Catalan Independence

[kurczak]

This guy gets it too. If the country provides political representation and the full list of commonly recognized human rights, then there is really no case for unilateral independence. If the country also provides institutionalized autonomy/home rule/whatever you call it, then there is definitely no case.

Very weak argument. If Germany invades the Czech Republic all over again and provides it with autonomy, seats in the Bundestag and human rights, should Czechs have no case for independence? Would they have no case for holding an independence referendum?

Stop, stop. I can only get so aroused.

Anyway, quieta non movere. Germany would be violating the (peaceful, democratic, liberal etc) status quo for no reason. Catalonia however, has been part of the greater Castillian-Spanish polity since the 15th century, when the Castillians acquired it TWICE fair and square through inheritance. But even if it was conquest, there's got to be some statue of limitations on this and if it's not 500 years, what is?

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

This guy gets it too. If the country provides political representation and the full list of commonly recognized human rights, then there is really no case for unilateral independence. If the country also provides institutionalized autonomy/home rule/whatever you call it, then there is definitely no case.

Very weak argument. If Germany invades the Czech Republic all over again and provides it with autonomy, seats in the Bundestag and human rights, should Czechs have no case for independence? Would they have no case for holding an independence referendum?

This is itself rather a weak argument, and not really a good comparison. It's more akin to "Bavaria already has (too much, btw) representation in the Bundestag, but does Bavaria have a case for independance?" (Note: More akin to. Not equal to.) Nobody was invaded (well, not in the last several centuries, depending on how you want to define it, at worst).

 

[Catholic]

@Duh: I apologize if I appear to be avoiding your points, and feel free to call me out on dodging. I dislike quote wars, so I like to condense my thoughts into larger paragraphs that are easier to parse through and understand.

I understand there's a language barrier, but 'peoples' almost always refers to an ethnic group or a nation in English. If you wanted to refer to just a plural number of persons, one would use 'people.' I very much believe the United Nations is using the ethnic group/nation definition.

The cases are not unrelated. Catalonia is not equivalent to the British Raj, nor is it Poland under the Germans. But the principle of self-determination states that peoples have a right to determine their own political status. Quoting from this statement,

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

That particular statement is in context with decolonization, but that particular quote has no qualifying 'ifs' and applies to this situation as well.

With regard to your final point, I believe I already answered it. You are conflating self-determination with a unilateral right to secession, something I am not arguing for. Again, neither Scotland nor Quebec have the right to unilaterally secede - they both must pass referenda and negotiate with their host state before independence may be granted. But both of these countries have a pathway to determine their own political status, even if it is not necessarily simple and straightforward, while Catalonia has no avenue whatsoever.

@Kurczak:

I'm not really sure if there is a significant difference if the invasion was recent or not. If Bavarians decided all of a sudden that they all desperately wanted independence, and wanted to organize a referendum to be sure, why should they be barred from having one?

 

[Almalexia]

Anyway, quieta non movere. Germany would be violating the (peaceful, democratic, liberal etc) status quo for no reason. Catalonia however, has been part of the greater Castillian-Spanish polity since the 15th century, when the Castillians acquired it TWICE fair and square through inheritance. But even if it was conquest, there's got to be some statue of limitations on this and if it's not 500 years, what is?

I believe they technically achieved some level of independence as recently as the 1930s during the Spanish Civil War, but that went pear-shaped once Franco got the upper hand, and then subsequently cracked down on their autonomy, culture, and language until about the 1970s. For the record.

 

[kurczak]

Creation and destruction of a sovereign country/state is a meta-legal event. Law (= set of enforceable rules) derives from the sovereign, so there can really be no law regarding who or what is sovereign. Becoming and ceasing to be a sovereign is an act of power, not law.

Sure, there can be some facade posing as law. Like when the Entente willing into existence Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but that too was ultimately an act of power of the victorious side. The countries were sovereign because the Entente allowed them to be sovereign, just like the colonies in the 50s and 60s became sovereign because the previous sovereign either allowed them (whether out of idealism or pragmatic evaluation of costs and benefits) or because they won a war. The exact same thing happened in Kosovo. It didn't become a country because the Kosovar had some objective right to a country. It became a country, because NATO, as an act of power, bullied Serbia into allowing it.

The alleged right to self-determination is not a right. It is not and cannot be consistently enforced. When and if there will be some actual global rule that will be consistently enforced by some entity, then it will mean we'll no longer be living in a world of sovereign countries. Some would like it, some wouldn't, but at any rate, that's not the world live in now.

You and I can only talk about what we would like to happen ideally according to our personal preferences. So, personally, I don't see any need for independence of a territory that has been part of a sovereign entity for literally hundreds of years and that suffers no civil, ethnic or religious oppression. The Catalans are free to express their cultural and linguistic peculiarities in any way they want while remaining part of Spain. Medieval scrolls and slightly different mutilation of Latin doesn't do it for me.

Just out of curiosity - who else has or had the right to secede in your book? Can the Sorbs secede from Germany? Was the Confederacy fully withing their rights?

Anyway, quieta non movere. Germany would be violating the (peaceful, democratic, liberal etc) status quo for no reason. Catalonia however, has been part of the greater Castillian-Spanish polity since the 15th century, when the Castillians acquired it TWICE fair and square through inheritance. But even if it was conquest, there's got to be some statue of limitations on this and if it's not 500 years, what is?

I believe they technically achieved some level of independence as recently as the 1930s during the Spanish Civil War, but that went pear-shaped once Franco got the upper hand, and then subsequently cracked down on their autonomy, culture, and language until about the 1970s. For the record.

That was for 2-3 years during a civil war in which Catalan nationalism was a very minor, if any, factor. I'm not defending Franco's language policies, but that's been over for 40 years. Time to get over it.

 

[Flin Flon]

I understand there's a language barrier, but 'peoples' almost always refers to an ethnic group or a nation in English. If you wanted to refer to just a plural number of persons, one would use 'people.' I very much believe the United Nations is using the ethnic group/nation definition.
The cases are not unrelated. Catalonia is not equivalent to the British Raj, nor is it Poland under the Germans. But the principle of self-determination states that peoples have a right to determine their own political status. Quoting from this statement,

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

That particular statement is in context with decolonization, but that particular quote has no qualifying 'ifs' and applies to this situation as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law

Spain is a dualist state. International law would fall way down the hierarchy of sources. And even then most states adhere to the constitutive theory of independence. They believe in the State as the central actor in the determination of independence, as (public) international law is dominated by States.

Edit: Don't listen to Kurczak, she's a sceptic. International law, especially with regards to independence is incredibly politicized, true. But I appreciate the legal argument, and I think the legality of it all is what should be caught first and foremost.

 

[Duh]

@Duh: I apologize if I appear to be avoiding your points, and feel free to call me out on dodging. I dislike quote wars, so I like to condense my thoughts into larger paragraphs that are easier to parse through and understand.

No worries, I just didn't quite understand why you ignored the legal summary.

I understand there's a language barrier, but 'peoples' almost always refers to an ethnic group or a nation in English. If you wanted to refer to just a plural number of persons, one would use 'people.' I very much believe the United Nations is using the ethnic group/nation definition.

I will happily admit that peoples isn't referring to my buddies 

The fundemantel argument that I was trying to get across with that, however, remains. Monty phrased it a bit more clearly with the various "peoples" he listed. Simply allowing any "people" to seceed (in the manner advocated here) is a slippery slope. And the states making up the UN have no interest in any such mechanism. Which is precisely why there is no accurate definition for peoples. That ambiguity allows states to act when they feel it is in their interest and only then. (Similar thing with the UN genocide definition.)

The cases are not unrelated. Catalonia is not equivalent to the British Raj, nor is it Poland under the Germans. But the principle of self-determination states that peoples have a right to determine their own political status. Quoting from this statement,

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

That particular statement is in context with decolonization, but that particular quote has no qualifying 'ifs' and applies to this situation as well.

It seems questionable to disregard the context like that. But even if we do... "self-determination" remains a very vague concept. You may interpret "peoples" as all ethnic groups and "determining their political status" as a right to create a nation, but if we look at state interests and actions and if we consider the oxford statement from earlier... we can clearly see that there is a strong distinction being made not only between occupation/colonization and other cases, but also between the various kinds of self-determination.

With regard to your final point, I believe I already answered it.

Not really, because its arguments go beyond the unilateral aspect. They specifically discuss legitimate grounds for secession in the international system/international law... and deny a universal right to self-determination in the form of nation creation.

You are conflating self-determination with a unilateral right to secession, something I am not arguing for. Again, neither Scotland nor Quebec have the right to unilaterally secede - they both must pass referenda and negotiate with their host state before independence may be granted. But both of these countries have a pathway to determine their own political status, even if it is not necessarily simple and straightforward, while Catalonia has no avenue whatsoever.

This is probably the krux of our discussion. You are correct in stating that I consider Catalonias self-determination - as discussed here - equal to unilateral secession. In fact, it seems to me that your interpretation of self-determination must always be unilateral. If the legal avenues are only considered valid when the majority population must accept the demands of the minority... then how is it a bilateral process?

@Kurczak:

I'm not really sure if there is a significant difference if the invasion was recent or not. If Bavarians decided all of a sudden that they all desperately wanted independence, and wanted to organize a referendum to be sure, why should they be barred from having one?

Because it weakens both entities, opens the door for external abuse [aka 5th cohort], creates instability and uncertainty and thus increases the likelihood for conflict. Also from my previous post:

, even though secession is not “prohibited,” international law disfavors it and creates a presumption against its effectiveness and in favor of the territorial integrity of the parent state.

 

[mdk31]

Does the UN have official recognitions of ethnic cleansings, as well as genocides?

 

[BenKenobi]

Creation and destruction of a sovereign country/state is a meta-legal event. Law (= set of enforceable rules) derives from the sovereign, so there can really be no law regarding who or what is sovereign. Becoming and ceasing to be a sovereign is an act of power, not law.

Sure, there can be some facade posing as law. Like when the Entente willing into existence Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but that too was ultimately an act of power of the victorious side. The countries were sovereign because the Entente allowed them to be sovereign, just like the colonies in the 50s and 60s became sovereign because the previous sovereign either allowed them (whether out of idealism or pragmatic evaluation of costs and benefits) or because they won a war. The exact same thing happened in Kosovo. It didn't become a country because the Kosovar had some objective right to a country. It became a country, because NATO, as an act of power, bullied Serbia into allowing it.

The alleged right to self-determination is not a right. It is not and cannot be consistently enforced. When and if there will be some actual global rule that will be consistently enforced by some entity, then it will mean we'll no longer be living in a world of sovereign countries. Some would like it, some wouldn't, but at any rate, that's not the world live in now.

Lack of a distinction between a nation and a state make this position rather confusing and false, as is mixing legal and extralegal events together. Also, it just doesn't hold since like 1940s when the declarative approach to human rights became the norm.

 

[kurczak]

Neh, the whole declaratory thing like all spawns of legal naturalism is just an illusion and a rhetorical trick.

The Allies and theorists could have declared whatever they wanted and written essays till cows came home. It only meant something because they won and enforced it. Law can never exist outside of pr without power. It becomes jut an idea, an ambition, a wish.

 

[BenKenobi]

Firstly, self-determination go far before the ww2 or even ww1.

Secondly, even if you discard the idea that human rights are universal and exist on a cloud somewhere above us, it is pretty hard to claim that they have not became a social fact. Basically, it does not matter on what you want to pin their origin, they simply are either way. And as such, they do have their place in discussing self-determination. As far as illusions and rhetorical tricks go, you are not much better off with positivism either because you still need to explain the origin of meta-norms you use even in a non-naturalist system.

 

[kurczak]

Firstly, self-determination go far before the ww2 or even ww1.

Secondly, even if you discard the idea that human rights are universal and exist on a cloud somewhere above us, it is pretty hard to claim that they have not became a social fact. Basically, it does not matter on what you want to pin their origin, they simply are either way. And as such, they do have their place in discussing self-determination.

Do they? Let's assume Catalans really have the right to self-determination under all the doctrine and textbooks and essays and that it means they have the right to unilaterally declare independence. That would be the academic consensus. If no country recognizes Catalonia and if nobody prevents Spain from sending in police and/or army to the region, arresting the leaders and trying them for treason, even worse, what if all countries condone or even encourage that, then what good is such right? 

As far as illusions and rhetorical tricks go, you are not much better off with positivism either because you still need to explain the origin of meta-norms you use even in a non-naturalist system.

If you dig deep enough, then the ultimate meta-norm is the unsavory reality that might makes right.

 

[omzdog]

This is simply an argument for anarchy.
The state are just perpetuators of propaganda and violence if we were to strip things to that degree of honesty.
Thankfully I think we can rely on the achievements made after WW2 and still reach the definition that the Catalans have the right.

 

[Gasset]

A nation using its right to self-determination according to the democratic mandate of its people expressed in free, clean elections, as simple as that.

You don't need to ask permission from the other country if that one does not even try to dialogue with you to debate a solution, as India didn't ask, or the Baltics didn't ask, or Ireland didn't ask, or Finland didn't ask, etcetera. Accept that it's difficult next to impossible that a State will grant independance out of their own kindness, specially when that region in particular is one of the four most highly industrialized in Europe. I saw Quebec and Scotland set as examples above; those two countries had someone to dialogue and discuss with, they had an agreed-upon legal referendum, which is something we cannot get since we are time and time again told that we are part of this Spanish nation many people here do not believe or relate to, and also told to engage on a long and complex constitutional process to change the most important document in Spain (the Constitution), which is almost impossible since all Spanish parties would block the proposition and kill it time and time again for decades. Is anyone in this thread seriously thinking that Catalans will stand by this and wait for their whole life for a change that will NOT COME AT ALL.

If democracy was the minority blindly accepting the will of the majority no that many new countries would have emerged as they did in the past two centuries, you don't even need to be an enslaved colony to be entitled to independant, you just need the majority of the population in that region and a clear democratic mandate.

To those who say our culture, heritage and traditions are not endangered perhaps you should speak to a Catalan, or even visit, and perhaps you would leave your bubble and realise Spain is not the ethnically and politically homogeneous state presented abroad. We have (for centuries) experienced an active (although some periods were harder than others) agressive policies towards Catalan language and cultural assimilation. From assigning Spanish nationals to leading administrative positions in Catalan institutions to shifting demographics, the list of grudges is long.

For instance in the past dictatorship (which wasn't even over that long ago, in 1975), Franco prohibited the use of Catalan names. Castilian equivalents had to be used, during his regime, religious services were held in Castilian, and Castilian was the only language permitted to be used in public. Schools were banned from teaching Catalan. Few books were published in Catalan and any that were published were not popularly read because most Catalans could not read Catalan. Images of popular Catalan culture were also banned. Popular symbols of Catalan nationalism, such as statues, portraits, the flag, were all removed from public view. Even the names of streets that were in Catalan were changed to a Castilian name. Spain's effort to suppress our culture was pervasive. Franco prohibited expressions of language, traditional dance and culture, and religious practice, yet he only limited the culture. Although he repressed major Catalan institutions, we were able to resist this repression, and our culture flourished after his death. Faced with a violent despondent regime, we Catalans relied on daily acts of resistance and oral traditions to maintain our culture. After Franco's death the culture and language were encouraged to thrive as the Generalitat, the local democratic government emphasized the importance of maintaining the culture. The increase in the literacy rate and spoken Catalan owe a lot to the effort of the Catalan government to encourage the re-establishment of Catalan culture in social, political, and economic institutions, but also to the daily acts of resistance by the Catalan. I hope you understand the perseverance of a people to maintain their traditions, customs, and language through a history of oppressive monarchies. The Catalan culture survived 36 years of oppression due to everyday resistance and a strong sense of identity that the Catalans have historically harbored in order to maintain their culture in the face of cultural oppression.

And all of this improvements you mentioned in the last decades did not come becuase the masters from Madrid granted them to us, they came as a result of our struggle, resistance and tenacity.

 

[BenKenobi]

Do they? Let's assume Catalans really have the right to self-determination under all the doctrine and textbooks and essays and that it means they have the right to unilaterally declare independence. That would be the academic consensus. If no country recognizes Catalonia and if nobody prevents Spain from sending in police and/or army to the region, arresting the leaders and trying them for treason, even worse, what if all countries condone or even encourage that, then what good is such right? 

Self-determination means self-determination, it does not automatically translate into a right to have its own state, nor does it automatically translate into a right to secede from one. This is what I meant when I said that you mix a nation and a country. The right to self-determination is a right of people (a nation). Having its own state is one way of fulfilling that right but it is not the only way and it may not always be the best way; it is also the one that clashes with other international principles the most.

What good is such right? is a valid question, but it is very different to a question of do they have such right?

 

[Duh]

reach the definition that the Catalans have the right.

Reach the definition? You would have to actually put forth an argument to reach anything.

You don't need to ask permission from the other country if that one does not even try to dialogue with you to debate a solution

You do if you wish to be recognized without conflict.

Edith: Not to mention that it is total bull**** to claim that they do not try to have a dialogue. This is what grinds my gears. Such obvious lies. You have been given limited autonomy in Catalonia, no? Just because Spain didn't give you exactly what you wanted, you claim they don't compromise? Christ, if you make such claims, you seem like the one who isn't willing to debate a mutual solution.

 

[mdk31]

I think it might be best to reach a consensus, first of all, one what a "right" even is.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

and perhaps you would leave your bubble and realise Spain is not the ethnically and politically homogeneous state presented abroad.

Nobody said anything against this.


Though I did say it's kinda irrelevant and not unique whatsoever

 

[omzdog]

reach the definition that the Catalans have the right.

Reach the definition? You would have to actually put forth an argument to reach anything.

You putting into question my skills in rhetoric?
*raises fists*

 

[kurczak]

This is simply an argument for anarchy.
The state are just perpetuators of propaganda and violence if we were to strip things to that degree of honesty.
Thankfully I think we can rely on the achievements made after WW2 and still reach the definition that the Catalans have the right.

Society organized as a state is the antithesis of anarchy, what are you talking about.

Spoiler

A nation using its right to self-determination according to the democratic mandate of its people expressed in free, clean elections, as simple as that.

You don't need to ask permission from the other country if that one does not even try to dialogue with you to debate a solution, as India didn't ask, or the Baltics didn't ask, or Ireland didn't ask, or Finland didn't ask, etcetera. Accept that it's difficult next to impossible that a State will grant independance out of their own kindness, specially when that region in particular is one of the four most highly industrialized in Europe. I saw Quebec and Scotland set as examples above; those two countries had someone to dialogue and discuss with, they had an agreed-upon legal referendum, which is something we cannot get since we are time and time again told that we are part of this Spanish nation many people here do not believe or relate to, and also told to engage on a long and complex constitutional process to change the most important document in Spain (the Constitution), which is almost impossible since all Spanish parties would block the proposition and kill it time and time again for decades. Is anyone in this thread seriously thinking that Catalans will stand by this and wait for their whole life for a change that will NOT COME AT ALL.

If democracy was the minority blindly accepting the will of the majority no that many new countries would have emerged as they did in the past two centuries, you don't even need to be an enslaved colony to be entitled to independant, you just need the majority of the population in that region and a clear democratic mandate.

To those who say our culture, heritage and traditions are not endangered perhaps you should speak to a Catalan, or even visit, and perhaps you would leave your bubble and realise Spain is not the ethnically and politically homogeneous state presented abroad. We have (for centuries) experienced an active (although some periods were harder than others) agressive policies towards Catalan language and cultural assimilation. From assigning Spanish nationals to leading administrative positions in Catalan institutions to shifting demographics, the list of grudges is long.

For instance in the past dictatorship (which wasn't even over that long ago, in 1975), Franco prohibited the use of Catalan names. Castilian equivalents had to be used, during his regime, religious services were held in Castilian, and Castilian was the only language permitted to be used in public. Schools were banned from teaching Catalan. Few books were published in Catalan and any that were published were not popularly read because most Catalans could not read Catalan. Images of popular Catalan culture were also banned. Popular symbols of Catalan nationalism, such as statues, portraits, the flag, were all removed from public view. Even the names of streets that were in Catalan were changed to a Castilian name. Spain's effort to suppress our culture was pervasive. Franco prohibited expressions of language, traditional dance and culture, and religious practice, yet he only limited the culture. Although he repressed major Catalan institutions, we were able to resist this repression, and our culture flourished after his death. Faced with a violent despondent regime, we Catalans relied on daily acts of resistance and oral traditions to maintain our culture. After Franco's death the culture and language were encouraged to thrive as the Generalitat, the local democratic government emphasized the importance of maintaining the culture. The increase in the literacy rate and spoken Catalan owe a lot to the effort of the Catalan government to encourage the re-establishment of Catalan culture in social, political, and economic institutions, but also to the daily acts of resistance by the Catalan. I hope you understand the perseverance of a people to maintain their traditions, customs, and language through a history of oppressive monarchies. The Catalan culture survived 36 years of oppression due to everyday resistance and a strong sense of identity that the Catalans have historically harbored in order to maintain their culture in the face of cultural oppression.

And all of this improvements you mentioned in the last decades did not come becuase the masters from Madrid granted them to us, they came as a result of our struggle, resistance and tenacity.

Nobody here is arguing against the Catalans' right to use their language (a right that actually exists as per Spanish law) or to wave a flag, but you don't need independence to do that.

Self-determination means self-determination, it does not automatically translate into a right to have its own state, nor does it automatically translate into a right to secede from one. This is what I meant when I said that you mix a nation and a country. The right to self-determination is a right of people (a nation). Having its own state is one way of fulfilling that right but it is not the only way and it may not always be the best way; it is also the one that clashes with other international principles the most.

What good is such right? is a valid question, but it is very different to a question of do they have such right?

Suppose Germany wins the second war or somehow peaces out and gets to keep BuM. At what point does the Czechoslovak government in exile become just a delusion that doesn't mean anything? Do the Habsburgs still have a right to rule the lands that used to be A-H? Law and rights have to be rooted in reality.