یکشنبه 1 بهمن 1396

Ethnic Rights Against Human Rights


Emaddedin Baghi

Introduction:
I know that in a situation where the sphere is bipolar and some are so enthusiastic for liberation and independence; while others are so furious against disintegration and accordingly, the actions have become so emotional, argument will find no way; and anyone hearing anything against their will and aspirations, will hurt. Right like when we try to obtain the consent of the family of the murdered to avoid retaliation. As soon as the family of the victim finds that there is someone who is satisfied with less than vengeance, they got so angry and the path for dialogue becomes so bumpy and uneven. In such a situation, just those who are outside the cycle of victim and guilty may be able to judge a little more realistic or rational.
I know that in the context of the Third World politics, these kinds of human rights attitudes face enmity and insults, but indifference in such situations is tantamount to welcoming war. May be some say that Iraqi Kurdistan is none of our concern. Although from a human rights perspective, humanitarian issues, especially those relating to life and peace, are not bound to any borders and they are related to us, wherever they appear. But the fact is that the fate of Iraqi Kurdistan has a direct impact on our lives. Of course, the majority of the Kurdish people are not in accord with the recent measures in Iraqi Kurdistan Territory, but certainly it is provocative and disturbing and it will definitely challenge the strong moderate currents of Kurdistan. Our criticism goes back to the designers of independence, rather than the noble Kurdish people. In Iran, too, some organizations pretending to be representative of People of Kurd launched war from 1979 to 1981, but eventually the very moderate Kurds overcome the separatists.
The issue of the referendum on Iraqi Kurdistan is worth discussing from different perspectives. Geographical debates such as how borders are defined in the region and how it is in the world, and how can one identify the boundaries of a people in a realm. Political debates such as the independent Iraqi Kurdistan, Is it Iran the second or Israel the second? And because of the Aryanism of the Kurds, it is for the benefit of Iran or not, all are political debates and, at the same time, valuable and practical, but less discussed are the legal aspects and less than that are the human rights aspects.
Even the political and geopolitical debates on Kurdistan is also a kind of human rights debate because of the great inflammation and the looming war it has created at a time when the region is in dire need of peace. In addition, the ISIS zombies continue taking lives and bleeding.
The context and cause of danger
Some topics are assumed by the author and I do not need to discuss them. For example, when the governments or the influential local media weaken national identity and its components, and by reducing the joyous spaces and equal opportunities for progress undermine attachment to the homeland, or when the governments do not care for the rights of the ethnic groups or oppress or discriminate against them, they are providing the ground for separatist or Deconstruct movements and somehow they are the initiator of the crisis. But, apart from the widespread political debate on this issue, this action of the territory may not be regarded as justified and defensible, and for the reasons that will be counted, the governors of the territory are also responsible for the consequences and they cannot put all the blames on the neighboring country.
Human rights against separatism

1- The right to self-determination in human rights instruments: Defenders of the measure of the Iraqi Kurdistan territory attempt to regard the disintegration of Iraqi Kurdistan in accordance with the Charter of Human Rights, while their action is in conflict with the provisions of the Charter. The right of self-determination contained in human rights instruments has a definite definition, and the methods of obtaining it, is also stated. This right is not a unilateral right, and it is not in conflict with the territorial integrity of countries. If so, this charter was not able to last so far since the second half of the 20th century after surviving so many crises and conflicts.
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "All nations 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.
All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Regardless of the fact that this clause is about mandated and colonized countries that were supposed to be ???? upon end of the World War II, not about the ethnicities within a territory. But even if we want to generalize to the ethnicities within a territory, it talks of self-determination not independence. Moreover, it is stipulated to be without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law.
Also: "According to the 1970 Declaration of the Principles of International Law on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, the" right to self-determination "should not be a permit or incentive for any act that leads to the degradation or threat, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States».
Article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, concerning the rights of ethnic groups and racial and ethnic incitements, states: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. But in the last 27 years, the territory authorities not only have used their media to incite and exacerbate racial sentiments, but also they went too far by claiming for independence by virtue of being Kurds. Racism is discredited; whether it is Farsi, Kurdish, Turkish, or Balochi racism, etc., and it is in contradiction with human rights anyway. Justifying independence on the basis of ethnic and racial origin and by arguing that we should have an independent state, since we are Kurds is the very formation of states on the basis of racism. On the basis of this argument, today we should have had 4,0000 states in Africa, 3,000 states in India and even the republic of Dagestan, as a small part of the Russian Federation, should have been divided into 70 countries on the basis of language and ethnicity.
3. International law and international system convention, federalism or independence: An overview of the history of separatism and independence in the United States, Europe, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Iran, the Soviet Union, and others, as well as the philosophy of formation of the United Nations alone, provides informative lessons.

In the United States, after the southern states decided to withdraw from the union of the united states and form a new union from southern states, Abraham Lincoln (who was elected president in 1860) ordered the army to defend the soil and integrity of the united states; the results of which was a 4-year war with the southern secessionists which was one of the most devastating wars of 19th century. In this way, federal government remained in America and all states enjoyed sufficient powers, rights and authorities. The United States was consolidated as a single nation, ending forever the notion that a state would be able to leave the union and it was added to the constitution as an amendment to the constitution. Certainly, we would have had another world today if Lincoln had not taken that decision or had not won the war, considering the role that America played in the future especially in the World Wars I and II which prevented the domination of the Nazis and Fascists over the world.
In Europe of the 18th and 19th centuries, separatism and racism created terrible violence and bloodshed, and World War I and II were the continuation and results thereof. The same Europe in the twentieth century moved towards unity and brought about progress and civilization. Today separatism outside the UN framework is in contradiction with the convergence and with the philosophy of the United Nations. Therefore, even in developed societies, it is not the case that Barezani conducted. In Scotland, a referendum was held in agreement with the British government, and no foreign hand or conspiracy intervened in the referendum, while in Catalonia, where the referendum was held unilaterally and without any coordination with the central government, it was faced with the severe reaction from the central government.
Separation from a country requires a legal mechanism, an internal and international agreement, and it is impossible to unilaterally conduct a referendum and independence. Despite the fact that the US government, which is usually politically motivated, holds amicable relations with both sides (central government in Iraq and the territory) of the conflict, inevitably took a legal stance in this case and called it a unilateral act.
Now, I will focus on the human rights perspective and do not deal with how much this type of separatism has bring about bloodshed in Nigeria, Yugoslavia and even in our own country for the separatism during the post-constitutional era as well as during the post revolution era of 1979-1981 in Kurdistan and Khouzestan in early years of the revolution. My problem is human lives. Only with this criterion is that I assess the correctness or incorrectness of the decisions. Any decision leading to violence and suffering of humans, killing and war is deemed false, even if it is based on rational reasons.
I have always been defender of federalism in the administration of multi-ethnic countries and I have expressed this in several writings, but federalism is something other than separatism, independence and formation of an independent state. Independence provides the background for war and it triggers the waves of blind and negative nationalism in the regions. It is even dangerous for the world. In many countries of the world, such as California, US, Quebec, Canada, Chechnya, Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, Tibet, China, Taiwan, China, Kashmir, India, Baluchistan, Pakistan, Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, as well as some regions in Africa and Europe are seeking independence and are facing international legal barriers. Actions, like what happened in Iraqi Kurdistan, could activate all these faults. Let's not forget that the First World War spark was a tribal and separatist struggle between Austria and Serbia.

In our time, relying on racial and ethnic characteristics as the basis for formation of nations, ruins international system. When it is possible for different regions to gain some degree of independence within the national framework without wars, violence, fears and losses arising from independence, why is the independence strategy pursued?
4. The conflict between ethnic and human rights: Ethnic rights is one of the components of human rights. The right of self-determination is from among natural and inherent rights of mankind, but is it acceptable to endanger more fundamental or critical human rights due to them? If the very principle of life of human being is in danger of degeneration, basically, there shall remain no issue for human rights, ethnic rights and self-determination right. One cannot, without regard to the realities, launch a war and destroy other human rights just by virtue of one human right. Human rights are a whole unit, and as it is not discriminatory, accepting some while denying others, it should be treated in such a way that they are all respected. Even under Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in interpreting the material of the Declaration of Human Rights: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. In clause C of article 29, it states: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Published in Seda magazine, no 132, 7oct 2017(15مهر1396 ) p:6-10 editorial