Sergey V. Biryukov. Separatism: ideological origins, current state, ways to overcome

Separatism and sovereignty

And the American political scientist D. Horowitz 1 defines separatism as the exit of a group and its territory from the jurisdiction of a larger state of which it is part, and distinguishes it from irredentism - the desire to annex an ethnically related population and the territory inhabited by it to an “ethnically close” state . As a political and legal phenomenon, separatism is closely related to the concept of “sovereignty” - for the evolution of ideas about the meaning and content of the latter reflected all the contradictory approaches to the problems of nation-state building.

Suffice it to remember that the very idea of ​​sovereignty was known back in the Middle Ages - but was used by feudal rulers to justify their own specific rights and privileges (i.e. separatism). In contrast to this approach, J. Bodin, one of the largest ideologists of absolutism of the 16th century, in his large-scale work “Six Books on the Republic”, first formulated the civil theory of state sovereignty, linking this concept with the idea of ​​a secular national centralized state, replacing feudal fragmentation . At the center of Bodin’s theory of state sovereignty is the idea of ​​indivisible, permanent state power, standing above the law, not bound by any restrictions and expressed in absolute domination over citizens and subjects.

The absolutist version of the theory of political sovereignty was developed by the English philosopher T. Hobbes. According to Hobbes, to overcome the “natural state” of people, expressed in the war of all against all, it is necessary to establish state power that ensures general order and directs all people’s actions towards the common good. The only way leading to the creation of such power is the transfer of all “power and strength” (ie sovereignty) to one person or group of people. It is obvious that such an approach is based on the principle of “expedient unity” of the state and denies the very phenomenon of separatism as such.

The “democratic version” of the concept of political sovereignty, developed in the 18th century by the French philosopher J.-J., has a dual character in relation to the problem of separatism. Rousseau. He believed that the supreme power in society should belong to the “united people” (also called the “sovereign”), forming a “collective being” in which individuals and groups are completely dissolved. The “sovereign” has unlimited power over the property and personality of citizens, from him each individual “receives his life and his being.” In the new state, the opposition of individual interests and wills to the “collective will” is not allowed, and civil society as a system of articulation of individual interests is actually deprived of the right to exist. Denying de facto civil sovereignty, Rousseau's concept also does not allow the influence of small societies on large ones, and declares a single and indivisible republic to be the most effective mechanism for implementing the will of the united people. Thus, formally the Rousseauist approach denies separatism (and with it regionalism and federalism) as such. However, upon closer examination, everything turns out to be not so clear.

Let us remember that the Great French Revolution, inspired by the ideas of Rousseau, declared the main source of political sovereignty to be a single French nation, introducing the principle of “one nation - one state” into political theory and practice. In relation to the problem of future separatism, this was not dangerous, since the “nation” in this context was understood not as a type of ethnic community, but primarily as a community of citizens (co-citizenship), constituting a state and formed at a certain stage of development of national statehood. However, the transfer of sovereignty rights from the “community of citizens” to representatives of a certain ethnic community was quite likely (since the Rousseauian doctrine itself, which extended the principle of equality to non-European “native” peoples, did not, in principle, contradict this). At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, as the anti-colonial movement grew, the principle of “one people, one state” was inevitably established. Since it was difficult to talk about the presence of formed nations in the countries of Asia and Africa that had liberated themselves from the power of the former metropolises, the “intermediate” concept of “people” began to be used instead, which acquired a pronounced ethnic connotation.

Thus, at the end of the 19th century, the idea of ​​national sovereignty was supplemented by a completely new principle - equality and self-determination of peoples (in Russia, its main adherents were the Bolsheviks, who introduced it into the party program at the Second Congress of the RSDLP with the aim of undermining the statehood of the Russian Empire). This principle was eventually written into the UN Charter, although the latter acts today as the representative of states and nations. The actual coexistence of the “ethnic” and “civil” concepts of sovereignty continued, giving rise in practice to many conflicts.

Self-determination without separatism

After the First World War, the right to self-determination was officially recognized for nations and ethnic groups, and after the Second World War - for the peoples of the colonial possessions, which contributed to their independence. This immediately created a serious problem. In African countries, weak alliances of tribes, posing as nations, achieved the creation of states - as a result , the states turned out to be unviable , which inevitably led to interethnic conflicts and wars (just remember the war of the 1960s in Nigeria, which claimed the lives of more than 1 million. people, recent clashes in the Republic of Chad and Rwanda).

True, it should be noted that the leaders of the anti-colonial movements of the second half of the twentieth century (M. Gandhi, D. Nehru, N. Mandela, R. Mugabe) never set as their task the formation of new states on an ethnic basis and implemented the principle of “one people (in ethnocultural sense) - one state." However, in development of the impulse generated by the anti-colonial movements, a number of peoples showed a desire to create their own “ethnic” statehood. Adherents of this approach tried to declare that the source of state sovereignty and the subject of state self-determination is not the nation as a collection of citizens, but a certain ethnic community exercising its rights on the “historical territory.” The expression of this trend in the 60-80s. of the last century there was ethnic separatism (Basque, Kurdish, Northern Irish, Albanian within the Balkan region, etc.) with claims to independence. Movements of these peoples for “national freedom” took place earlier, but during the designated period they acquired new political and legal foundations.

Realizing the impracticability of the “one people - one state” approach in the context of the mixed population of most countries, as well as the real inability of many ethnic communities to have independent state existence, the international community, represented by the UN and a number of other organizations, tried to create legal restrictions on the path of separatism. Recognizing the right of nations and peoples to self-determination, leading international institutions, in principle, opposed its implementation in the form of secession, so as not to encourage separatist aspirations. This was confirmed by former UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali during his visit to Russia in 1995.

The modern concept of the UN offers ethnic communities fairly broad opportunities for self-determination without separatism - not through secession, but in such political forms as autonomy - territorial, and more often national-cultural (implies the provision by the state of guarantees for the development of national languages ​​and cultures), through the general democratization of the state (when the rights of national communities are reliably protected by law and court) and in other ways. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the so-called Helsinki Agreements of 1975) proposes to solve the problem from similar positions.

The general principles for resolving interethnic conflicts are set out in the Final Act of the Conference (the so-called “ Ten European Commandments ”), which were unanimously approved by representatives of all countries participating in the meeting as a binding law. In accordance with these principles, conflicts must be resolved without the use of force by any country or group of countries against another country, and without interference in its internal affairs. At the same time, the inviolability of the borders and territorial integrity of all countries participating in the Final Act must be respected. Moreover, any people has the right to control their own destiny, which means the right to autonomy for any of the peoples that do not have their own statehood, but live compactly in the territory where they constitute the majority. The current Constitution of the Russian Federation, based on the real state of affairs in the country and the modern interpretation of the principles of equality and self-determination, establishes that it must be carried out within the borders of the Russian Federation (Article 5. Clause 3).

At the same time, to represent the interests of peoples who do not have national statehood, there is the Organization of Unrepresented Peoples and Nations (UNPO or UNPO), created in 1991, in whose work representatives of Abkhazia, Gagauzia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, Chuvashia, Yakutia, Crimean Tatars, Assyrians, Kosovar Albanians, Karens, etc.

Double standard

At the same time, not a single constitution of any foreign state recognizes the right to secede of its constituent peoples and national territories. Any attempt at unilateral secession and separatist activity, especially using armed struggle, is suppressed by force, including on the basis of special legislation (for example, laws on federal intervention in force in India, Nigeria, Canada and other countries).

For example, the French Republic, without denying Corsica’s rights to territorial autonomy , equated the Corsican separatists to criminals and uses police measures against them, India suppresses the movement of Sikhs and Muslim separatists in the states of Jammu and Kashmir using force, and the British government in 1969 g., after the outbreak of ethnic clashes in Northern Ireland (Ulster), police special forces and troops were introduced there and the local parliament was dissolved.

However, as the practice of Western countries and the EU shows, while harshly suppressing separatist movements on their territory, as part of the “double standard” strategy, they simultaneously support the separatists where it is beneficial for them. In this regard, the situation around the Turkish Kurds and Kosovo Albanians is very noteworthy.

For example, the Turkish Constitution of 1961 (Article 54) considers all citizens of the country to be Turks, although a significant part (40-50%) of the population of this state consists of national minorities - 1 million Arabs, more than 500 thousand Georgians, more than 1 million. people from the North Caucasus (Circassians, Chechens, Abkhazians, Dagestanis, Ossetians, etc.). But the biggest problem for the Turkish authorities is the presence in the country of a huge community of Kurds (the Farc-speaking people of the Iranian group), numbering from 14 to 20 million people (1/3 of the population). At the same time, the Kurds are deprived of national government structures, schools, universities and simply the right to speak their own language - a consistent policy is being pursued to assimilate them. The Turkish Criminal Code contains a special article providing for liability for “Kurdism” (under which, if desired, any manifestations of national culture and identity can be subsumed), and the government of this country has done practically nothing to overcome the appalling poverty of the areas inhabited by Kurds.

In response to such discrimination, since 1974, a guerrilla movement of Kurds and national minorities that joined them was launched, led by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Kurdistan National Liberation Front (FLNK) led by A. Ocalan, brutally suppressed by Turkish special forces and the army using tanks, armored personnel carriers and combat helicopters. Over almost twenty years of continuous war, 2,500 Kurdish and Assyrian villages were destroyed, and as a result of ethnic cleansing, over 2.5 million people were evicted from combat zones. Only in 1982 did the Turkish government recognize the existence of Kurds in the country, and in 1991 formally allowed them to speak their own language. Despite all the signs of genocide, neither the world community nor the EU, which includes Turkey, applied any serious sanctions to it, since the latter is a strategic ally of the United States and a member of NATO.

Albanians living on the territory of the Serbian region of Kosovo, under the pretext of protecting whose rights the United States and the NATO bloc unleashed an unjustified aggression against sovereign Yugoslavia, had much more rights than Turkish Kurds. Albanian-Kosovars had autonomy until the end of the eighties (until it was abolished in response to the anti-Serbian uprising of 1981 and attempts to squeeze Serbs and other non-Albanians out of the region), had the opportunity to create their own national schools, newspapers and political parties. So, at the beginning of the 1990s. in Kosovo there were 904 Albanian primary and 69 secondary schools and a university. The Albanians could not complain about the lack of attention to themselves and within the entire former Yugoslavia. Albanians occupied the highest government positions in the FRY at different periods. At one time, the Presidents of Yugoslavia were Sinan Hasani and Fadil Hoxha, the Chairman of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia was the same Fadil Hoxha, and the Chairman of the Union of Yugoslav Youth was Azem Vlasi.

In the early 90s, when the number of Albanians in the region reached 90% of the population, parallel authorities began to be created and a movement for secession from Yugoslavia began. Terrorist organizations, which subsequently united by 1998 into the Kosovo Liberation Army and received substantial assistance from abroad, launched terror in the region, after which the Serbian government was forced to use army units and special forces against them. The conflict that flared up in the region ultimately became the reason for military aggression by NATO and the United States, seeking to strengthen their own hegemony in the world and on the European continent.

It is obvious that resolving the situation in Kosovo and other crisis regions is possible only with the restoration of the status of the OSCE, which it had before the Balkan war, and with the adequate application of the principles of the UN and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. De jure, this means the immutability of the principle of the territorial integrity of the state of Serbia and Montenegro (i.e., the independence of the Kosovo region cannot be proclaimed without the consent of Serbia). At the same time, the right of peoples to control their own destinies, enshrined in the Act, requires that the Kosovo Albanians be granted autonomy within the constitutional and legal space of Yugoslavia.

Asymmetric Federation

Russia, whose statehood combines the principles of territorial and national federalism, today directly faces the problem of “ethnic self-determination.” The principle of “self-determination of nations up to the point of secession” proclaimed by the Bolsheviks, coupled with the construction of Soviet and Russian federalism on an ethnic basis (with “pulling up” all large ethnic communities to the level of nations), played the role of a “time bomb”, at one time destroying the USSR, and led to the formation of a whole group of ethnocratic regimes and “ethnic tyrannies” on its fragments. Today he continues to work to weaken Russian statehood.

A paradoxical situation arises when “national” subjects of the Russian Federation, in most of which “the titular ethnic group constitutes a minority of the population,” declare their state sovereignty, referring to its ethnic basis, seek unjustified economic privileges and benefits, which territories and regions do not have (property of subsoil and resources, one’s own citizenship and international legal personality, the right to carry out foreign economic activities, etc.) All of the above gives the Russian Federation asymmetrical features and gives rise to claims from regions (krai, regions and autonomous districts) deprived of privileges to improve their status.

The federal authorities, who for a long time followed such aspirations, ignored the fact that the sovereignty of a federal state is actually destroyed by the presence of such “sovereign states” within it (as a result of this, the state status of national republics was consolidated in the current Constitution). This legal nonsense was not eliminated either by the signing of the Federal Treaty in 1992, or the adoption of a new constitution in 1993, or the signing by the federal Center and the subjects of bilateral agreements on the delimitation of powers and jurisdiction.

Following the modern approaches adopted in international practice, Russia must, recognizing the right of peoples forming it to self -determination, to defend the principle of its state integrity. At the same time - to achieve the constitutional and legal unity of space and the real equality of subjects of the Federation. In place of the principle of “self -determination of nations, up to the federal statehood, up to the department,” the ideology of the “historical self -determination of peoples in Russia” should come.

The updated Russia, in our opinion, should be a constitutional federation, composed ofmacro -regions that form on the basis of interregional economic cooperation - "land". In the field of national policy, it is necessary, respecting the principles of equal rights of the peoples of Russia, to ensure the legislatively the status of Russians as the main state -forming nation - with the recognition of the state -forming status of other peoples of Russia (all this within the concept of the Union of Russian Peoples around the Russian people as a "nucleus"). Having recognized the importance of creating favorable conditions for the development of the Russian people (as a guarantee of the well-being of Russia and all the peoples that inhabit it) and ensuring their implementation by measures of a legislative and socio-economic nature, it is necessary to simultaneously guarantee the provision of the same conditions and equality for all Russian peoples in all areas of life (economic, political, cultural, etc.).

National-territorial regions should gradually be included in the phases of the Economic Interaction and federal districts of "land", and national-cultural autonomies of various levels (national, which involves guarantees for the development of the language and culture of the corresponding people throughout the country, "land," land -okruzhny ", district, municipal) - preserve and get wider legal and economic support at the expense of support on the mechanisms of territorial self -government (while maintaining political control by the corresponding authorities).

From these positions, in the opinion of the author, one should approach the solution of the Chechen issue. Recall that the Chechens, like Kosovo Albanians, more than once received autonomy in Russia - in 1859 (at the end of the First Caucasian War) and in the period 1922 - 1944. and 1957 - 1991 (in the form of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, the existence of which was interrupted by the Stalinist deportation). Obviously, in his current socio-economic, military and moral and psychological state, Chechnya is simply not able to function as a full-fledged state-the subject of international law (contrary to the opinion of the supporters of A. Mashadov and some Russian human rights defenders). Moreover, such an approach violates the principle of the inviolability of the boundaries and territorial integrity of all countries proclaimed by Helsinsky agreements.

The simple provision of Chechnya of the “extended autonomy” (according to the Scottish, Wales, Corsican and other models - although, for the future, it was autonomy could become a form of realization by the Chechen people to self -determination) does not solve the problem. Only the implementation of the integrated strategy of national reconciliation (with the connection of all the structurally-minded parties of the Chechen policy), the socio-economic restoration of the republic and its reintegration into the all-Russian political, legal and cultural space will gradually determine the status of the republic in Russia (especially since 70% of the Chechens, according to the The given survey of the Public Opinion Foundation does not insist on providing Chechnya with any special status in comparison with other constituent entities of the Russian Federation). Certain prospects for the solution of the “Chechen problem” along the path arose after the 2003 April referendum according to the project of the Republican Constitution - however, the latter will become possible, provided that the “autonomization” of Chechnya will not significantly ahead of the processes of political settlement and socio -economic restoration of the republic.

Notes:

1 Gorovitsy D. Ireredentism, separatism and self -determination // National Policy in the Russian Federation. M., 1993, p. 147.