|
Author
|
Topic: The Flawed 'Self-Determination' Idea
|
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799
|
posted 16 November 2002 06:06 AM
The difference between a 'nation' and a 'state' is one of the first things taught in a first-year university political science class. But this distinction is a relatively new phenomena - and its creation is responsible for the bloodiest of centuries, and offers no immediate lull. quote:
To understand that, it's worth cracking open Margaret MacMillan's stunning history of the Versailles treaty negotiations, just published in Canada under the title Paris 1919. Buried among her many cutting observations is a valuable history of "self-determination," a nebulous concept that came to take over the world in the wake of Versailles.This was Woodrow Wilson's fault. Instead of promoting the American ideal of democratic pluralism, the president became obsessed with that concept's opposite, the right to self-determination. Robert Lansing, Mr. Wilson's much smarter secretary of state, reacted with confusion and then alarm: "When the president talks of 'self-determination,' " Mr. Lansing asked in 1918, "what unit has he in mind? Does he mean a race, a territorial area, or a community? It will raise hopes which can never be realized. It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives."
From this G&M column
From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 16 November 2002 03:51 PM
The article is a good one. It should always be remembered that "nation" is a politicakl construct, rather than a "fact".I think it overplays the idea that it is all Woodrow Wilson's fault though. European states were organizing themselves on the basis of nations well before Wilson came around. Germany did so from about 1800 to 1870,
Italy mid-century, Greece around 1830, and so on.
Russia came to the aid of its "brother Slavs" in the Balkan wars of the 1870's, and Serbian nationalism was a cause, not a consequence, of World War One. The idea in the article seems to be that Wilson should have imposed an "American ideal, democratic pluralism" upon Europe after the war. But in reality, the alternative to self-determination was to reconstitute the failed empires of Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman one.
Was that really the solution that a democrat would choose?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 16 November 2002 05:13 PM
Nationalism and self-determination are historically associated with liberalism, the spread of democratization, the idea that sovereignty lies with the people (the nation) rather than absolutist rulers, the struggle of most of the world for independence from colonialism and imperialism, the ability of Canada to stay outside the US, and many other things. This would be the extreme case for the opposition. But it's just as valid as Saunders' thesis. Jacques Parizeau may be a proponent of ethnic nationalism, as his post-referendum blaming of "money and the ethnic vote" (subtext: the Jews) for the sovereigntist defeat. The majority of the movement however preaches a "nation" that is not defined by common (and pure) ethnicity, but a civic sense of belonging that looks to the future and not to the past ("Oui, et ça devient possible"). Personally i'd hope Quebec stays in Canada, as it has opted to do, but the project for an independent Quebec has just as much validity as the project for an independent Canada. And both are equally nationalistic. Nationalism and self-determination have been manipulated by some, by many in fact, but that doesn't make the idea of self-determination itself (still less poor Woodrow Wilson) responsible for the deaths of anyone at all.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 17 November 2002 03:44 PM
I think it is sad that the classical discipline of political economics has been split into two disciplines in North America, political science and economics, one result of which is that both toss up undecidable and unrealistic puzzles such as this -- as though sorting out political tensions and injustice was all a question of semantics, of getting our definitions right. As I think swallow is hinting, and as Jeff House's examples of the "choices" available in 1919 illustrate, there are other reasons than simple ethnic pride for resisting the embrace of larger states. That said: I was glad to hear that this book had appeared. I've thought for a while that we needed a good, comprehensive reading of the Versailles Conferences (and have been told by historians I've asked that there really wasn't one). From the review I read of MacMillan's book, though -- and from her title -- I'm left wondering whether this book goes far enough, includes all the other conferences and treaties, dealing especially with the Middle East, that were part of this process and continued, I believe, until 1921.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 17 November 2002 05:34 PM
quote:
I think the only legitimate arguement for a nation state is one based on geography.
But this is a hopeless basis. There is, for example, no "geographical" boundary between Russia and Poland, between Canada and the US,
or between India and Pakistan or Bangladesh. What is the geographical feature which separates France from Belgium, Peru from Chile, or Denmark from Germany? Two seconds after the successor to Woodrow Wilson
articulated this as a basis for states, we would have invasions and land claims based on "geography".
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
