|
Very interesting topic!
IMHO, I think the right to independence and self-determination can be exerted and justified only with reference to representation (or lack thereof). Most violent separatist movements are caused due to a lack of representation of a group of people; from the American "no taxation without representation" Revolution, to the civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese government and the Tamil minority, Pakistan/Bangladesh, East Timor, Oromia in Ethiopia, the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, etc, etc...
However, ethnic groups that do have representation very rarely ever become violent. Case in point the Quebec independence movement involved terrorism initially during the 1970s and the second a political party was formed to represent the interests of the Quebecois, the violence stopped, there was no need for it.
On the flip side, Eritrea (my country of heritage) had no violent leanings when signed over (by the British backed by the UN no less) to Ethiopians during the 1950s under the condition the we'd belong to a federation while still maintaining some political autonomy. When Emperor Haile Selassie decided that federation was bullshit and tossed it and our autonomy out the window, then the violence started.
(And Ethiopia is still experiencing separatist movements within the country even today, specifically from the Oromos who make up 40% of the population and have zero representation.)
So I guess my opinion in all this would be that if a nation has no representation then it has a right to self-determination and independence. Not that I'm saying that I support those without any influence in government the license to kill anythone in their way of independence or anything. But I just see the violence as something of a last resort. I doubt any government would ever just let anybody separate from their country without a fight so violence is inevitable.
|