach and his inspiration probably was drawn from the liberalist philosophy of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless only four points were sustained in Europe and the self-determination right was rarely if never applied. The origin of that right shows us that even if Wilson may have really wanted worldwide peace, these rights were exploited by countries from Western Europe and were not indented to begin with to South countries. The right of self-determination might actually be interpreted as a symbol, a promise of peace that might come, or not. It is a tool that might allow the independence of people pacifically but that independent is never assured. Indeed to become a country and be therefore an international actor, that country needs to be recognized on the international scene. The symbol of the possible independence is very strong and feeds the separatist and nationalist in a country but international forces do also play a role in that matter.

In conclusion, I think it is important to remind that the symbolic power behind the theory of self-determination is extremely powerful. Plus it is true that during the decolonization the right of nations of self-determination took an even stronger meaning. Nevertheless the time of decolonization has ended and the right has become more symbolic than before. Indeed we have seen that even though independence is hard to define and can take many meanings, today the process of independence of nations in our Western and capitalist society is influenced by something even more stronger than that theory: the social and economic reality tends to ease the nationalist and separatist process in Europe today. Indeed against a more and more capitalist system, the independence of such regions and peoples raises the question of their own survival. The example of Scotland and the loss of the separatist for the referendum shows that above all else, economic survival is the one key that determines the result of the process toward independence. The freedom of the market seems under that scope to represent a objection to the freedom of the people in developed countries touched by separatist flows.