International realism
John G. Spragge
in relation to Quebec separation, much of it centred around an attempt
to assert that Quebec is a society that has the internationally
recognised right to secede from Canada, while the James Bay Cree
do not have the same right vis a vis Quebec. Several comments are in
order here:
1) in "classical" international law, the right of a country to set
the rules for separation of constituent parts is absolute. This
right includes forbidding separation absolutely and jailing anyone
who advocates it for treason. This right has been modified recently
by a respect for human rights.
2) A decision by Canada to require a riding by riding referendum in
Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick to establish the borders of the
new country could not be resisted either by appeal to international
law (under the law, Quebec HAS no territorial rights until it has been
recognised as a separate country) or by a claim that human rights
are at stake (Quebec has no "human right" to include Cree territory
against the will of the Cree).
3) Quebec is unlikely to be able to expect recognition as a sovereign
country with borders that contain unwilling citizens. The US would
(rightly) see the situation as destabilising (remember, any likely
US administration is likely to make it as difficult as possible for
Quebec to secede). If Canada required Quebec to work out a deal with
the Cree, or to have a riding by riding referendum, all US interests
in the matter dictate that they refuse to recognise Quebec until
these requirements are complied with.
4) Aside from diplomacy and national interest, it is clear that the Cree
enjoy a good deal of popular support in the US. There is thus a
ready-made constituency for a refusal to recognise a sovereign Quebec
that refused to work things out with the Cree.
5) It has been said that Joe Clark has told the Cree they are "on their
own". That seems odd, in light of his statement to CBC's the Journal
that Canada has a "historic responsibility" to the Natives.
disclaimer: Queen's University supplies me with computer services, not
my opinions.
John G. Spragge
Robin Collins
>There has been a certain amount of discussion of international law
>in relation to Quebec separation, much of it centred around an attempt
>to assert that Quebec is a society that has the internationally
>recognised right to secede from Canada, while the James Bay Cree
>do not have the same right vis a vis Quebec. Several comments are in
>order here:
>
>1) in "classical" international law, the right of a country to set
> the rules for separation of constituent parts is absolute. This
> right includes forbidding separation absolutely and jailing anyone
> who advocates it for treason. This right has been modified recently
> by a respect for human rights.
>
>2) A decision by Canada to require a riding by riding referendum in
> Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick to establish the borders of the
> new country could not be resisted either by appeal to international
> law (under the law, Quebec HAS no territorial rights until it has been
> recognised as a separate country) or by a claim that human rights
> are at stake (Quebec has no "human right" to include Cree territory
> against the will of the Cree).
I agree, but I'd like to add one point here.
If a referendum was taken in Quebec re secession and the majority chose
to secede, this majority would include the Cree who must be allowed to vote.
Following secession by Quebec, within Quebec, the Cree would have the right
to secede. Following the secession of the Cree, within the Cree nation, the
francophones would have the right to secede (also by majority vote) and
etc etc. This is probably the way it would work: The larger states would
secede, and then within them, the secessions would follow.
However, although this is the principled method of secession, the better
principle is to have democratic states that defend minority rights so
that minorities do not feel they want to secede.
>
>3) Quebec is unlikely to be able to expect recognition as a sovereign
> country with borders that contain unwilling citizens. The US would
> (rightly) see the situation as destabilising (remember, any likely
> US administration is likely to make it as difficult as possible for
> Quebec to secede). If Canada required Quebec to work out a deal with
> the Cree, or to have a riding by riding referendum, all US interests
> in the matter dictate that they refuse to recognise Quebec until
> these requirements are complied with.
>
Not quite.
There will always be unwilling citizens at the time of a secession.
The issue would be that if those unwilling citizens were to have
shared territories, they could secede from a seceded Quebec.
I'm sure there were unwilling people in the recently formed separate
republics of the former USSR. They, like everyone else, had to
go along with the majority decision, or the right to secede has no
meaning.
Now we see nonsense, like in Estonia, where the ethnic Russians in Estonia
are persecuted for not being "ethnically Estonian". I'm sure they
weren't keen on the secession of Estonia (at least not all of them.)
This whole problem is developing into one of tribalism.
And in Canada too, it seems.
Frank.
Robin Collins
>I agree, but I'd like to add one point here.
>If a referendum was taken in Quebec re secession and the majority chose
>to secede, this majority would include the Cree who must be allowed to vote.
Let me just correct this sentence:
The Cree would not necessarily be part of the majority deciding to secede.
What I meant was that their numbers would be included in the
original voting population which would decide secession.
Frank.
Denis Beauregard
according to his opinion the following
[some stuff deleted]
>in relation to Quebec separation, much of it centred around an attempt
>
> Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick to establish the borders of the
>
so still an OPINION. BTW, in the various recent (1990-1992) referendum
about independence, no country claimed a 100% vote. Thus, there
will always be some unwilling citizens!
> (rightly) see the situation as destabilising (remember, any likely
> US administration is likely to make it as difficult as possible for
> Quebec to secede). If Canada required Quebec to work out a deal with
> the Cree, or to have a riding by riding referendum, all US interests
> in the matter dictate that they refuse to recognise Quebec until
> these requirements are complied with.
that could reach USA, they cannot pretend to serve indian interest
as long they dont take care of their own indians (same thing
for Canada).
>4) Aside from diplomacy and national interest, it is clear that the Cree
> enjoy a good deal of popular support in the US. There is thus a
likely prepared by CBC) about the Kuwaiti joke (playing with Human
Rights like did is a joke, that is it is laughing of people).
They lie openly when requiring help from USA because Iraki were
attacking Kuwait and killing babies. Kuwaiti have the same
Communication agency as the Crees in the James Bay case recently.
So, your big popular support may disappear rapidly if it actually
exists. In the James Bay case, they published photographes of
a natural phenomena not even related to what they were fighting.
>5) It has been said that Joe Clark has told the Cree they are "on their
> own". That seems odd, in light of his statement to CBC's the Journal
> that Canada has a "historic responsibility" to the Natives.
Conservative governement? Joe Clark is a political joker and he
would probably apology if he was reading your posting. Moreover,r
Canada never shown she take seriously that historic responsability.
>disclaimer: Queen's University supplies me with computer services, not
> my opinions.
>
>John G. Spragge
You forget many things in your "summary". The relation between a
territory before and after independence : usually, they concord.
Others will remind you probably.
--
Denis Beauregard beau...@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Mes opinions sont personnelles, pas celles de mon employeur.
My opinions are mine, not those of my employer.
Looking for BEAUREGARD, JARRET, JAREST, VINCENT (I'm also on soc.roots)