Summary: Working Group on Right of Peoples to Self-determination

Which factors influence the implementation of the right to self-determination?

Previous sessions of the Working Group on Right of Peoples to Self-Determination provided an introduction to international law, a plan for change from indigenous peoples, and explored a number of case studies. Today on the third day, participants began to address the question of, pragmatically, how can existing mechanisms be actually applied? Further case studies were provided evidence that the issue of self-determination affected every corner of the globe and that—whatever their theoretical potential—many current UN documents have so far failed many peoples.

In direct opposition to nearly every speaker of the first two days, Mr. Van Walt of the International Peace Council for States, Peoples, Minorities ( KREDDHA) denied that UN conventions and international law were in any way unclear about the right of peoples to self-determination. Mr. Van Walt’s positive, concise exposition of the United Nations process for self-determination claims—coupled with the fact that he actually worked daily with the process—was a useful break in the line of speakers detailing failures of the system and calling for action.

UN process for self-determination 101
Mr. Van Walt agreed that any problems usually arose over the definition of the term ‘peoples ’ but believed that in "eighty to ninety percent" of cases to whom the term referred was entirely clear. The fact that ten percent or more cases were not so clear cut—usually because of mixed languages or ethnicity in the group making the claim—did not, he said, make the UN covenant any less vague: "The right of self-determination is a right to process but not of outcome". This was the first expression of this fundamental principal by a speaker.

Mr. Van Walt underscored that, "there is no single determining factor" in the outcome of this process: The legality of the claim and the legitimacy of the party leading the group making the claim are initial influential factors. Not every claim is viable, and the extent to which acceptance of the claim would promote or disrupt stability in the region must be examined. On the other hand— in support of the claimant—alleged abuses by the governing state are thoroughly investigated.

In practice, the leadership of the group making the claim must to be scrutinised in order to determine whether or not they do indeed represent the united views of the group and have a developed strategy. Too many times, he said, the fact that groups making the claim often lack any viable strategy results in a negative outcome.

If the claim does have such support, whether or not it is granted is normally an economic question. According to Mr. Van Walt, an "enlightened government" might accept the claim, said but a "bankrupt government" could often be ‘forced’ to act.

Strategic factors are of great importance, and this makes the claim of a state such as Chechnya very complex—though, as Mr. Van Walt stressed, not necessarily impossible. Other complex factors arise when the homogeneity of the region is severely comprised, as in Tibet and Eastern China, where the Chinese population now outnumbers the indigenous population. However, this does not always result in a negative response. The Baltic states had many ethnic Russians residing in them when they made their claim for secession from the Soviet Union. In fact, it was because these ethnic Russians actually supported the claims that aided the claim.

The turning point in a group’s claim is more easily reached when the civil society of the state against whom the claim is directed begins to support the group making the claim. This occurred in the Russian population, when the Baltic states left the Soviet Union; it is also the case in East Timor.

Surprising issues
Given Mr. Van Walt’s concise outliine of the factors influencing the UN process’ outcome, the example presented by Mr. Belkacom of Congrès Mondial Amazigh in the second speech of the session, once again demonstrated that, in all rights of self-determination issues, the majority of the power seems to lie with the state. 

Mr. Belkacom detailed the plight of his people, the Berbers.

Thirty million people speak the Berber language and Berbers are dispersed over a wide area of Africa: the Canary Islands, Morocco, Niger, Mali... Mr. Belkacom represented the Berbers of Algeria, where they comprise 25% of the Algerian population. For over a year the region of Kabylia in which the Berbers live has been in open violent revolt against the Algerian State following four decades of Algerian oppression since the French colonial rule ended in 1962.

The people of Kabylia do not demand secession from Algeria but because the pan-Arab policy and Algerian proclamation of one language [Arab] and one religion [Muslim] the Berbers are not recognised or represented in any way by the Algerian regime. The Algerians have also actively marginalised Kabylia economically and culturally. The Berber claim for an autonomous region of Kabylia is not founded on economic considerations because Mr. Belkacom said that Kabylia is in total poverty rather it is founded on ideological necessity.

The Berbers of North Africa were divided by French colonial boundaries that were in no way representative of the distribution of peoples in North Africa. The Berbers of Kabylia were split in two by the borders of Morocco and Algeria. Berbers living in Algeria have no right to cross the border into Morocco where their kinsman reside.

Algeria remains uninterested in granting any rights to the Berber people. According to Mr. Belkacom the primary reason is that Algeria is ruled by the owners of the Algerian oil fields and they fear that an autonomous region of Algeria would lessen their totalitarian power. Mr. Belkacom said that the Algerian refusal was a refusal of democracy from a state that ‘supports auto-determinism everywhere except in its own country’.

Interesting questions
Mr. Belkacom presented a strong case for an autonomous Berber region in Algeria. However, one African gentleman immediately highlighted the immense complexity of any claim for greater self-determination by voicing strenuous objections to such a region claiming that all vestiges of African unity would be destroyed. Berbers all over Africa would demand autonomous regions he said. The gentleman stated that, since African nations had agreed not to alter colonial boundaries at the time of decolonisation then the agreement must be adhered to in order to avoid complete disjunction of Africa.

This objection was addressed by Mr. Van Walt who questioned whether it was right to hold to an agreement that had been implemented to avoid war, if in actual fact, maintenance of that agreement resulted in war. 

Conclusions
The chief outcome of this session was that it begun to explore the depths of complexity that every single claim for greater self-determination incorporated. Up until this session, the impression was that it was a crime of the UN and a complete breakdown of international law that so many claims had not yet had positive outcomes. This session clearly demonstrated that no claim could ever be as straightforward as to be fully considered in a couple of hours debate.

Importantly, this session had begun to touch on the issue of the power of a state to impede international law and this would be a recurring theme in the remainder of the day’s session.

See also: The Right to Self-Determination: discussion goes on...

Click here for all available presenters' documents
Click here for all available summaries

Please read about the summaries