The right of self-determination is presented as one of the highest goals of Western ideology. It was the main argument against the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union after World War II, and it was the reason to support most of the breakaway movements from the Russia after the moment of fall of the Soviet Union. The independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, of the Ukraine and Georgia, of many of the lesser known Asian republics, all were hailed as triumphs of self-determination.
Self-determination, however, has a very different standing when applied to other regions of the world. During the fifties and sixties of the twentieth century, attempts at self-determination were suppressed bloodily all over Africa and Asia. Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Congo, and numerous other countries were peoples tried to gain their independence from more or less colonial rule by Western countries, came into the hands of military rulers and dictators supported by the West; names like Diem, Suharto, Mobutu, Marcos, and similar butchers come to the mind. In most cases they were supported by the CIA in their rise to power.
In more recent times, it also was an openly held policy not to give ethnic minorities in African countries the right of self-determination. This is the more remarkable, because most of the borders of African countries were determined by Western rule, and in no way reflected African reality. The fact that the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s in Rwanda and Burundi hate each other for as long modern politics can remember has never been an argument to give each its self-determination, that is: to separate the two peoples in two new countries replacing Rwanda and Burundi. The reason for this policy has also been given: such a move would create a precedent that would create unrest all over the world.
One can already see the pattern of inconsistency in these positions, an inconsistency that plays over quit a long time. One might argue that this is partly caused by this longer time: policies may change over time. So now a few examples more close in time are given.
In 1980 the long time leader of Yugoslavia, general Tito, died. Yugoslavia came into being after World War II, and consisted of several peoples, mainly Croat and Serbs, but also Slovenians, Montenegrins, Albanians, and other Muslims. The Croats were the first to make known their desire to break away from Yugoslavia, which they considered to be dominated by the Serbs, though Tito had been a Croat. Quit soon the catholic Croat, and in their wake Slovenia that lies even closer to Western Europe, got support for their self-determination. In this process, two hundred thousand Serbians, that have the Orthodox faith, living in the area of the Krajina and forming a majority there, were driven out of Croatia. There were no protests from the Western world.
The Serbs were highly agitated by this, and as a result the nationalist Milosevic rose to power. When during the reign of Milosevic the Albanians in Kosovo also started a movement of independence, Milosevic opposed this, initially by revoking the independent status of Kosovo. Kosovo had always been a part of Serbia, but over times the Albanians had come into the majority, now eighty percent of the population. After much ado, the West supported the Albanians in a war against the Serbs, and Kosovo came into Albanian hands, though formally still ruled by international institutions. However, there also still was a considerable Serb minority in Kosovo, mainly concentrated in the region bordering Serbia. These Serbs also ask for self-determination, however this was refused. The attacks by Albanians on the Serbs and the gypsies, a people also hated by the Albanians, have forced them to flee the country.
More in this case, resulting in a flagrant violation of international law, here
.The most recent case of self-determination in the news was during the unrest in Georgia in November and December 2003. This unrest led to the fall of president Shevardnadze, in favour of movements that seek a closer relationship with the West. After the fall of Shevardnadze, a short period of instability followed in which the United Sates intervened verbally, via statements given by the foreign secretary Colin Powell. In this statement, it was made clear that the Abkhazians and Ossetians, living in region of Georgia bordering Russia, had no right to self-determination, in their wish to split from Georgia, and come under the protection of Russia. This in contrast of the case of the Georgians wishing to split from Russia.
So now the pattern should be clear. The right to self-determination is allowed to all peoples that want to split from Russia, or any other state that is considered to be an enemy, but not to peoples that want to split from states that we consider to be friends. So the right to self-determination is in practice not a principle, but a tool with which to strike verbally and morally at enemies of the Western powers, notable the United States. This abuse of moral principles, which also applies to many other of our moral ideals like freedom, democracy, human rights etcetera, is one of the gravest long term dangers to civilization, since it gives tools in the hands of enemies of morality to strike back. In fact, one can say that the abusers of the principles of morality, that is almost all politicians from the United States, are among those enemies of morality, and are the greatest danger to the civilized world.
Naar Infamous lies 
,
Politiek lijst
, Politiek & Media overzicht
, of site home
.
On this site the colored arrows are links; for more examples of political
desinformation, click here
.