Self-determination in the Modern World

It never seems to end. There is fighting in the Ukraine. Israel continues its ethnic cleansing campaign. Having separated from Sudan, now the peoples of South Sudan are fighting among themselves. Iraq, Somalia, Thailand ... the list seems almost endless.

On the other hand, a lot of people with different ethnic heritages, religions, and customs get along just fine, almost all the time. America has its famous melting pot, if you are willing to overlook the earlier genocide against Native American Indians and discrimination against non-Europeans (and Irish, Jews, Italians ...). Partly that is because we have created a new nationalist identity, itself dangerous to other nations of the world. America has a high-proportion of modern people, who see religion as mythology and ethnic identities as old-fashioned. In a way "modern" people are globalists. A modern person can find people with similar outlooks almost anywhere in the world.

Individuals often hold modern and old-fashioned contradictions within themselves. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States from 1913 until 1921, was a racist, in fact one of the key intellectual architects of 20th century racial segregation. Perhaps because of his racism, rather than in spite of it, he proposed to the peace conference after World War I that people should have the right to "self-determination." National borders would be drawn by the people themselves, so that an ethnic group might choose to have its own nation, or to combine freely with other ethnic groups into a larger nation.

When Wilson and the American delegation got to Versailles they found there were a lot of people interested in self-determination. People in the British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, and former Ottoman empires, for instance. Ho Chi Minh was there (think of all the trouble that could have been prevented had the conference granted Vietnam independence from France.) But none of the empires had any interest in granting freedom to their conquests, and Japan, France and the British Empire actually grabbed more territory. Being on the winning side trumped universal ideas of justice. Nor did it ever occur to Wilson to free Puerto Rico or the Philippines.

The Japanese asked that all Asian peoples be granted self-determination and freedom from (European) colonial domination. They also asked for a general provision against racism, which Woodrow Wilson personally nixed. The only new nations to emerge were carved out of the losers, Germany, Turkey, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Many of today's problems trace directly to the triumph of power and racism over justice at Versailles. Iraq, rather than being part of a larger pan-Arab nation, or being divided into Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni majority smaller nations, was created for British oil extraction. Palestine was divided off from Syria (which was given to the French) so that Britain could keep its promise to the Jews for their help in World War I. The nation now known as Jordan was given as a consolation prize to a pal of Lawrence of Arabia.

We cannot redraw the past, but modern people might well try to not repeat its obvious mistakes. I understand when ethnic groups and other minorities are, or feel they are, oppressed. That pushes them towards a desire for autonomy and independence. But nationalism, ethnic identification and racism are closely related. I think people do better when they trascend all that.

Adjusting borders in Africa, South America, and Asia that were drawn by European imperial powers makes some sense. This would have to be done on the principle of self-determination: let people draw their own lines. But many issues have no geographic solutions. Some minority groups have no majority areas. Many areas have complex mixtures of groups.

The better answer is to encourage the trend to a modern, friendly mindset based on the following principles:

Legal and economic justice for all.
Freedom of religion and expression.
Classic good governance: no corruption or favoritism of any kind.
Emphasizing our common humanity, not our cultural or physical differences.
Universal education in the generally accepted principles of ethics.

Human nature being what it is, setting things right will be a long, slow process. There have been several historical attempts to globalize an ethical system, usually a religion. I believe Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam all attempted to be universal religions, with a universal system of ethics for all people. Each failed, or at least has failed so far. Marxism (or more broadly, socialism including anarchism) also sought to be a universal cure for humanity. I think it is worth looking at each of the histories of these movements to see what they achieved and why they failed.

I believe the key is being universal, but not authoritarian. Universal tolerance and diversity can work as long as we share (and act on) core ethical values. Modern people do this. Modern people can treat anyone as an individual. Modern people do not oppress others. Modern people communicate and educate. Modern people show mercy. Modern people resort to self-defense only as a last resort, and never act as or facilitate aggressors.

There just are not enough of us, yet. But we can be found just about everywhere and anywhere. We just need to keep making more friends, and avoid corruption.

If It Is Not a Crusade, What Is It?

We are told that the United States government is engaged in a War on Terror. We are told specifically that it is not a Christian Crusade against Islam. Does what the government tells us match up to reality?

Take a look at U.S. policy in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Ethiopia has a Christian government but the country has substantial number of Moslems. Sudan has a Moslem government but the nation includes regions that are mostly Christian or at least not-Islamic. The U.S. government criticizes the Sudan government for its war against Christians in southern Sudan and in Darfur. But there is no criticism of the Ethiopian government for its attacks on its Moslem tribes. In fact the U.S. considers Ethiopia a key ally and gives economic and military aid.

You could argue that the governments of Sudan and Ethiopia have no choice but to fight rebel groups. Doubtless fighting spills over to attacks on tribes that support or sympathize with the rebels. Or you could argue that both governments should be condemned until they treat all of their citizens better. But to praise Ethiopia while attacking Sudan is practicing a double standard, one that is pro-Christian and anti-Islamic.

I have written a a fair amount about U.S. and Ethiopian war crimes against Somalia (See my Somalia page). The U.S. has set up a puppet government of former Somali war-lords. Since the Ethiopian army helped defeat the Islamic Justice Courts, this puppet government has terrorized the population of Ethiopia, encouraged a return to local gangsterism, and made no progress towards holding elections. If it holds elections and honors them it likely will be immediately cast out of power. But if the Justice Court supporters win the U.S. will stage another coup or invasion.

You don't actually have to be a Christian to be a U.S. puppet. The "provisional government" of Somalia is not Christian. Neither is the PLO. Neither is the government of Afghanistan. But you do have to support U.S. policy aims. What are those aims? That the U.S. get its way everywhere in the world, all the time, no matter what other people may want.

George W. Bush's Crusade Against Islam has hardened many Moslems against a more enlightened view of the world. This is a reflection of the reaction against enlightenment we have seen in the United States, with Christians in denial of basic realities like the Evolution of Species through Natural Selection while crusading against perceived evils like homosexuality and abortion. The problems of the modern world cannot be solved by religious zealots toting around cultural baggage from small desert tribes fighting over scraps of land near the Dead Sea.

Islam and Christianity both have components that can serve as a bridge to more reality-based systems of knowledge and ethics. Moderate, tolerant, inquisitive strains of Christianity and Islam, however, are losing out to fanaticism in many nations.

The American people have to stop the Crusade if we want to live in peace. We need justice applied equally to all people on a global scale. A century ago what bond traders did in New York City or London could kill people in Afghanistan or Sudan. The world has shrunk; we have seen that an angry person Kandahar can kill bond traders in New York City. What goes around comes around. George W. Bush has simply thrown a bunch of fuel into the fire.

More data:

Sudan
Ethiopia
Somalia