Self-determination

[gottaB]

Poll question: Self-determination

Article 1 of the United Nation's Charter says that one of the purposes of the United Nations is:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Charter of the United Nations

Should the principle of self-determination be regarded as absolutely fundamental? Or are there clear cases where that principle runs contrary to respect for fundamental human rights or the interests of universal peace?

[drthais]

1. lets be clear

because your question muddies the waters, I think

self-determination would probably preclude
a governments ability to abuse human rights

because we're not talking about the government being self-determined
(like what we have in this sorry country right now)
but the people's determination to have a govt of their choice

[gottaB]

3. How would self-determination preclude such an abuse?

It happens all the time, sometimes on a massive scale, e.g. in Sudan.

Please clarify further.

[gottaB]

4. Can anybody else clarify this position for me?

thanks.

[Nevernose]

2. What did Kissinger say about Chile?

Something about protecting the voters from themselves?

On edit:
The Republican party (through Kissinger) is quite clear about where they stand.

"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty..."

All because they voted for someone that Nixon didn't like.

[gottaB]

7. Telling quotes

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/HKissinger.html

[truthspeaker]

5. Too idealistic to be a fundamental principle

A guiding principle, surely. There is so much overlap of ethnic groups and national identities. Sure, I support the goal of a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. I support a united Ireland. But an independent Iroquois Confederacy would be tricky. An independent Kurdistan, from part of Turkey and part of Iraq? What about a Basque state? What if French-speaking Louisiana Cajuns want to secede from the US? An Aboriginal state within the Australian continent? True, total self-determination would get real messy, real quick.

Gotta run, an Ojibwe Indian just told me to get the fuck off his property.

[gottaB]

6. Defining the problem

Questions I'd ask would be like, To what extent are the members of an ethnic minority excluded from the government? Are they totally disenfranchised, systematically discriminated against, or otherwise denied a legitimate voice in the conduct of their own affairs?

Secondarily, I'd look at the issue of whether they are being subjected to grave and sytematic abuses of human rights, or crimes against humanity.

Thirdly I'd consider the question of universal peace, and which course of action, seperatism or reconciliation, would contribute to that goal.

The first set of questions concerns self-determination itself. It is conceivable, perhaps empirically in evidence, that peoples with legitimate avenues of political expression are nonetheless victims of systematic abuses of human rights. It seems far more likely, however, that the denial of basic political freedoms enables or preconditions more heinous violations of the peace. Hence the linking of the concepts of self-determination and egalitarianism?

Well, I'm thinking about the example of the Kurds that you mentioned, because that is a tricky one indeed. Too idealistic to be anything more than a guiding principle? Perhaps. For the people in the midst of such conflicts it might rather seem essential, but I can't really say, and I'm not sure what a proper viewpoint should be for those who would promote universal peace.

[gottaB]

8. kick

:kick: