_01.jpg)
You might have noticed a slight bias in my less-then-daily musings towards Northern Ireland; yes, this semi-detached region of the United Kingdom is a personal interest of mine. But Northern Ireland - not to mention the island as a whole - provides a fertile ground for modern day myth making and jingoism from both sides of the extant political dichotomy that is Republicanism and Loyalism. The result? A heady tangle of hypocrisy and double standards that The Daily Rant finds hard to resist.
Now I've just booked my Summer holidays. Sardinia and Corsica, in case you're wondering. Should be fun.
It turns out I'm not the only one with an interest in these islands. Corsica, in particular, is home to a small if committed nationalist movement that encompasses a broad swathe of demands ranging from increased autonomy from France - of which the island is an integral part - to complete secession from La République française altogether. And predictably, elements of the Irish Republican bandwagon are keen to show their support. No prizes for guessing which end of the Corsican nationalist spectrum they occupy...
Prominent among these groups is Ógra Shinn Féin, Sinn Féin's youth wing. Only last month Ógra delegates attended the Scontri Internaziunali, a nationalist conference dedicated to the 'national self-determination of small nations' organised by Corsican nationalist outfit Ghjuventú Indipendentista.
This seems strange to me for two reasons. First, it is Ógra's avowed goal to deny this very 'national self-determination' to a small nation, namely Northern Ireland. Ógra - and its Republican comrades - wish to subsume Northern Ireland under an Irish Republican administration against the democratically expressed wishes of the North's population whilst at the same time demanding that integral regions of other nation states should be allowed to secede. The stench of hypocrisy is almost overpowering.
Second, Corsican nationalists do not poll a majority of votes within the island of Corsica; indeed, only five years ago proposals for decentralisation which would have united Corsica's two départements into one administrative unit were rejected, and opinion polls regularly put the degree of support for full independence at around 10%. If Ógra truly supported Corsican self-determination then it would and should recognise the island's democratically expressed wish to remain a part of France.
Happy St Patrick's day.
6 comments:
As Irish Republicans we in Ógra Shinn Féin recognise the right of the Irish people as a whole to decide it's future. The overwhelming majority of Irish people voted for independence. Of course, the British then undermined democracy and created the gerrymandered state that they call "Northern Ireland". The Northern Irish state was intentionally created to ensure a British foothold in Ireland and were it to be created today it would be in complete violation of UN guidelines in relation to the territorial integrity of colonized nations.
Corsican nationalist parties hold a large proportion of the vote (over 40%) but not the majority. Much of the reason for this stems from the French government offering incentives to it's citizens to move to southern Corsican towns like Ajaccio. You will notice that nationalists retain power in the northern department were very few French people settle. Corsica has the right to national self determination. The French are continuing in their efforts to undermine the Corsican nation.
Marcas,
"The overwhelming majority of Irish people voted for independence"
Yes, but that does not take into account the very large and geographically concentrated minority of people who did not wish to secede from the United Kingdom. Why no mention that a majority of Northern Ireland's population have expressed, via the democratic process, their wish for the maintenance of union with Great Britain and have done so for the entirety of the North's 85 odd years of existence?
"The Northern Irish state was intentionally created to ensure a British foothold in Ireland"
If only. The pressures for the creation of Northern Ireland - other then the overwhelming desire for Southern Irish secession - emanated almost solely from within the North. Witness the signing of the Ulster Covenant, Carson's formation of the UVF and the Larne gunrunning incident, to name but a few. The British authorities would have far rather preferred for the continued union of Great Britain with the island of Ireland in its entirety.
"were it to be created today it would be in complete violation of UN guidelines"
In what way? Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom at the time of the 1918 election. A referendum on Irish independence should have therefore been put to the population of the country - the United Kingdom - as a whole. I don't remember that ever happening. And remember, an all-island Ireland was not an independent nation at that time so there was no reason for the island to be considered an homogeneous and indivisible political entity. A bit like Great Britain, in fact.
And besides - so what? Many modern day nation states were not founded in democratic ways. Witness the United States, for example; a nation founded by immigrants and their descendants at the expense of the indigenous population. Are you seriously demanding that the US should be abolished and the democratic right of self-determination be applied only to those who can prove 'native' ancestry?
That's my point - what should matter is the democratic wishes of people living in Northern Ireland here and now. That a majority do not wish to be a part of the Republic of Ireland should count for something.
And that's also the problem with Ógra's hypocritical support of Corsican nationalists. Even if such nationalists did constitute a majority within Corsica - which they don't - you're still supporting secession of that island from France whilst denying Northern Ireland's right to do the very same from the Irish Republic. I'd like you to explain the discrepancy.
So in that case should the geographically large concentrate of Corsican nationalists in the islands northern region be given the right to secede from France? By your logic estates in England such as Kilburn should have the right to secede from Britain because there are majority Irish populations there.
In terms of illegality, Ireland was essentially a British colony, it's geographical proximity to Britain meant it was "easier" to control. Under resolution 6 of the UN guidelines in relation to decolonisation the territorial integrity of a state cannot be undermined.
As for the difference, Ireland has historically been a single nation with it's own indigenous people, similar to Corsica. They both also have their own unique cultures and traditions. The northern Irish state was artificially created to appease a colonist population which was planted there illegally by Britain. Corsican nationalism is being undermined by the French government who encourage French people to move to Ajaccio and other southern towns to ensure a Pro-French majority.
"So in that case should the geographically large concentrate of Corsican nationalists in the islands northern region be given the right to secede from France?"
Quite possibly, if such a state had the democratically expressed support of a majority of the population and was economically viable. Northern Ireland, need I point out, fulfills both these criteria. Such is the nature of self-determination.
"Under resolution 6 of the UN guidelines in relation to decolonisation the territorial integrity of a state cannot be undermined."
So you're arguing that former colonised nations do not need to take into account the democratically expressed desires of self-determination of the population within its borders?
My objections to this are two-fold, other then a recognition of the obvious moral ambiguity of such a position; first, that there was no automatic reason why Ireland should have been considered an homogeneous political unit at the time of independence; indeed, given the pronounced cultural dichotomy within the island such a stance would have ludicrous. Second, the Republic has enjoyed some 85 years of independence and with a powerful developed economy typical of a first world nation it can hardly be considered 'post-colonial' akin to, say, modern African states. It's crass to lump Ireland into the same category as Chad or Senegal or Mauretania. And, need I repeat, in that time a majority of Northern Ireland's population have wished for continued union with Great Britain and have expressed this desire via the democratic process. Since the Republic can no longer be considered 'post-colonial' this argument for denying Northern Ireland's right to self-determination is no longer valid, if indeed it ever was.
"The northern Irish state was artificially created to appease a colonist population which was planted there illegally by Britain."
So let me get this straight; you're arguing that people who are descended from immigrants should be denied the democratic right of self-determination, even - as is the case with Northern Ireland - such migration occurred almost half a millennium ago.
Now - as if I need say it - aside from the ethical questionability of such a totalitarian policy it throws up a myriad of problems. For a start, how would you tell who was descended from immigrants and who wasn't? From their religion? Some sort of genetic testing? What of those of mixed descent? Or would you just simply discount all those votes at election time which did not support Republican candidates?
And what of those states whose majority of inhabitants fit such a description? Your policy would deny basic democratic rights to, for example, 98% of the population of the United States and the abolition of that country as a political expression. Ditto for virtually every country in the New World and much of the Old besides. At what point does a population become, in your view, 'native' and thus accorded these democratic rights?
I hate to say it but not only do I consider such a policy to be unworkable, I believe it racist and utterly contemptable.
What you really need to ask yourself is this; why do you want Northern Ireland to become a part of another sovereign state against the democratically expressed wishes of the electorate, and how will arguing that they have no right to a say on their constitutional status encourage them to think that their future lies with the Republic?
Oh, and one last thing; when is a nation state never 'artificial', what with them being socio-political constructs and all...?
I notice you have failed to answer my question in relation to estates in England where immigrants are in the majority.
You Said:"if such a state had the democratically expressed support of a majority of the population and was economically viable. Northern Ireland, need I point out, fulfills both these criteria. Such is the nature of self-determination."
"Northern Ireland" does not fit either of these criteria, it was created against the wishes of the majority of Irish people and it is not economically viable and only survives based on the continued support of the British state. You are saying that independence for Northern Corsica and union between the north of Ireland and Britain are similar situations. They are not.
You Said: "So you're arguing that former colonised nations do not need to take into account the democratically expressed desires of self-determination of the population within its borders?"
No I am arguing the opposite. I point out that the colonised and occupied state of Ireland decided as a single unit for national self determination. This was denied by Britain who disregarded the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Ireland.
The "Colonist population" in Ireland are the descendants of those people who were planted here by the British in order to steal Irish land. Again I would not discount any votes. I would instead allow all the people to vote as a single unit across all of Ireland rather than in to prohibitionist assembly's which were intentionally designed in order to deny the Irish people the right to national self determination ie: Divide and Conquer.
As for the USA. What happened in America was a disgrace, it's no surprise that the responsibility for the massacre and genocide of the Native Americans in north America lies with the European powers with Britain playing a leading role.
You have proved how little you understand about the situation if you believe the aims of Republicanism is to make the Six Counties become "part" of the Free State. The aims of Irish Republicanism are to create a new 32 county democratic socialist republic based on the ideals set out in the 1916 Proclamation. The re-unifiction of Ireland is supported by the overwhelming majority of Irish people. A fact which you cannot deny. And as it turns out, a majority of the British population as well.
"I notice you have failed to answer my question in relation to estates in England where immigrants are in the majority."
You notice wrong my friend. As I indicated earlier, and am now forced to repeat, if such estates can prove themselves economically viable and have the democratically expressed support of the populace for independence from England then by all means they should be granted autonomy. Whether such micro-states would be economically viable is, however, a matter for debate. I have serious doubts that they would be.
And before you mention it, perhaps we should add another caveat to the principle of self-determination - that of a history of settlement. How long that history is, of course, open to debate but I would argue that 400 hundred years is more than enough, as do all people who support the existence of migrant-founded states such as the USA. Have these estates you mention existed as long as the Protestant/Unionist presence in Northern Ireland?
"Northern Ireland does not fit either of these criteria, it was created against the wishes of the majority of Irish people and it is not economically viable and only survives based on the continued support of the British state."
Ah, but you forget - it WAS created in accordance of the wishes of the majority of people within that area, and has done ever since. Let me ask you this: would you have supported a UK wide vote on Irish independence at the time of partition given that Ireland was, of course, an integral part of that country at the time? If you see no problem with the partition of the United Kingdom then why not that of Ireland also?
And what are your views on the recent independence of Kosovo?
Further, Northern Ireland is not an independent state but an integral part of the United Kingdom, as per the wishes of the majority of the Northern Ireland electorate. That it has existed as such for over 85 years demonstrates that it is economically viable; if not then it simply wouldn't exist. It might not have done as an independent entity but since it is not it's economically viability as such is a purely academic question.
"I point out that the colonised and occupied state of Ireland decided as a single unit for national self determination. This was denied by Britain who disregarded the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Ireland."
But what if what was to become Northern Ireland seceded from an Irish state once the whole island had seceded from Britain first? Oh, hang on a sec - isn't that effectively what happened with the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921? In that it allowed Northern Ireland to opt out of the Free State once the treaty had been passed?
Besides, you haven't actually said why the island of Ireland should have been treated as one homogeneous and indivisible unit. Why? On what basis do you consider the island of Ireland at the time of partition as one indivisable state? And how could it be considered as such when, as an integral part of another country, it was anything but? Why should the will of a majority within what was in effect an arbitrary geographic area completely overule the wishes of a geographically distinct minority?
And another thing: why this continued insistence that Northern Ireland was created at Britain's behest when the factors for the North's creation emanated from within the region itself? Is it some sort of denial? Are you simply being disingenuous? Or is it something altogether more sinister?
"I would instead allow all the people to vote as a single unit across all of Ireland rather than in to prohibitionist"
But why should the vote of one independent state decide the constitutional status of an integral region of another when that region has expressed, via the democratic process, for the retention of the status quo?
And here's a hypothetical question for you, to see whether you actually mean it; if this 'colonist population' in Ireland had actually constituted a majority across the island at the time of partition would you have supported Ireland's continued union with Great Britain in its entirety?
And in a similar vein, would you allow a French-wide vote on Corsican independence?
"What happened in America was a disgrace, it's no surprise that the responsibility for the massacre and genocide of the Native Americans in north America lies with the European powers with Britain playing a leading role."
Christ, you make it sound that Britain should be held responsible for all the discriminatory actions - the Indian Removal Act, the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Little Big Horn etc etc ad nauseam - made by the independent US government in the last 230 years or so. You're not, are you? Or is it that anti-British sentiment that I'm starting to suspect you have peeking through again?
And I couldn't help but notice that you've completely dodged the original question: should all the inhabitants of the United States descended from immigrants - around 98% - be disenfranchised and self-determination only granted to those who could prove 'native' ancestry?
"You have proved how little you understand about the situation if you believe the aims of Republicanism is to make the Six Counties become "part" of the Free State."
Luckily, I don't - you just wish I did. I fully understand the aims of Irish Republicanism. And I'll support Irish unification if and when a majority of people in the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom agree to it. In other words, the democratic consent of all parties involved. That you do not wish it displays your utter contempt for the democratic process. That you attempt to further your political aims by arguing that Northern Ireland has no right to exist, rather then by trying to convince the Northern electorate that their future lies with the Republic and thus securing democratic consent, is an able demonstration of this contempt.
"The re-unifiction (sic) of Ireland is supported by the overwhelming majority of Irish people. A fact which you cannot deny."
...but since the majority of those people do not live within Northern Ireland this is rather irrelevant. Why should the population of an independent state decide the constitutional status of an integral region of another? What precedents are there for this?
"And as it turns out, a majority of the British population as well."
Really? I must have missed that referendum because no-one has ever officially polled my opinion. Perhaps you could tell me which major British political parties have explicitly stated in their manifestos that they support the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic so that I might accurately gauge the overwhelming public support you allude to.
And finally; you stated previously that Northern Ireland is an 'artificial' state. I ask you again - which states are, as you seem to suggest, naturally occurring and which are man-made? How does one tell the difference?
Post a Comment