Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory

[Simon_Jester]

So might the Albanians in Kosovo.

I am still trying to work out how that actually WEAKENS my argument that ethnic cleansing still occurs in the modern era in an attempt to gain an advantage in territorial claims. If anything you have just given me another example to work with. My argument isn't to take sides between the Serbs/ Albanians, Georgians / South Ossetians etc, but to point out your counter claim that "deciding sovereignty by what the current inhabitants want DOESN'T encourage ethnic cleansing anymore because the modern era is different", is a dubious argument at best.

OK. You have a point- but consider this.

In theory, deciding that possession is nine tenths of the law does make someone more likely to steal land from another people. In practice, I don't think it's a major factor in the decision. The Albanians did not drive away Serbs because the Albanians wanted to be able to say in 2095 "well, they've all left the area so we can't very well compensate them and besides all the offending parties and victims are dead." They drove out Serbs because then and there they were hostile to Serbs in Kosovo. Would they feel less desire to do anything about that if some very powerful international court decided to (somehow) punish Turkey for the Armenian genocide or something of that nature?

Which ties back into the question of practicality. At least a 'preserve status quo' rule means that we don't restart old wars in an attempt to recompense the victims. It isn't satisfying to groups that are now disadvantaged, but in a lot of cases there is just nothing that can possibly be done in a remotely practical way that would. Nations would refuse to pay, would even violently resist paying on the grounds that in a lot of cases fighting a war would be cheaper and less destructive than having to give up enough land and wealth to make room for the minority in question. And that's not just a "first world oppressor refuses to own up" problem; it also applies to countries like Turkey, and decolonialized nations like Sudan that have a history of discriminating and marginalizing certain ethnic groups.



Because we are talking about large sums of compensation. Could the US government pay reparations to the American Indians? Yes. Large ones? Probably yes, assuming we limit the degree of cosanguinity with the native tribes that applies. Large enough to compensate for the loss of a continent? How do you even measure how much you'd have to pay for something like that?

If we treat this as a crime that needs to be punished, we must consider whether the offender is ever going to be able to pay. The case is even more obvious if, say, we try to charge Britain for what it did to India: we could totally gut the British economy trying to pay reparations, and it would be only a drop in the bucket of solving India's problems. And at least in that case there's no question of having to move huge numbers of Britons off the land they grew up in to make room for Indians who have a superior right to occupy that land.

However once those Palestinians who fled during the creation of Israel are dead of natural causes, arguably the policies which led to them fleeing "worked" in the sense the Palestinians remaining are not numerous enough for us to apply self determination arguments against the more numerous Jews.

The Palestinians are in fact numerous and their population is growing faster than that of Israel, so no, it's not going to go away. Personally, I think the only thing the Israelis can be truly sure of is that the "all Israelis move away to somewhere else and it becomes all Palestinian land" card is off the table. Everything else is potentially negotiable as the 21st century rolls on, if you ask me. Even if it looks fixed and certain now.

Yeah people do care. However caring is itself not enough to prevent it happening, and once again, if we argue by "after a while all the original people involve are dead, and lets not punish the people currently in that area", then ethnically cleansing does achieve that objective. Sure people may have cared while these guys were alive, but its less of an issue once they are long dead and buried. I am not saying I have the best solution, but it seems silly to pretend this type of weakness in your position doesn't exist, or downplaying it anyway.

It does exist- but the alternative is to leave all ethnic-cleansing cases open effectively forever. At what point does it stop making sense to say to someone "hand over the title deed to that office building to that man over there; his grandfather used to own a farm on the land you built it on?" When does this stop being effective compensation and a way to deter people from wronging each other, and start being a pointless exercise that destroys more than it creates?

This is not easy to resolve, and I am with Straha on this in the sense we need to look at the alternatives, openly admit the weaknesses in each idea. I don't have a 100% preferred method, but I am looking at the weaknesses in each. For your dilemma, I did suggest earlier perhaps compensation (say monetary) for the wronged groups. This is on the assumption that the groups still exist. So I don't really see Rome paying the descendants of Carthage for example.

Do you see the British paying for the Raj in India? Can we realistically compute damages for what was done to the American Indians, or the Australian aborigines?

[mr friendly guy]

OK. You have a point- but consider this.

In theory, deciding that possession is nine tenths of the law does make someone more likely to steal land from another people. In practice, I don't think it's a major factor in the decision. The Albanians did not drive away Serbs because the Albanians wanted to be able to say in 2095 "well, they've all left the area so we can't very well compensate them and besides all the offending parties and victims are dead." They drove out Serbs because then and there they were hostile to Serbs in Kosovo. Would they feel less desire to do anything about that if some very powerful international court decided to (somehow) punish Turkey for the Armenian genocide or something of that nature?

Which ties back into the question of practicality. At least a 'preserve status quo' rule means that we don't restart old wars in an attempt to recompense the victims. It isn't satisfying to groups that are now disadvantaged, but in a lot of cases there is just nothing that can possibly be done in a remotely practical way that would. Nations would refuse to pay, would even violently resist paying on the grounds that in a lot of cases fighting a war would be cheaper and less destructive than having to give up enough land and wealth to make room for the minority in question. And that's not just a "first world oppressor refuses to own up" problem; it also applies to countries like Turkey, and decolonialized nations like Sudan that have a history of discriminating and marginalizing certain ethnic groups.

Two points
1. Sure at the time the group doing the ethnic cleansing most likely isn't thinking of long term status. However they are arguably thinking of short term gains, ie forcing one group out and strengthening your territorial claim, as well as I hate <insert group here>. It doesn't take much to realise that if you force some people out, they won't be able to contest your claim as easily. Going on though, they will also be thinking of holding out and preventing the other group returning, see Israel legislation on the right of return. Over time, some in the group that did the cleansing will eventually switch to the argument that - "well I held this long enough" lets maintain the status quo. Or their descendants might think, "well I didn't do it, but I don't want to give this land back." Your policy on sovereignty might not help them in the short term, but in the long term it does.

2. One of the problems I find with people who use "this is how we decide sovereignty" is that they don't apply the argument consistently, which makes me think its a matter of applying it when convenient. You talk about preserve the status quo rule, but those examples I listed had the status quo changed recently. If we apply your rule to say a hypothetical event that happens right now - we still run into the same problem. One side simply holds out, then the new change will eventually become the status quo. I am not just talking about maintaining the status quo from events "long ago", but pointing out that more recent events will still lead to this problem regarding who controls which territory.

If we treat this as a crime that needs to be punished, we must consider whether the offender is ever going to be able to pay. The case is even more obvious if, say, we try to charge Britain for what it did to India: we could totally gut the British economy trying to pay reparations, and it would be only a drop in the bucket of solving India's problems. And at least in that case there's no question of having to move huge numbers of Britons off the land they grew up in to make room for Indians who have a superior right to occupy that land.

Because we are talking about large sums of compensation.

Do you see the British paying for the Raj in India? Can we realistically compute damages for what was done to the American Indians, or the Australian aborigines?

I don't see the Brits doing it because I know a lot of people including the Western world is unrepentant and engages in double standards, just look at some of the threads I participated in. If you can't think of a blatant double standard in issues of sovereignty and territorial control, by Western governments (and even more blatant in terms of individuals and NGOs) I would be very surprise. However as a hypothetical it would be somewhat ethical to help the descendants who are disadvantaged because of past actions.

In regards to your assumptions, there are a few weaknesses.
1. Assuming its difficult to work out the costs, doesn't mean we shouldn't try, nor precludes that someone could figure it out.

2. You assume the sums must be paid right now. Germany didn't compensate the holocaust victims all in the space of year - its ongoing for several. Thus a compensating country could make it more affordable doing it in instalments.

3. Using your India hypothetical, If Britain is to compensate India, it should compensate for what it did, and not to fix all of India's problems. I am not sure why you assume it must fix all of India's problems and it looks suspiciously like a bait and switch.

[Straha]

Do you see the British paying for the Raj in India? Can we realistically compute damages for what was done to the American Indians, or the Australian aborigines?

I think this is a backwards way of looking at the question. It always already assumes a viewpoint of someone who either is an oppressor or is a benefactor of oppression. Of course it looks impossible for the United States to ever come up with a way to compensate American Indians for their history, it means a shattering of the constructed American identity in a deep and profound sense, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and move away from the question. Instead I think recognizing that that debt is impossible to remunerate probably leaves us in a far better position moving forward than anything else. For instance, if we know that the United States should give back a majority of the state of Georgia but also know that that's a practical impossibility at least we have a better framework for trying to create justice and for understanding just how awful the crimes we are trying to atone for really are. Instead of just giving back the original land other possibilities for monetary, judicial, and territorial compensation open themselves up as possibilities and something that we should be willing to consider for the benefit of both sides.

It also, I think, allows for a better construction of social responsibility. Sure the white folk of the modern day United States might not have forced the Cherokee onto the trail of tears but they certainly disproportionately benefit from the legacy of those actions while the Native Tribes across the country live in conditions of absolute squalor and degradation. By embracing the idea not of "What is practical" but rather "What's right" we can better come to understand that 'our' prosperity comes off the back of the continued suffering of millions of Natives (to say absolutely nothing of the profound and continuing injustices committed against the slave and the descendants of slaves) and make it not a question of punishing a crime but rather righting a wrong.

The same thing goes for the Raj and British (and other nation's) colonies. Understanding international relations in terms of the legacies that many colonizers have left behind also gives us a better understanding of, for instance, how the profound violence in Africa over the past sixty years is often a responsibility of the legacy the colonizers left the independent African states. It doesn't just offer a deeper perspective on these situations but it also shifts the approach away from 'peacekeeping' and other such euphemisms towards a more proactive approach that tries to solve for these deeper problems and means that the European colonizers should probably take an active role in footing the bill, materially or economically, for whatever solution(s) are reached.

[Straha]

Don't forget the fiasco in Rwanda and the Congo. The modern era is no better at stopping ethnic cleansing or offering a better approach to 'colonization' than we have ever been, if anything has changed it's that more people die in a bloodier fashion now then ever before.

The Congo is a mess partly because of an ongoing civil war- which is not quite the same as ethnic cleansing, even though it can become divided along ethnic lines. In Rwanda genocide was not stopped (which was not what I meant to claim happens), but the nation has made a great deal of progress in recovering and healing, and it's not as if the Hutus succeeded in killing or driving off the Tutsi ethnicity.

Right, but in both cases external and internal pressures to stop conflicts only came about after dispossession and recolonization of land had become normalized. The status quo is very fluid and can change in a course of weeks or months (see: Tunisia and Libya, for example), a multi-year conflict with elements of ethnic cleansing allows for that status quo to be changed overnight, and these processes continue quite disturbingly into the modern era. My more basic point with this is merely that we can't say that the problems we're addressing now are 'historical' problems, because that blinds ourselves to the every day genocides that happen before our eyes without us realizing it. (My sig quote becomes disturbingly relevant once more.)

I think it's also worth exploring here how the claims never get settled in favor of, or by (in the case of Africa), the non-white groups. These issues always get settled in favor the European settlers and their descendants (or adjudicated by them) while the native groups have to deal with a legacy of directed genocide and institutionalized poverty for untold generations. We need a new system because this one is broken.

What would this look like in the case of, for example, the Congo?

I mean, frankly, as a starting point I think we need to back off from the Westphalian nation-state concept for determining the entirety of 'international relations'. That shit worked in Europe because there were 2,000+ years build-up to the creation of the modern nation-state, but the rest of the world never had that context to develop social and cultural institutions simultaneously to help create stability through the nation-state. This is why failure is the norm for nation-states outside of Europe, the people and cultural institutions just can't co-exist with an institution that was designed for Western christian nations and we should be no more shocked at that than we would be at a failure of an absolute monarchy to survive in Wales. Instead I think we need to recognize and respect local cultural and governmental practices and not try to hunt for an analog for the nation-state.

Of course, again, this runs afoul of questions of practicality but frankly I don't fucking care. If it's a question of a seemingly impractical solution that might work versus a continuation of the present system that has given us hundreds of years of unending genocides and mass internal conflict, I'll take working towards the first any day of the week.

[Simon_Jester]

What would this look like in the case of, for example, the Congo?

I mean, frankly, as a starting point I think we need to back off from the Westphalian nation-state concept for determining the entirety of 'international relations'. That shit worked in Europe because there were 2,000+ years build-up to the creation of the modern nation-state, but the rest of the world never had that context to develop social and cultural institutions simultaneously to help create stability through the nation-state. This is why failure is the norm for nation-states outside of Europe, the people and cultural institutions just can't co-exist with an institution that was designed for Western christian nations and we should be no more shocked at that than we would be at a failure of an absolute monarchy to survive in Wales. Instead I think we need to recognize and respect local cultural and governmental practices and not try to hunt for an analog for the nation-state.

OK fine, so what would that look like in the context of the Congo? Much of the region had no government above the village level before Europeans showed up. Do we try to somehow implement that?

If the answer is "I don't care," then it calls into question what we mean when we say "we need to move beyond the nation state." If moving beyond it is so important, we should at least be willing to think and discuss about what that would look like.

[K. A. Pital]

Breaking it down into dozens of microstates or incorporating into a superstate seem both equally plausible depending on where you want to do. The first might make them poor; the second might cause world government/neocolonialism talks. But clearly there are other options than the status quo.

[Straha]

OK fine, so what would that look like in the context of the Congo? Much of the region had no government above the village level before Europeans showed up. Do we try to somehow implement that?

If the answer is "I don't care," then it calls into question what we mean when we say "we need to move beyond the nation state." If moving beyond it is so important, we should at least be willing to think and discuss about what that would look like.

Part of the answer is removal of the props that keep the RoC and the DRC governments floating, and stopping the aid drives that work exclusively through the various state governments. The bigger part of the answer(s) is I don't think it's right that we try to find the solution ourselves. The structural problems in the Congo, in the Middle East, in India and Central Asia, and across the rest of the world are caused in no small part because Westerners stumbled in to those territories and declared they knew best. The response to these problems isn't to do the exact same thing in a different way.

It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss this or think about the variety of solutions that could come about. I very much want to have this discussion. I just don't think it's right for us to be discussing this without representatives of the people/culture/society that we're talking about giving their input and advice about what they want, and I certainly don't think we should cast ourselves as the main agents in this. With regards to the Congo the people of the Congo should be actors and agents, we should be on call if they ever decide they want our help. Put another way, it's not what do we try to implement but what do they try to implement without us.

[DoomSquid]

Argentina never even held the islands prior to the 1982 invasion. Their claim is based on a Spanish imperial claim, on the basis of which they may as well claim rule over every other country in South and Central America save Brazil.

It's not quite that simple.

There's a principle in international law called uti possidetis juris, which states that if a country becomes independent, then it should have the same borders as they had when they were part of another nation. So, for example, if Scotland became independent, its borders would remain the same, rather than Britain holding on to the Isle of Skye or something. The polity that declared independence from Spain was the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, and the Falklands were part of that Viceroyalty for administrative purposes. Therefore, the argument goes, the Spanish claim to the islands would be transferred to the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, which was the precursor to modern Argentina. They actually do have something of an argument with that, up to a point.

That argument falls flat on its face when used to claim sole possession, however, because Spain didn't have sole sovereignty of the islands; they shared sovereignty with Britain, so the most that Argentina should be able to claim under that argument is that they should share possession.

They also argue that Britain abandoned its claim by withdrawing their first colony on the islands, but if that's true, then the Spanish also withdrew their claim, since they removed their colony years before the British. Argentina never actually managed to establish a civilian settlement on the islands, IIRC, so if we go down that route, then they unambiguously belong to Britain because the British were the ones to establish a permanent settlement (as opposed to military outpost/whaling station, which was what the Argentines did).

[Simon_Jester]

OK fine, so what would that look like in the context of the Congo? Much of the region had no government above the village level before Europeans showed up. Do we try to somehow implement that?

If the answer is "I don't care," then it calls into question what we mean when we say "we need to move beyond the nation state." If moving beyond it is so important, we should at least be willing to think and discuss about what that would look like.

Part of the answer is removal of the props that keep the RoC and the DRC governments floating, and stopping the aid drives that work exclusively through the various state governments. The bigger part of the answer(s) is I don't think it's right that we try to find the solution ourselves. The structural problems in the Congo, in the Middle East, in India and Central Asia, and across the rest of the world are caused in no small part because Westerners stumbled in to those territories and declared they knew best. The response to these problems isn't to do the exact same thing in a different way.

Assume my "what do we do?" was a grammatical slip (it was)...

What I'm wondering is what you think a post-nation-state situation in the Congo would look like. Where would the major power blocs be? Would it be adequately secured against warlordism and general anarchy? Would it simply fission into smaller, more sustainable nation-states? What do you project would happen, if the outside world did what you think it should?

[Guardsman Bass]

You'll probably get a repeat of the Second Congo War* from the late 1990s/early 2000s. If or when the DRC government collapses, the stronger states surrounding it will move in and carve off large chunks of its territory for themselves (particularly Rwanda). What's left will end up in under the control of various warlords, like the kind they've had trouble with recently (Laurent Nkunda comes to mind as an example of this).

*This is the war that you see described as the African World War.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss this or think about the variety of solutions that could come about. I very much want to have this discussion. I just don't think it's right for us to be discussing this without representatives of the people/culture/society that we're talking about giving their input and advice about what they want, and I certainly don't think we should cast ourselves as the main agents in this.

It's not like any of us are about to turn around and turn this discussion into policy advice for any governments in Africa, so I don't see the harm.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey guys, since we are all so into self determination for islands and all that, maybe the UK can allow Chagos Islanders the right of self determination as well, namely the choice to return to their homes after the UK ethnically cleanse involuntarily removed them from their home to make way for US military installations. That would show the world British determination to stick to the principles which they hold dear. Oh wait... those principles are only important when its beneficial to you. Gotcha.

[Simon_Jester]

Hey guys, since we are all so into self determination for islands and all that, maybe the UK can allow Chagos Islanders the right of self determination as well, namely the choice to return to their homes after the UK ethnically cleanse involuntarily removed them from their home to make way for US military installations. That would show the world British determination to stick to the principles which they hold dear.

Sure. Go for it. Seriously, the US having Diego Garcia is worse for us in the long run, it makes it too much easier to poke the Middle East without good cause.

Oh wait... those principles are only important when its beneficial to you. Gotcha.

How about you take your strawman, fold it till it's all sharp corners, and stuff it down your own throat?

[mr friendly guy]

Oh wait... those principles are only important when its beneficial to you. Gotcha.

How about you take your strawman, fold it till it's all sharp corners, and stuff it down your own throat?

In case you haven't noticed, two people attacked the point Irbis made earlier about British refusing to grant votes on self determination when its convenient, saying either the examples he gave are false or the people haven't officially asked for such. I was pointing out a more obvious example of Islanders which the British screwed over, and whose ex inhabitants are still fighting for justice in civil courts, and who if they had the right of self determination recognised by the British wouldn't have been run over and shit on by them. Even if those posters don't agree with this British decision, clearly the government of the UK is only engaging in this self determination rhetoric when its convenient as witnessed by the double standards. Either way its an accurate description of some of the people involved, its just a matter of how many. So I am afraid this Strawman description is about as real as Worzel Gummidge.

[Simon_Jester]

I see.

Was I attacking the point Irbis made? If so, where? If not, would you mind being direct about which people you denounce, and saying "Fred you are a hypocrite," instead of just saying "and of course you are a hypocrite?"

I apologize for my tone; I reacted as if I personally had been accused of something. For all I knew, I was- but apparently I wasn't.

[mr friendly guy]

Obviously if you didn't say it, I wasn't attacking you.

Ok I was referring to a) British talking about self determination yet seem to ignore it when its convenient. Irbis gave some questionable examples, but I think I came up with a better one.
b) UnderAGreySky and Lolpah. Clearly it was fair for them to question the examples given, but I think the Chagos Islanders is a more appropriate example, with the population closer to the Falklands (around one half) and also an island disputed with another country, in this case Mauritius.