CrisisBalochistan | September 26, 2011

by Miran Baloch

Balochistan represents a post-charter annexation because Pakistan invaded and seized independent Balochistan in 1948. The case of Balochistan is certainly that of a genuine de-colonisation to restore the pre-colonial status. Baloch is a distinct Nation, possessing its own traditional homeland, its own unique language and a unique culture, and like other nations of the world, has a right to self-determination...

International politics today concern the lives of all of us in a way in which perhaps no other human activity does. The importance of knowledge of international relations/politics/the system in which we live is adequately attested by the fact that the wisdom and skill with which a nation seeks to earn membership in the wider and now global international system (state-hood), is bound to profit from the widest possible diffusion of that knowledge.

For the politically conscious members of that nation, it is essentially not less than a norm that any improved understanding of international politics/the system and the principles, laws or the designations that regulate or through which that system flows, must be preferred to ignorance.

In an attempt to understand an important feature of the international system, we seek to elucidate the 'principle/right of national Self-Determination' through an inquiry into this law, moral and political principle or norm that has highly affected the international system and those struggling to be a part of that system.

What does the principle/right of national self-determination mean? And what objectives out there in the external world do people tend to achieve while using it? Our discussion will be more or less based upon calculations of what people stand to gain or lose by various courses of action.

Self-Determination (Pre-United Nations Era):

The origin of the concept of political self-determination and its implications, in more rugged formulation, can be traced back to the times of ancient Mesopotamia and Polis (term used to indicate the ancient Greek city-states) where self-determination on an individual level was cherished by 'collective peoples'. 'The political interpretation of self-determination draws upon the value of personal autonomy,' according to which, 'individuals are entitled to form and pursue their own conceptions of what makes life worth living.' (1)

The philosophical idea of self-determination arose out of eighteenth-century anxiety for freedom and the superiority of the individual will, influenced by the writings of a 17th-century English philosopher John Locke, whose ideas of 'equality and liberty' greatly influenced both the French Revolution that legitimized the ideas of self-determination, and the American Revolution where those ideas motivated the founding fathers of the United States of America for a revolt against British colonial rule.

The world possessed several ancient continental empires (the Ottoman Empire, Qing, Russian and Austrian/Hapsburg), and in the 19th Century, European powers/states entered a phase of competition for a 'balance of power' that later also motivated several of these European states to pursue colonial empires, starting with the Portuguese, Spanish and later on German, British, Dutch, French, and so forth. Ignoring the notions of self-determination, these empires, among which British Empire emerged as the dominant, intrigued by imperialist ideas, expanded their empires by invading and capturing other states.

During this competition, nationalist sentiments emerged, not only among the competing states in Europe, but also among different groups that felt themselves to be subordinated and colonised by these larger states. Nationalism evolved as a uniting political ideology during this period.

Nationalist sentiments were on the rise inside both the ancient and the new empires where different nations started struggling to seek their independence. Karl Marx supported such nationalism believing it might be a ladder to social reform and international alliances.

In this situation, 'self-determination' emerged as a natural spin-off of 'nationalism' that encouraged the colonised states to react to the colonisers and seek sovereignty. Writings of Karl Marx and Engels in 19th Century enhanced the status of self-determination that was further worked out by Vladimir Lenin in the 20th century. In 1914 Vladimir Lenin wrote: "It would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state."

Self-determination had been applied to every kind of group which can be said to have a collective will, but in the twentieth century it came to be applied primarily to nations. It was not until the period of World War I that the right of national independence came to be known as the principle of national self-determination.

"The self-determination principle holds that any people, simply because it considers itself to be a separate national group, is uniquely and exclusively qualified to determine its own political status, with no external compulsion or external interference, including, should it desire, the right to its own state".

In 1918, American President Woodrow Wilson put forward his famous Fourteen Points to the US Congress, claiming the right of self-determination in universal terms. In the aftermath of World War I, victorious powers (capitalists) set up the League of Nations to set down the principles for how the defeated empires would be treated. The defeated empires were dissolved, and new countries formed from them. The principle of national self-determination from Wilson's Fourteen Points was employed in this re-division of the former empires. Wilson proposed that the principle of self-determination be recognised in the covenant of the League of Nations, though it was dropped because of British opposition to it over the European territorial settlement. President Wilson revived his idea of self-determination in Europe to avoid antagonizing his British allies who refused to apply self-determination on universal terms when it seemed that their own interests might be adversely affected.

It is important to mention that self-determination was considered only for 'nations' which were within the territories of the defeated empires; it was never thought to apply to overseas colonies. The right to self-determination, to a great extent, was dependent on support of one of the great powers--not on the wishes and rights of a people.

In contrast, strong political figures like Vladimir Lenin and Stalin (socialists) saw self-determination in the context of the 'national question'. They both were strong proponents of the principle of national self-determination. Lenin suggested that the right of national self-determination must exist for every nation and that: "The right of nations to self-determination implies exclusively the right to independence in the political sense, the right to free political separation from the oppressor nation. Specifically, this demand for political democracy implies complete freedom to agitate for secession and for the decision on secession to be made by a referendum of the seceding nation. This demand, therefore, is not the equivalent of a demand for separation, fragmentation and the formation of small states. It implies only a consistent expression of struggle against all national oppression".

Lenin believed the exercise of national self-determination would promote the interests of the class struggle. The communist support for the right of self-determination and decolonization of the colonies thus was more tactical than philosophical. He promoted the right of self-determination as a tactic to fight oppressor nations.

Around 1920 onwards, the educated national elites of the colonies, who had received their education in Europe or in their homeland, saw the principle of self-determination as a political weapon and began to demand and achieve political self-determination in the form of states of their own. The capitalist/imperialist powers that ruled them labelled those struggling nations who used force as 'terrorists.'

Since all colonisers were from the capitalist block, those resisting colonisers naturally formed an alliance with the socialist block that opposed capitalism and supported the decolonization of the colonies formed by the capitalists. During this period communism emerged as a uniting political ideology in many of the oppressed nations. The rise of communism threatened the capitalists, who made alliances with the anti-communists in order to contain the spread of communism.

The imposition of new states by the League of Nations was disliked by many nationalities and certain states again initiated an effort to bring different territories under their control; this eventually helped lead to World War II.

In 1939, World War II was kicked off between the great powers. Meanwhile, several oppressed nations, benefiting from the war during WWII, struggled to attain Independence. These included famous nationalists such as Mahatma Gandhi in India and Ho Chi Minh in Indochina who continued to seek national liberation, inspired in part by Wilson's ideal of self-determination.

The players in World War II suffered huge financial crises and loss of human capital. The then leaders of the great powers were highly criticised by their own people for these losses. Imperialism was assumed to be a feature of colonialism that caused unrest, and granting the right of self-determination to the colonies was encouraged as a method to bring peace. Due to the financial crises it was hard to retain and manage the colonies, hence, the great powers initiated the decolonization of the colonies. In 1941 the allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter incorporating in it the principle of self-determination. In 1942 the Soviet Union and twenty-five other nations signed the United Nations Declaration (later evolving into the UN Charter). These great powers then established an international organization to be known as the 'United Nations' at the close of World War II in 1945, stating in the Preamble of the UN charter, "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours". The inclusion of self-determination in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states.

Self-determination in the pre-UN sense took different forms in different contexts, ranging from national independence to the right to achieve a greater degree of autonomy and linguistic or religious identity within a sovereign state. Because of the inconsistent manner in which the principle of self-determination was applied following World War I, it was not initially recognised as a fundamental right of the UN regime established in 1945. A consensus among scholars says that whatever its political significance, the principle of self-determination did not rise to the level of a rule of international law at the time the UN charter was drafted, but was later included in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Declaration on Friendly Relations, making it an integral part of human rights law, a fundamental right which has a universal application.

Self-Determination (Post-United Nations Era):

The UN Charter mentions self-determination twice and is enshrined in Article 1(2) and 55 of the charter. Between 1946 and 1960, thirty-seven new nations emerged from colonial status in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East as a result of implementing the principle of self-determination.

It is also interesting to note the numerous instances where instead of decolonisation, several states were instead colonised by former colonies: importantly when Pakistan invaded and seized independent Balochistan in 1948 (now struggling to gain self-determination), Indonesia's invasion of East Timor (granted self-determination, now free) and the Chinese control over independent Tibet in 1949-1950 (now struggling to gain self-determination).

It is not very difficult to see why the people of such well-defined colonial territories that represent post-Charter annexations were not viewed as having any right to self-determination. In the world of geopolitics, it should not be surprising that self-determination had little to do with the demands of the people concerned unless those demands were consistent with the geopolitical and strategic interests of the great powers who drafted the UN Charter.

Self-determination entered an important stage in its development in 1960 when the Principle of Self-Determination evolved into the Right of Self-Determination by the UN General Assembly in resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It states: "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."

Importantly, this resolution also declared that "Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence." It noted that every state has the duty to promote the realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in order to promote friendly relations and co-operation among states and to bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the people concerned; and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle of self-determination, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

The right of self-determination had thus been elevated from the status of a mere imperative or theoretical right to a positively affirmed norm and a fundamental principle of international law. This right of colonial peoples to self-determination and independence was reaffirmed almost annually by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Significantly, the two international covenants on human rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 that later entered into force in 1976 (and there are more than 80 parties to each covenant and common article 1, in both covenants) states: "All people have the right to self-determination". In the UN General Assembly, the unanimous adoption of resolutions 1514, 2625 and numerous others, reiterating the right of self-determination, is significant, as is the fact that more than half of the world's states have formally accepted the right of self-determination through their adherence to one or both of the covenants. Governments and scholars from all regional and political perspectives also accept the right of peoples to self-determination. Professor Gros Espiell and Brownlie submit that the right to self-determination constitutes 'jus cogens', a peremptory norm of International law.

The right of self-determination has played a decisive role in furthering decolonization in the post-UN era and continues to be applied today, particularly as regards minority and indigenous peoples. It has developed well beyond the colonial context now and significant recent examples of its application include Kosovo, Somali Land, and South Sudan.

The UN Declaration on Friendly Relations also reiterates the right of self-determination of all peoples and elaborates upon the means by which the principle may be put into practice.

"The establishment of a sovereign and independent state, the free association or integration with an independent state or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitutes modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people".

Despite the importance of relevant UN Resolutions 1514 and 2625 and the two covenants to the self-determination of all people, these declarations are not without their contradictions. For example, they commence with the idea of granting independence to both colonial countries and peoples and upholds the right of all peoples to self-determination, but end with two contradicting articles reaffirming the territorial integrity of states and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of all states.

The General Assembly's Declaration on Non-Intervention, Resolution 2131 (XX), and The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, in dealing with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, which it accepted as a principle of international law, took a firm stand against any action which might dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of independent states".

These resolutions have been adopted to meet the pressure of political demands and as instruments of counter-demand to contain liberation movements. Undoubtedly, it is the principle of national unity that has been almost universally followed by the international community which, after all, is comprised of states whose interest is to maintain themselves.

Scholars argue that the right of peoples to self-determination, as it emerges from the UN, exists for peoples under colonial and alien domination, that is to say, who are not living under the legal form of a state. The right does not apply to peoples already organised in the form of a state which are not under colonial and alien domination, since resolution 1514 (XV) and other UN instruments condemn any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of national unity and the territorial integrity of a country. In other words, the principles of national unity and territorial integrity of a state implies non-recognition of the right of secession.

Scholars, however, also stress that beneath the guise of ostensible national unity, colonial and alien domination does in fact exist, whatever legal formula may be used in an attempt to conceal it. And that the internal aspect of self-determination means that states and their peoples have the right to independence from foreign domination. Thus, states which have been invaded or which are otherwise controlled by foreign powers have a right to self-determination, i.e., the right to overthrow the invaders and re-establish independence.

The independence of numerous states after the 1960's development of the right of self-determination is un-ignorable and it is worth mentioning that nearly all of liberation movements at present demand the right of self-determination as a political means to achieve their destiny as an independent state. Thus, the right of self-determination continues to be the major political force internationally and domestically.

Argument:

Every nation has the right to determine its own political, social and economic life and this right is called the right to national self-determination. This right takes two forms and is known as the right to internal self-determination and the right to external self-determination. The right to internal self-determination is the right to self-rule by a people over their homeland whereas the right to external self-determination arises when a people finds that this internal concept is not being accepted and the right to full sovereignty, including the right to international recognition of that people, comes into play.

Most discussions of self-determination begin with an attempt to break the concept into its component parts. What constitutes the relevant 'self' and in what manner should its fate be determined? In the national version, self-determination derives its normative claim from the value of nationality. Usually the collective identity that achieves statehood--formal existence as a state recognized in the political structure of international relations--is 'national identity'. Hence, for people demanding self-determination in a legally relevant way, it is necessary to think of themselves as a distinctive group, as well as to have certain objectively determinable common characteristics, for example, ethnicity, language, history or religion.

Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice of the people. 'It's people who decide the destiny as a result of exercising the right of self-determination, not a government (oppressor) or a political party demanding self-determination'. (1)

When the UN charter in Article 1(2) enjoins 'respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' which must mean nations, it is plainly referring to a moral and political principle. The legal obligation to respect that principle rests upon the state members of the world organization.

A UNESCO meeting of experts on international law defined a people as a group enjoying some or all of the following features: 1) A common historical tradition, 2) Ethnic group identity, 3) Cultural Homogeneity, 4) Linguistic Unity, 5) Religious or ideological affinity, 6) Territorial Connection, 7) Common Economic Life.

Baloch Right to Self-Determination:

Balochistan represents a post-charter annexation because Pakistan invaded and seized independent Balochistan in 1948. The case of Balochistan is certainly that of a genuine de-colonisation to restore the pre-colonial status. Baloch is a distinct Nation, possessing its own traditional homeland, its own unique language and a unique culture, and like other nations of the world, has a right to self-determination and the right to democracy and human rights.

Ethnic Dilution of Baloch by Pakistan:

Ethnicity is an obvious basis on which to strengthen the claims of national self-determination. Pakistan, apart from carrying out numerous ruthless military operations against the Baloch, has also been engaged in ethnic dilution of the Baloch by sending in and settling a large number of non-Baloch in different parts of Balochistan. This is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, designed to weaken the realization of the Baloch right to self-determination. As a consequence of this old practice, the Baloch are now in the minority in Quetta (the capital city of Balochistan). Pakistan's trick of diluting Baloch with other ethnicities is to harm the Baloch national question of restoration of full independence, if asked to undertake any decolonisation process.

In this case, the Baloch political parties should in their demands for the right of national self-determination ask the UN for the demarcation of the Baloch populated areas, and conduct a United Nations supervised and monitored referendum to allow the Baloch to decide their destiny.

Self-Determination vs. Provincial Autonomy:

In Balochistan, the biggest Baloch political party that struggles for the right of national self-determination, the Baloch National Party (BNP), has been too shy in conveying its meaning to the nation since incorporating the term into its party policy. Others, on the other hand, have been too confident in misinterpreting and mis-communicating the term to the nation, characterizing it as provincial autonomy, though the terms, in fact, have very distinct meanings: "Autonomy unlike self-determination, is not a term of art in international or constitutional law. It is the right to be different or to be left alone to preserve, protect and promote values which are beyond the legitimate reach of the rest of society". (2) Demands of autonomy can be satisfied by the state in which the dissatisfied segment can exercise sovereign authority within the Federal system, and it is not guaranteed so can be taken back at any time, while the right of self-determination calls for external support from United Nations rather than domestic support.

Self-Determination vs. Territorial Integrity:

Some people imagine and inquire as to why political parties never say precisely what they mean. For example, why ask for the right of national self-determination, but not outright independence? If we want to grasp the language of the UN Charter by examining it in the context of the above discussion, we will eventually reach the conclusion that the UN charter is articulated in diplomatic language to serve the powers that drafted the charter, or to put it another way, the political implication of the charter is left to the super powers. They do as they think fit, regardless of law, morals and customs, but even for them it is hard to act with continuous disregard of what popular opinion assumes to be right and proper.

When people's demands involve claims to free political separation from an oppressor nation or a claim to regain independence, these demands cannot be satisfied through domestic political reforms. Instead, they aim to redraw the political boundaries and such movements call for international recognition of the state they seek to create or regain. They necessarily concern the world community, so this becomes a matter of international relations. International relations or international law does not provide an easy answer to such claims.

Article 1(2) of the UN Charter reads, "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".

Political party's choice of the term self-determination should be seen as what they can gain or what they can lose by employing another term. Certain legal consequences are thought to flow from certain designations. Since the matter concerns international rules, self-determination is a universally recognised term and by virtue of legitimacy helps make stronger claims. Terms including independence or secession, in themselves, are not recognised terms in international forums, but both terms are referred to in the UN charter and the Declaration on Human Rights and Friendly Relations as modes of self-determination, hence are bound to flow through the designation of self-determination. Self-determination is not an end, but a means to an end, so in political terms, denying the only means of self-determination is to deny the end: independence and secession. And as suggested by the scholars, "self-determination and human rights are the philosophical underpinnings claimed by oppressed nations, and such legal totems are the primary grounds of appeals for outside support". (3) The oppressor even cannot in the legal framework counter such claims made by the oppressed.

Using such unrecognised terms as independence or secession serves to provoke the oppressor who feels his territorial integrity is threatened, and in accordance with article 2(4) of the UN charter, seeks to uphold the 'principle of territorial integrity and national unity,' reaffirming the territorial integrity of states and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of all states. The use of such terms manages to neutralize outside support and in the legal framework, counter the claims made by the oppressed, suggesting that the struggle of the oppressed would serve to destroy order and stability within the state and to inaugurate anarchy in international life. Using unrecognised terms would be to uphold a theory incompatible with the very idea of the state as a territorial and political unity.

By following this course of action, the oppressor can legally ban the political parties of the oppressed and attempt to militarily obliterate the peoples by reducing their armed struggles to "terrorism". The supporters of these groups fighting for the realization of national liberation may also be labelled or unduly burdened by laws against terrorism at the extremely serious expense of not only human rights but rights under the Geneva Conventions, other treaties and customary laws of armed conflict.

The General Assembly Definition of Aggression (resolution 3314), however, states that "the use of force is not generally prohibited if it appears to support self-determination".

Conclusion:

It is very important for the struggling nation to benefit from pursuing the right political means to its end, rather than denying the importance of those means, which only serves to help the oppressor. The international political system offers no exemption to any nation to do as the nation pleases, and acts within a distinct system of law. We must realise the importance of why the Tamils kept emphasising their right to self-determination, even though they were at the height of their strength, both militarily and politically, enjoying a position of undisputed strength after their chain of victories over the enemy; yet they wanted to resolve their ethnic issue through political means.

In today's modern world, we cannot live separated from the world unless we are aliens from another planet, and we need the support of the world community, and the cover of the legal and philosophical totems of human rights and self-determination, to achieve our end. Going contrary to international inked rules is more or less inviting catastrophe, as the same Tamils, the LTTE, did when denouncing the Geneva Cease Fire Agreement. They were then taught a lesson by the world community that is a must-read for every struggling nation. Attention must be paid to how a struggling nation legitimises its struggle in the modern world.

Ignoring the political significance of self-determination is not an option. If it were, then Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, the Kurds, Tamils and numerous other nations that struggled, and are struggling for independence, would have never bothered to use it as a political means.

Self-determination is the essence of modern nationalism and the foundation of national struggles and liberation movements in colonies or countries liberated from colonialism. Due to its political significance, self-determination remains the language of national liberation movements.

Finally, if the 'people' are unanimous in their desire for self-determination, it strengthens their claim. What is required from Baloch leaders is to put aside their differences by respecting each other's democratic right to adopt different forms of struggle and to unite in the name of Baloch and Balochistan to win more attention from the world community and to pursue their destiny as a sovereign and independent state.

Miran Baloch is a student of political, social and behavioral sciences.

Visit Baloch Liberation Movement on facebook

Sources: