QUOTE:
LONDON (Reuters) - The British government on Monday intensified its campaign to stop Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, publishing a legal opinion suggesting it would forfeit its membership of international bodies such as the European Union if it chose independence.
The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) that runs Scotland's devolved government plans to hold a referendum on the politically sensitive and emotionally charged subject next year, and has played down the impact of a "Yes" vote on Scotland's international status.
But the 57-page legal opinion - drafted for the British government by two leading independent experts on international law - said the implications could be far-reaching.
The overwhelming weight of international precedent suggested Scotland would be legally deemed a "new state", it said - a scenario that would force it to re-apply to join international bodies such as the EU, the United Nations and NATO.
"If Scotland became independent, only the 'remainder of the UK' would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to re-negotiate existing treaties or re-apply for membership of international organizations," the government said.
:UNQUOTE.
It would be in Scotland's best interests to be considered a new state. Once it applies for membership in the UN (that is, if it would so choose) and is accepted (I couldn't imagine Scotland being refused), then there could be no doubt that Scotland had severed all sovereign ties with the UK. That would make it hard for the UK to later claim that Scotland's secession was illegal, although I'm sure the UK wouldn't have any problem finding two more leading "independent" experts to write another 57-page legal opinion to that effect. Or maybe the UK could hire the same two experts who had written the legal opinion referred to in the quote above.
However, I don't understand why "the remainder of the UK" should "automatically continue...as the UK currently does..." The "remainder of the UK" could arguably be considered a new state since it would no longer be what it was before the Scots broke free. Why should the "remainder" be given a free pass? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all of the UK seceded leaving only the southern half of England calling itself the UK. Then would it have to reapply to various international organizations? Could such a reduced entity, a shell of its former self, be allowed to remain one of the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council?
How about the possibility of the UK annexing more territory (perhaps by force), calling that part of the UK? Allowing such a new entity to remain in the UN, without having to reapply, would suggest that the UN condones the seizure of new territory.
Where does one draw the line?
In my opinion, if it would come to pass that any member state of the UN changes its dimensions - either by increasing or decreasing its territory - or is brought into existence by having seceded from any current member state, the UN should insist upon application for membership (or reapplication) as being necessary.
Side note: I'm sure that many in Third World countries, themselves the victims of centuries of oppression by British redcoats, will be amazed at how (apparently) easy it's turning out to be for part of the UK to gain its independence so non-violently. They wish they could have had it so easy.
Secessionist movements
It seems that more and more people around the world are increasingly thinking of themselves in increasingly narrow terms: "I am a Catalonian (so goodbye Spain)," "I am Chechnyan (so good riddance Soviet Union)," "I am Czech (so goodbye Czechoslovakia)," "I am Uigar (so goodbye China)."
I remember when a lot of people thought worldwide socialism was inevitable with the Soviet Union leading the way. We were urged to shed our identities as merely members of a tribe and to seek to become world citizens. There was much theoretical discussion about what Communist Man was supposed to look like. However, a lot of potential converts to this ideal were able to see that certain groups within the Soviet empire were given preferential treatment. That is, in Orwell's famous words, "Some people are more equal than others."
[Sigh] So Communist Man bit the dust.
Tribalism has a lot of advocates these days, much to the consternation of established governments the world over. And secessionists have a number of rallying cries at their disposal. Like this one:
"Blood is thicker than water." That overlooks the fact that none of us has water coursing through his veins. No, I take that back, or at least this much: There's no overlooking going on here; instead, there is an attempt to dismiss the other as something other than human, for only such could possibly have water instead of blood in their bodies.
How about this one: a saying, in more or less these words, attributed to (pick one) Arabs, Bedouins, and Muslims:
"Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger." What about me fighting for what is right whether it hurts or runs counter to the interests of myself when my brother and I are in conflict, of me and my brother when my cousin is involved, or the three of us when the stranger enters our lives?
What about the spirit of Doctors Without Borders? That is, the spirit to do good irrespective of (always artificial) national boundaries? But, no, that was not to be on any but a very small scale. Instead, people the world over, especially those in minority groups, are becoming increasingly aware that they're being exploited. Even the USA's foreign aid program, once perceived as a paragon of generosity, is now recognized as primarily serving the USA's not-so-enlightened self-interest. So minorities within economically weak though resource rich states are seeing how their nations' leaderships are selling out to strong foreigners at their expense. So of course they will seek to resist.
But the mindset of the electorates in the advanced nations goes something like this: "Hey, times are tough and resources are getting scarcer. So of course it's only to be expected that our governments, in order to maintain our lifestyles, will seek to exploit weaker nations. And that's okay with me." It's even (at least tentatively) okay with the minorities within the exploiting nations as long as they get a piece of the pie - even if that piece is somewhat smaller than that enjoyed by the majority.
Back to Cross-Sectional Representation
During my run for the US presidency in 2008 and 2012, I advocated for replacing the US Constitution with one based on a concept I'd introduced back in 1976. That concept, which I have since refined, is called Cross-Sectional Representation or CSR for short. This link serves as a good introduction:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html
I am hoping that CSR could be introduced as the basis for a new constitution for the European Union. And more. Eventually for the whole world. But that would mean the various nations of earth would have to give up their sovereignty. But that's the idea, since it's my belief that national sovereignty is the greatest single threat to world peace - and the sooner we overcome that most inbred and ancient of major doctrines, the better.
Of course, the oligarchs in each advanced nation will do their best to maintain national sovereignty, since that's the key to their maintenance of control within their own borders. They will stoke the fires of "patriotism" by telling their populations how great they are and/or raising the fear that their way of life can't be maintained unless their military can prevent other nations from redistributing their wealth. These are powerful considerations, but should they win the day, they will give rise to a desperation among the have-nots that will pose an even greater threat to the peace and prosperity enjoyed by the haves.
But peace and prosperity don't have to be purchased at someone else's expense, unless one really believes that being able to buy a new model car every year is worth killing multitudes to obtain. Or believes in endless wars so that cheap gas can fill those tanks. My arguments against this kind of thinking are two-fold: Religious and economic.
- RELIGIOUS: It is high time to attack institutional religions (that is, virtual state establishments) for what they are - supporters of the status quo favored by local elites. The power centers of the Abrahamic faiths are especially vulnerable to doctrinal attack as I've pointed out elsewhere on my blog. If people can be shown that their religious institutions have compromised the spirit of their faith, they will come to see they are poorly served by these. Of course, if they can be shown that their faiths are based on a lot of wobbly assumptions, they'll look for something else. And I think that "something else" lies in the realm of Buddhism, which is why I've written extensively on that subject on this blog - to provide food for thought and eventual action.
- ECONOMIC: Once national borders are, in effect, dissolved and CRS is established, local elites will no longer be able to control government. And that will lead to a more broadly-based prosperity that will at least partially offset any reduction in the standard of living at the middle part of the spectrum. What will also help will be a vast reduction in global military forces which will come to pass once CSR serves to make borders irrelevant. There can be no question that the elevated lifestyles of the 1% or even the top 10% will be reduced by CSR. But since that reduction will help finance debt forgiveness or even reparations payments to formerly enslaved or exploited nations, anyone with a moral compass would surely approve. But that morality can only arise once the popular support for status quo state religions is challenged.
A Extreme Example with Merit
I want to tell a brief story of a non-selfish altruism which I believe is not only attainable (through the vehicle of Buddhist practice) but will turn out to be absolutely necessary in order to confront the ultimately destructive force known as national sovereignty.
Once upon a time there was a man possessing a certain limited degree of supernatural powers. He was at the beach watching his son swimming with an inner tube on very calm waters about 100 yards from shore. He also saw the son of his best friend who was the same age as his own son - 15 years - also about 100 yards from shore with his own inner tube. And both boys were about 100 yards from each other. Suddenly, a fierce storm arose from out of nowhere threatening to drown both boys should they prove unable, which they surely must, to hang onto their inner tubes. This man knew that he could use his supernatural powers to save only one boy. But which should he save?
He chose to save neither but did so in a way to send a message to both boys and to his best friend who was also on the beach. Since he was crippled, there was no way he could help. So the supernaturally empowered man decided to use his ability in a way that would end the lives of the two boys and his own life as well. Without saying a word, he started to walk on the water after he had calmed a pathway through the towering waves for him to walk on. He walked so he was 100 yards from shore and 50 yards from each boy. They were watching him as he just stood there looking at first one boy then the other. They watched him as his strength drained and he slipped below the waves and drowned. Then the boys also drowned.
The dead man's unspoken message: "I refuse to discriminate since I love you both equally. But I also refuse to do nothing. I willingly spent all the strength I had to show you that you would not die alone, that I was willing to be with you until the end - even if that meant my end as well. And you will remember that in your next lives as all three of us shall surely be reborn together again, united and strengthened by this experience."
Of course, it helped immensely for this man to know he would be reincarnated. But the irony is, with only a modest amount of reflection, such a thing can be known by just about anybody.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle
Former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
"After each of us takes the time and trouble to see what's really important to us as individuals, politics becomes quite easy."
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment