On the right to self-determination

By Messay Kebede August 19, 2009

This article is a public reaction to a long email letter sent to me by an Oromo interlocutor. The email states that unity between Amhara democratic forces and Oromo freedom fighters is necessary both to defeat the undemocratic Woyanne regime and initiate a promising future for Ethiopia. However, the letter blames the lack of unity on the resistance of Amhara democratic forces to concede the right to self-determination to the Oromo people. The imposition of an unconditional unity prevents the Oromo freedom fighters from effecting a serious move toward a rapprochement, while the refusal of some Oromo fighters to even give a chance to unity deeply upsets Amhara democratic forces. The letter suggests a middle ground based on a common goal, namely, a union of independent nations that recognizes the self-determination of each nation, and so provides the condition of a voluntary union. In other words, the pledge to give a chance to the integrity of Ethiopia should satisfy the Amhara democratic forces, just as the recognition of the right to self-determination should suit the Oromo by convincing them to enter into a free union with the Amhara and other peoples.
Though the author claims not to be a representative of the OLF, I am not convinced to what extent his views differ from the official position of the organization. Also, my purpose here is less to respond to my interlocutor than to propose some general reflections concerning the right to self-determination as a condition of union. Let me begin by what amazes most: the defenders of the right to self-determination have rejected everything of Stalin (Lenin and the Soviet Union), except his view of nations and nationalities. It is for me next to impossible to understand how scholars and politicians stop short of being critical of the Stalinist doctrine of self-determination even as they know that Stalin have been entirely wrong in everything. What are the chances for a doctrine whose inherent perversion led to such disastrous consequences to be right on the crucial issue of nation-building?
My contention is that, far from promoting free union, the right to self-determination actually blocks it. It is when union becomes unconditional that it forces peoples to find a form of accommodation that suits them all. Here is an illustrative analogy: if two competing individuals decide to build a house together, their cooperation makes sense if the house becomes their common interest, that is, if both intend to live in the same house. However, if one of the partners is at the same time building another house, whatever partnership they had becomes so suspicious that it comes to an end.
The right to self-determination cannot provide the common goal for a lasting union. Moreover, nobody is inclined to make serious concessions if the outcome is so precarious. It is when we decide to live in the same house, no matter what, that we would be inclined to better the house. While Stalin recognizes the right to secede, Rousseau maintains that a nation means an indivisible unity for only indivisibility creates a common goal. Obviously, a conditional unity is hardly able to produce a serious commitment to the idea of a lasting union.
The Stalinist approach has no historical foundation as nations did not emerge as a result of peoples exercising the right to self-determination. The politics of either lumping people together or splitting them apart according as they want or do not want to stay together is too artificial to be anything more than a manipulation of political elites. Instead, modern nations have come into being through inner movements smashing the oppressive structures of conquests and empires. With the exception of overseas colonial empires––whose difficulties to modernize relate to the absence of organized democratic movements in the pre-independence phase––the resolution to build a common house guaranteeing freedom and equality for all is the cornerstone of modern nation, not the right to secession.
Those who truly care about democracy and freedom must understand that the refusal of self-determination alone can bring about the changes that they hope. What the refusal means is that we make unity unconditional so that everything else becomes negotiable. But if the union is conditional, the blackmail of secession seriously jeopardizes the exercise of democratic rules. What is more, a union is formed without the equal alienation of rights since one of the partners reserves the right to secede. As Rousseau puts it, the condition of modern democracy is “the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.” (The Social Contract).
It is clear that the act by which a people join a political union is also the act by which it ceases to consider itself as a nation. It becomes part of an organic whole and its distinctive characteristics, such as language, religion, customs, etc., become regional expressions of a larger union. How the specificities integrate into the union is negotiable, and various forms of arrangement can ensure their protection. By contrast, union defined as a collection of autonomous nations is a Stalinist aberration and a contradiction in terms. Let us listen to Stalin:
“The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights.” (Marxism and the National Question).
What Stalin says here applies to an entity like the United Nations rather than to real existing nations whose characteristic is precisely to be sovereign in an indivisible way."
What this shows is that political unity among democratic forces has become impossible in Ethiopia because we find ourselves in an ideological muddle inherited from the Soviet Union. No more than Stalin could the Woyanne regime preserve the unity of Ethiopia without the creation of a party based on the rigid and oppressive principle of democratic centralism. The result is a tyrannical government that keeps peoples together by force after telling them that they are indeed nations and nationalities. On the other hand, opposition forces cannot unite because they are faced with the impossible dilemma of uniting elites who claim to represent nations.
It is high time that we understand that the political failure of opposition forces emerge from the fact that they want to solve a problem that is made unsolvable. The divagations of a deranged man (Stalin) on the right to self-determination has put Ethiopia in a political impasse, which if left as is, will lead to a breakup with disastrous consequences for the whole region. The best alternative is to renew the commitment to unconditional unity, thereby creating the conditions of a satisfactory solution for all. If the union is abiding, then serious talks can start on how to build the common house.
That is why I was more than happy to read in the recently released political program of the organization known as Medrek a strong reaffirmation of unity. The program plainly states that members of the organization believe that any challenges to the unity of Ethiopia must be dealt with on the basis of unity and democratic progress, and not through recourse to secession (page 22). This rebuttal of article 39 of the Ethiopian Constitution allowing the right to self-determination, including the right to secession, became necessary as a condition of unity among opposition forces.
The rebuttal is indeed a great step forward, even though it is not bold enough to reject the usage of the terms “nations” and “nationalities.” This lack of boldness exposes the program to the charge of being contradictory, since the term “nation” implies, by definition, the right to self-determination. I recommend the term “ethnic groups,” with the understanding that the Amhara and the Tigreans are no less ethnic groups than the Oromo, the Gurage, the Somali, etc. In so doing, we define Ethiopia as a multicultural nation rather than as a multinational state, a feature that requires a federal arrangement with large autonomy and self-rule. In this way, we avoid the present impasse without, however, sacrificing those rights necessary to realize the full equality of Ethiopia’s ethnic groups.

Working mothers' children unfit

Children whose mothers work are less likely to lead healthy lives than those with "stay at home" mothers, a study says.
The Institute of Child Health study of more than 12,500 five-year-olds found those with working mothers less active and more likely to eat unhealthy food.
Other experts said more work was needed to see if the results applied to other age groups.
The study is in the Journal of Epidemiology and Child Health.
About 60% of mothers with children aged up to five are estimated to be in work.
Results
The mothers were asked about the hours they worked and their children's diet, exercise levels and sedentary activities.
“ With many more mums having no choice but to work these days and with government policy actively encouraging it, it is difficult to know how mums can do better ” Sally Russell, Netmums
A third of the mothers had not worked since the birth of their child, but the mothers who were employed were spending an average of 21 hours a week at work.
They took into account factors likely to influence the results, such as the mothers' level of education and socioeconomic circumstances.
They found that five-year-olds whose mothers worked part-time or full-time were more likely to primarily consume sweetened drinks between meals.
They used their computers or watched television for at least two hours a day compared to the children of "stay at home" mothers who spent less than two hours on these activities.
They were also more likely to be driven to school compared to the children of "stay at home" mothers who tended to walk or cycle.
The children whose mothers had a flexible working pattern did have healthier lifestyles but when other factors were taken into account the researchers said there was little evidence that these children behaved more healthily.
'Time constraints'
Professor Catherine Law, who led the study, said they had not looked at fathers in this study because fathers employment levels had not changed whereas the numbers of working mothers had increased dramatically.
She said: "For many families the only parent or both parents will be working.
"Time constraints may limit parents' capacity to provide their children with healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity.
"Our results do not imply that mothers should not work.
"Rather they highlight the need for policies and programmes to help support parents."
The same children took part in an earlier study by the Institute of Child Health (ICH) which found that those with working mothers were more likely to be obese or overweight by the age of three.
In the latest study, many of the five-year-olds were engaging in health behaviours likely to promote excess weight gain: 37% were mainly eating crisps and sweets between meals, 41% were consuming sweetened drinks and 61% used the television or a computer at least two hours daily.
'Controversial research'
Glenys Jones, nutritionist with the Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research, said the study was interesting because of limited research so far on the impact of maternal employment on child health choices.
"More work is needed to take into account factors such as how related health behaviours are affected and if the age of the child alters the relationships observed."
Sally Russell, a spokesman for Netmums, said: "The stress and guilt associated with being a working mum is something we are all too well aware of. This report adds to that guilt.
"With many more mums having no choice but to work these days and with government policy actively encouraging it, it is difficult to know how mums can do better. "
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Our Change4Life movement is already helping over 370,000 families eat well, move more and live longer by helping them to understand the harm that fat and added sugar can cause to children's health, and offering them simple yet effective ways to make changes to their diet and increase their activity levels."
BBC website readers have been sending in their comments on this story. Here is a selection of their thoughts and experiences.
I was a lone parent working mum. My son is now 25 and for about half his time at school I worked full time. He always walked to school and ate healthily. He is very fit and a perfect weight for his height. I guess he is pretty typical. Eva McDiarmid, Glasgow, UK
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Never mind the fact that most of us don't have the luxury of choice in the matter. Thanks for reporting this so widely and making my commute to work just a little bit more rubbish today, BBC. Debbie Newton, Leeds, UK
I'm cross on so many levels, but mainly a personal one! I work, my husband doesn't, he is our daughter's main carer. He walks her to school, he looks after her after school stuff and cooks her meals every day. She has restricted TV time and is not allowed sweets. Why do people insist on saying 'mother' when they often mean 'parent'. It's wrong on other levels too of course, but for me it's the stupidity of assuming a mum should stay at home and a dad should work - are we still in the 50s? Naomi, Sussex, UK
As a lone mum to one daughter, I work full time because I cannot manage financially any other way. I feel like I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't. I get encouraged to work over 30 hours a week and get a financial incentive for doing this through tax credits, but I feel like I am also heavily criticised for not being a 'proper' mum by not spending enough time with my daughter. I leave the house at 8am every day, get home at 5.30pm every day, my daughter goes to bed at 7pm. I'd love to know where I'm supposed to shoehorn in some quality time with my girl! Jane Crabtree, Middlesbrough, UK
This does make me feel even more guilty for working. Being in full-time work and handing over my three year old to childcare is bad enough, and then having to spend a lot of time during the evenings and weekends doing 'house stuff' really doesn't leave me much time to spend with him, doing the things we want to do. I almost wish we could go back to the days when the mother was expected to stay at home, and the father provide. Sadly, this isn't financially possible in my case. Hannah Steward, Oldbury, UK
Well this story is of no surprise. But why should it be mothers who stay at home? Surely in these days of equality fathers should be discussed as well. My wife and I decided one of us would be at home to bring up the children ourselves. We based our decision about who would stay home on earning power. I hear many parents say they can't afford to not work yet they will lavish money on unnecessary extras. It's often about priority not ability. Too many children these days are treated like 'hobby children'. N Bair, Glossop, UK
I can't win. I don't want to work, I want to look after my family and ensure my kids have a good life. But unlike the many teen parents, I was pregnant at 16 and I married the father of my kids. We purchased a house when I was 18 and we work hard to pay our mortgage. I see this as what all parents should do to instil pride in themselves and their children. I don't live off other people's tax, I pay for the lazy people who live off the state. If a mother or father stays at home because their income allows them to then I feel this is the dream for all parents and this is very lucky. Catrina Stephens, Trowbridge, UK
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8278742.stmPublished: 2009/09/28 23:30:23 GMT© BBC MMIX

Cut-throat competition

Sep 17th 2009 PARIS From The Economist print edition

Feeding Europe’s Muslims is a growing business

JUST before the beginning of Ramadan, the month-long Muslim fast which ends this weekend, an unusual advertisement appeared on French television. Panzani, a pasta-maker, was touting its Zakia line of halal ready-meals. In a secular nation it seemed like “a little revolution”, as Le Parisien, a newspaper, put it. The French can presumably take it in their stride. The trade in halal food is growing fast, and is likely to continue to do so.
Big food producers have long catered to Muslims, a market worth some $630 billion globally according to KasehDia, a consulting company that specialises in the trade. Nestlé has produced halal goods since the 1980s; 75 of its 456 factories now have a halal certification. But only recently have big European shops followed suit. Carrefour, the world’s second-largest retailer, launched a new range of products just in time for Ramadan. Casino, a French supermarket chain, has a halal line, and British outfits Tesco and Sainsbury’s carry halal products. KFC, an American fast-food chain, is conducting a trial of halal food in eight of its British restaurants. All its French ones are already halal certified.
The main reason for growth is demographic. Although many European countries do not tally Muslims or any other religious group (estimates in France range from 4m to 7m) it is clear that Muslim populations have grown quickly as a result of immigration and higher birth rates. Many of the people who sought asylum in Western Europe in the first half of this decade were Muslims from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Mohammed, Muhammad and Mohammad were all among the 100 most popular baby boys’ names in England and Wales last year.
Although Muslims are disproportionately poor, they spend plenty of money on food. Islam is associated with a strong tradition of communal feasting. Antoine Bonnel, who runs the Paris Halal Expo, reckons that the average French Muslim spends a quarter of his or her income on food, compared with 12-14% for non-Muslims.
Nearly a third of the money goes on meat. That demand, which contrasts with a drop in meat-eating among health-conscious Christians and godless folk, has helped transform the global livestock market. The slaughtering of all lamb and goat meat in Australia for export is now done in accordance with halal custom, which involves killing animals with a single cut and draining their blood. A tenth of Australia’s total meat exports, worth about $570m a year, is halal. Brazil dominates the global market with a 54% share of exported halal meat, according to KasehDia.
As the halal market grows, two problems are emerging. The first is the lack of broad standards. Halal regulations vary widely both between countries and within them. In Australia, all slaughter for halal meat is regulated by the government. In France, by contrast, there are over 50 certification bodies, all in competition with one another. Mr Bonnel describes it as “a huge nightmare” that can lead to charges of impurity. The Malaysian government’s Halal Industry Development Corporation has tried to create a global standard, with little success so far.
The second problem is squeamishness among non-Muslims. Animals slaughtered according to halal custom are supposed to be alive when their throats are cut, a practice that animal-rights groups condemn. Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden forbid it outright. Some governments have reached a compromise that allows for animals to be partly stunned before being killed. But not all Muslims are happy with this. The halal market may be buoyant, but the waters are choppy.
Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.