:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: This file has been created under the loving care of ::
:: -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =- ::
:: ::
:: Questions and comments on FWDP can be addressed to: ::
:: ::
:: John Burrows jburrows@halcyon.com ::
:: P.O. Box 2574 <or> ::
:: Olympia, Wa Fido Net 1:352/333 ::
:: 98507-2574 206-786-9629 ::
:: USA The Quarto Mundista BBS ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
F R O M "B A L A N C E O F P O W E R" TO
D E M O C R A T I Z I N G I N T E R N A T I O N A L
R E L A T I O N S
BALANCING RELATIONS BETWEEN NATIONS AND STATES IN A NEW ERA
Rudolph C. Ryser, Acting Chairman
Congress of Nations and States
Preparatory Committee
August 24, 1992
Copyright 1992 Center For World Indigenous Studies
[Ed. Note: This article may be reproduced for electronic transfer and
posting on computer bulletin boards in part or full, provided that no
profit is made by such transfer and that full credit is given to the
author, the Center For World Indigenous Studies, and The Fourth
World Documentation Project.]
The international system of states was shaken in December 1991, when
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed into fifteen new states.
Other states like Afghanistan, Lebanon, Burma, Ethiopia, Sudan, Cambodia,
and Yugoslavia show similar signs of exhaustion. About 190 sovereign
states (140 more than when the united Nations was formed) are now said to
make up the state system. After twenty years of study, the United Nations
says there are 3000 to 5000 nations inside states and divided by states.
Many of these nations are unwillingly under the control of states and
often do not share in political power within the state. The Russian
Federation in cooperation with Germany, Japan and the United States of
America has called on the world's nations and states to join in a Congress
of Nations and States to discuss and act on new measures for stabilizing
international relations. The Congress will formulate and present for
ratification by the governments of nations and states four new
international protocols. These protocols will prescribe rules of conduct
between nations and between nations and states when two or more parties
have political, economic, social or strategic disputes. Under new
international law since the end of World War II, rules for settling
disputes between states have been carefully drawn up under the United
Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions and subsequent protocols. No
similar rules for settling modern disputes between nations and between
nations and states have been formulated. Though many regional wars,
political clashes and legal disputes between nations and between nations
and states have persisted for as many as fifty years, no internationally
agreed rules exist to aid in the resolution of such disputes.
Political, social, economic and strategic clashes between nations
contribute to local and regional instability. Similar conflicts between
nations and states directly affect local, regional and sometimes global
stability. The call to convene a Congress of Nations and States directly
addresses the need for the governments of both nations and states to meet,
to deliberate and act on new international conventions concerning
resolution of disputes involving nations and states.
The problem of dispute resolution between nations and between
nations and states is not a new one. International efforts to establish a
system of dispute resolution was forcefully expressed in the development
of the League of Nations during the post World War I peace discussions in
Paris in 1919. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's famous Fourteen Points
provided the broad outlines within which controversies involving nations
and states might be considered and resolved. In particular, Wilson's
point five contained a key idea for conflict resolution between nations
and states. It said that parties must pay : "...STRICT OBSERVANCE OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT IN DETERMINING ALL SUCH QUESTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY THE
INTERESTS OF THE POPULATION CONCERNED MUST HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT WITH THE
EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT..." Existing states and non-self-
governing nations were obliged to meet on a basis of mutual equality. For
the first time in modern history, negotiated political change instead of
dictated or forced political change was being offered as a condition for
the peaceful political development of peoples. Wilson's point five
provided the framework within which nations could resolve disputes
concerning their political development. Unfortunately, the thirty-two
countries participating in the peace conference(1) ignored this important
principle with most of Wilson's Fourteen Points. In the long established
tradition of victors in war, the terms of peace and the terms for
establishing a "general association of nations" (the League of Nations)
was "dictated, not negotiated." The first opportunity to set a new
international political order based in mutual respect and negotiated
conflict resolution had been lost. As history now clearly reveals, this
failure produced for President Wilson a hollow victory in the creation of
the League of Nations. This failure also soon became the fuse for yet
another global war and scores of protracted political conflicts and low
intensity wars.
What Wilson's Fourteen points first suggested (that many nations
exist unwillingly under the weight of state or imperial rule) raised fears
in many states about the possibility of separatist movements - the
potential dismemberment of existing states. Opportunities for mutual
discussions and negotiations between representatives of nations inside a
state and state representatives were regarded as difficult if not
impossible. Suspicions among nations' representatives and states'
representatives proved too difficult to overcome. Discussion of peaceful
methods for resolving disputes between nations and between nations and
states was abruptly taken from the table. Just as the great powers of the
day dictated boundaries in the Balkans at the Berlin Congress in 1878,(2)
they dictated Central Europe's boundaries in 1918. The opportunity for a
negotiated resolution of conflict instead of a dictated solution was lost
in what would become protracted political and civil conflicts. Prolonged
"low intensity wars" in countries remote from Europe - in Melanesia, Africa
and Asia also began to erupt.
STATE STABILITY AND REEMERGING NATIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The modern emergence of nations long under the control of states and
empires began anew in 1918. The reemergence became a settled fact when
the League of Nations took up the question of self-determination of
nations within existing states. But, as noted before, the subject was
dropped for fear that the mere discussion of the subject would insight
nations to seek separation from the early 20th century states. In the
forty years following the collapse of League of Nations talks, many
nations began active resistance to state control. Civil disobedience,
political reform, and low intensity wars of resistance, political tension
and open conflict have characterized relations between many nations and
states. Similarly, relations between neighboring nations inside state
boundaries have challenged integrity of states and raised the need for
international measures for negotiated conflict resolution. Conflicts in
the Lebanon, Sudan, Peru, India, and Mozambique show the need for such
international measures. Where arbitrary state boundaries divide nations,
conflicts have often appeared to be "inter-state," but in reality these
conflicts reflect "pre-state" geographic realities and unsettled
conflicts. Many nation-and-state conflicts center on the availability of
natural resources and territory. Many nation-and-nation conflicts are
also a result of natural resource and territorial competition or questions
of access.
Due to long-standing nation-and-state, nation-and-nation conflicts,
a multi-national political movement began to unfold in the 1970s. Non-
governmental organizations in conjunction with representatives from
nations began conducting international conferences on the rights of
"native peoples." It was in this decade that multi-national organizations
like the International Indian Treaty Council, World Council of Indigenous
peoples, Central American Regional Council, South American Regional
Council, South Pacific Regional Council and the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference were founded.(3) The United Nations reacted to the political
movement among nations with the Commission on Human Rights designation of
Mr. Jose R. Martinez Cobo as a Special Rapporteur to conduct the "Study of
the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations" in 1975.(4)
As the "Cobo Study" was nearing completion, the UN Economic and Social
Council authorized the establishment of the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Populations.(5)
In the midst of the political unfolding of nations on the geo-
political stage came the swift collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. Heralding the collapse of the U.S.S.R. was the toppling in the
1980s of authoritarian rule in Poland, followed by the similar collapse in
Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Eastern Germany. The nations of Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia began the process of pulling away from the U.S.S.R. in
1990 and subsequently proclaimed their sovereignty as states. By December
1991, the super-state structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
had fallen away, replaced tenuously by fifteen states - each proclaiming
state sovereignty. One layer of the state system had been peeled away -
revealing new members of the state system. These newly visible states are
themselves claiming dominion over many nations. In the newly proclaimed
Russian Federation, there are more than 65 nations. In newly independent
Georgia, there are eight nations.
Before the end of 1991, the Yugoslavian federation began to crumble -
revealing at least seven nations - the same nations denied an international
identity at the Berlin Conference in 1878, the same nations denied
political development in 1918. This time, Slovenia and Croatia quickly
petitioned the international community for recognition as states.
Recognition by the German government of these newly proclaimed states was
soon followed by recognition from many states' governments, the European
Community, and the United Nations. A furious and violent conflict over
territory in Bosnia erupted months later involving the new state of Croatia
and the Serbian dominated (and substantially reduced) Yugoslavia forcing
massive population relocations of Serbian, Muslim and Croatian peoples.
In 1948, the people of Naga Land declared their sovereignty and
independence from British India and the emerging state of India. Though
Naga independence had been guaranteed by M. Gandhi, his death resulted in
denial of independence to the Naga. Their war with the state of India
began shortly after and continues to the present. In 1952, the people of
South Mollucca declared their sovereignty and independence from the
collapsing Dutch colonies and subsequently faced violent absorption by the
Javanese proclaimed state of Indonesia. The Kanak of New Caledonia
(Kanakia) proclaimed their right of self-determination and independence
from the state of France under a United Nations mandate, but were shortly
afterward removed from the U.N. Roster of peoples scheduled for a
plebiscite to decide whether they would become a self-governing people. In
1969, the peoples of West Papua voted their independence and were
immediately after that occupied by Javanese forces under the flag of
Indonesia. They have been at war ever since.
In 1974, more than one hundred Indian nations in the United States
of American issued their Declaration of Sovereignty. They proclaimed
their inherent powers of self-government and fundamental right as peoples
to self-determination. By 1990, ten of these nations began a devolution
process toward the full exercise of self-government - negotiating Compacts
of Self-Governance with the United States government.
By the end of 1990, the Miskito nation, Sumo nation and Rama nation
ended a war with Nicaragua in a stalemate following nine years of
violence. Devastated by war and recent hurricanes, the Miskito, Sumo and
Rama began the process of rebuilding. Because of Nicaragua's post-war
bankruptcy, these nations came out of the war as almost self-governing
nations.
In November of 1991, the Chechen-Inguish Autonomous Republic
proclaimed its sovereignty distinctive from the sovereignty of the Russian
Federation. By March 1992, the Tatar Autonomous Republic voted to
proclaim its sovereignty. Questions had been raised about the right of
the Tatar (4 millions strong) to return to their homeland territory in the
Crimea - now under the control of the Ukrainian government. In May 1992,
the Yakut-Sakha Republic declared its sovereignty. In newly independent
Georgia, South Ossetians expressing strong irredentist intentions declared
their right to separate from the state and become a part of North Ossetia
located in the Russian Federation. Shortly afterward, the Abhazians of
western Georgia declared their independence and quickly entered into
violent conflict with Georgian forces.
Eritrean military forces, long engaged in a war with the Ethiopian
state government overwhelmed Ethiopian forces and won a decisive
conclusion in 1991 favoring Eritrean independence. The states of
Mozambique, Burma, India, Sri Lanka, Monaco, Angola, Peru, Colombia,
Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Canada, Philippines, Indonesia, Peoples
Republic of China, South Africa and many others, found themselves faced
with circumstances not substantially different from the conditions of the
U.S.S.R. Fearing state-dismemberment, each of these states has
politically or violently engaged nations inside their borders to prevent
their separation from the state. While sometimes the state's fears are
justified, in many other circumstances such fears are not justified. Many
nations simply seek to become partners within the state to share in
political power. Other nations want negotiations with the state to ensure
their greater control over resources - to share in the value of those
resources, and greater control over their political life.
NEW INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOLS FOR A NEW ERA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The century of growing nation-and-nation conflicts contribute to a
growing recognition of the need for nations to understand one another
more, and for a new international framework for binding conflict
resolution. Similarly, it is clear that states and nations must come to
understand each other with greater precision, and establish a new
international framework for resolving nation and state conflicts. The
stable and prosperous development of states and between states is
increasingly dependent on cooperative relations between nations and
between nations and states. Nations need the same opportunity for stable
and prosperous development. The dearth of economic, social, political and
strategic information about the thousands of nations in the world
contributes to the tendency for conflict. New approaches to international
conflict resolution must be found. Such new approaches are clearly
possible from discussions between nations and nations and states in a new
international forum that includes all the key players.
Recognizing that so-called "tribal and semi-tribal societies"
required special international protection against mistreatment the
International Labour Organization drew up without the participation of
"tribal and semi-tribal societies" International Labour Organization
Convention 107.(6) This convention stands as the only generalized
international legislation specifically aimed at protecting the rights of
nations.
Despite the shortage of clear information, since 1973, the United
Nations, multi-lateral indigenous nation organizations like the World
Council of Indigenous Peoples and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference have
continued to develop an international climate conducive to nation/state
discussions and negotiations. East/West political pressures caused the
negotiation of the Helsinki Final Act concluded in 1975.(7) This new
instrument may have profound significance for evolving international
relations between nations and states. The development of a Universal
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United Nations is
symbolic of further potential openings for negotiations between nations
and states.(8)
The Congress of Nations and States must now solidly build on the
positive, though tentative, international initiatives that open the way to
direct nation and state discussions. The International Labour
Organization's Conventions, the Helsinki Final Act, the UN Universal
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and new agreements between
nations through multi-national organizations now form the basis for sound
new international law concerned with conflict resolution. The development
and enforcement of new international protocols for resolving disputes
between nations and between nations and states is the next logical step
toward a more stable and peaceful world. The Congress of Nations and
States can contribute to not only wider understanding, but it can
contribute to the process of forming a new international fabric of
cooperation between nations and between nations and states.
N O T E S
~~~~~~~~~
(1) United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Brazil,
Serbia, Australia, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Hejaz, India,
New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Siam, South Africa, Bolivia, Cuba,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and
Uruguay
(2) Bismark called the Berlin congress to determine the fate of the
Balkans following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877. Britain, France,
Austria, Russia, Italy, Turkey and Germany were the represented states.
(3) The Unrecognized Nations and Peoples Organization was founded in
February 11, 1991 at The Hague - adding to the growing number of multi-
lateral nation organizations.
(4) "Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous
Populations," Report by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Jose R. Martinez Cobo.
United Nations Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights
E/CN.4/Sub.2/L. (12 Volumes) 1983.
(5) The United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations was
authorized by the UN Economic and Social Council under the responsibility
of the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on the Prevention
of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1982. Its responsibility
was originally two-fold: Review evolving standards of the rights of
indigenous peoples, and, review developments concerning indigenous peoples.
By the middle 1980s the Working Group was mandated by the UN Economic and
Social Council to draft a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples for consideration by the Commission on Human Rights and the General
Assembly.
(6) ILO Convention 107: Convention on the Protection of Indigenous and
other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries (1957)
revised in 1989. Some "indigenous experts" were invited to participate in
the revisions.
(7) The Helsinki Agreement established a framework for the 35 original
member states to deal with the problems of security, economic relations,
contacts among peoples, basic human rights, and standards of international
conduct. Though not a treaty, nor a legally binding agreement, the
Helsinki Final Act does, however, carry considerable moral weight because
it was signed at the highest levels of each government. The Final Act
contains four parts divided into three sections (Baskets). Basket I
addresses security in two parts: 1. The first part includes a declaration
of 10 principles to guide states in their relations with one another. The
second part deals with security issues and commits participating states to
implement confidence-building measures. Basket II addresses cooperation in
fields of economics, science and technology, and the environment. Basket
III deals with cooperation in humanitarian and other fields.
(8) Originating with the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous
Populations, the Declaration was nearing completion by the end of 1992.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To have a complete Center For World Indigenous Studies Publication
Catalogue sent to you via e-mail, send a request to
jburrows@halcyon.com
Center For World Indigenous Studies
P.O. Box 2574
Olympia, WA U.S.A.
98507-2574
Fax: 206-956-1087
BBS: 206-786-9629
-- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// John Burrows, Director jburrows@halcyon.com <or> Fourth World Documentation Project The Quarto Mundista BBS Finger for more info on CWIS & FWDP Fido Net 1:352/333 206/786-9629