![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://borkena.com/2019/01/25/dr-ashagre-and-the-right-of-secession-by-paulos-milkias/&media=https://borkena.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-Right-of-Secession.jpg&description="Dr. Ashagre's reminiscences (No. IV) on ESAT's የሳምንቱ እንግዳ forum are interesting. However,..his assertion that "self-determination up to and including secession" is universal is totally false." Read more){kind=link}
(By Paulos Milkias)
January 25,2019
Dr. Ashagre’s reminiscences (No. IV) on ESAT’s የሳምንቱ እንግዳ forum are interesting. However, I see a major error that crept into his analysis. His assertion that “self-determination up to and including secession” is universal is totally false.
The U.N. Charter does mention the principle of self-determination of peoples but does not assert that principle as one its members have to follow. The reference is actually an indirect one. When it was inscribed in the Charter, it was meant to apply only to colonial situations. Furthermore, since the founding of the United Nations as a world body, the norm has been invoked by its organs only in a colonial context.
The UN has categorically refrained from applying the principle of self-determination as one that includes the right of secession of part of the metropolitan territory of its member from the rest of the member’s territory. That was why the UN was politically and militarily involved in ending the secession of Katanga from the Congo in 1960. In addition to that, UN Secretary General U Thant, had strenuously opposed the attempted secession of Biafra from Nigeria in 1967. The Security Council had also categorically rejected the right of Biafra to secede.
Indeed, the situation could hardly be anything else. If it did not act in that manner, the UN would have let itself into an intractable political quagmire since its action would infringe on the principle of each nations’ national sovereignty which is untenable.
The concept of the right of secession was Leninist. It was originally enshrined in the Soviet Constitution at the time the Bolsheviks took power from the liberal-oriented Kerensky government in 1917. That right is a far cry for liberal democratic constitutions including those of Britain, France, the USA, and others. One should of course not forget the American civil war fought in opposition to the secession of its southern states and waged from 1861 to 1865; this fratricidal war ultimately consumed the lives of 620,000 soldiers.
Canada toyed with the idea of self-determination and the right of secession but soundly rejected it at the Victoria Conference in 1970. The TPLF made Ethiopia the only other country to follow the Soviet example and enshrined the right of secession into its constitution which still dangles over the head of our nation like Damocles’ sword. I hope the Abiy reform will lead to the ultimate abrogation of Article 39 once and for all and deal a mortal blow to this abominable clause.
In the case of the USSR, the right of secession culminated with the implosion of the Soviet state by the end of the 1980s. We are the only one of the odd twin remaining. I argued in opposition to this clause vigorously in my VOA interview in 1985 when the constitution was promulgated. Should we allow what happened to the Soviet Union, to happen to us? To keep quiet is to enable the evil doers to get away with their treacherous conspiracy; and that by itself is an egregious treason
Paulos Milkias Ph.D. (McGill)
Professor of Political Science
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
___
Join the conversation. Like borkena on Facebook and get Ethiopian News updates regularly. As well, you may get Ethiopia News by following us on twitter @zborkena
Subject: “Dr. Ashagre and The Right of Secession in the Ethiopian Constitution” (By Paulos Milkias) January 25,2019
Quote “The concept of the right of secession [ …. and the] ultimate abrogation of Article 39 once and for all and deal a mortal blow to this abominable clause.” Unquote by Prof. Paulos Milkias Ph.D.
Humble Commentary:
First, let me make it clear: I have ABSOLUTELY NO comparable educational background as the Professor to qualify me for intellectual commentary on the subject matter. Simply put, it is beyond me. But I have a couple of questions, as it is a natural gift to commoners to be inquisitive and ask FREELY [aren’t we?!?]. Anyway, here are my questions:
a) Would Ethiopia JEOPARDIZE its age-old struggle [call it a dream, as it is indeed still in a dream state] for meaningful LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY and EQUALITY by retaining “Article 39” as mentioned? and
b) What makes the Article “abominable”: i.e. ‘causing moral disgust’ >>> as my mini- dictionary has it]? Honestly, I am baffled.
At this point in time, Ethiopia is in a grand crisis with a challenge, coming from its own various provincial entities, threatening its very EXISTENCE as a cohesive ancient country, which may even affect its neighbours. Ethiopia needs to concentrate and challenge this threatening possibility hovering over the Horn of Africa. Just a frightening thought (1) THE END
————————————-
Footnote (1) There seems to be shocking rumour floating around that there are ‘Ethiopians’ who are hatching the return of Mengistu Hailemariam >>> the Leader of the notorious Derg during the 1974 -1991 era!?!?!?. May the Good Lord in Heaven pronounce a PEACEFUL LIFE for Ethiopia and for its surrounding geographical Areas.
rezen:
I doubt the Professor will write you back in the comment section, I can answer your question.
a/ Article 39 has been included into the Constitution for a quarter of century and it has not brought LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY and EQUALITY as you pointed it out. By now a sane mind might start to question whether there is any perceptible relationship of cause and effect between the article and these august concepts of human achievement when not a single democratic country in the world has this clause in its constitution and the only 2 countries who had it are autocratic regimes.
Let’s dig deeper: what’s real argument to have a secession clause in a constitution?Proponents of the idea would say that it gives regions (kilils in our case) the sense that they are coming together on their own accord to build a nation. But here is the bad news: you can’t do nation building with your hand on the door handle, period. Countries go through ups and downs through History. What would happen during bad times? You quit because you kilil is better off? And what happens if a huge reserve of oil is discovered in your neighborhood kilil? It quit because it doesn’t want to share? What happens if the country is attacked by a foreign enemy? Are you willing to defend it when you are not completely certain to be part of it in the future?
Nation building is a serious business that requires FULL committement from every party. It can’t have an exit clause.
b/ Article 39 is abominable because it has been put there on purpose by some ignorant and arrogant college drop-outs who thought they knew everything but arbored a subconscious self-hatred manifested through compulsive acts of belittling anything Ethiopian. With that article, they wanted to show us that they are not afraid to dismantle one of the oldest country in the world.