The 8th anniversary of the Yalta Conference and the extravagant proposals of the American president on ending conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine prompt observers to reflect on the current value of territorial sovereignty and self-determination of nations.
The borders of the states are one more time a function of the interests of the powers, they can be freely moved according to the whims of the megalomanian leaders, and national wealth, even those awaiting discovery, becomes the subject of games and geopolitical conchachts. The gathering of the “great three” in Yalta in February 1945, even though it grew into a legend of the “failure” of Western powers towards Poland, had, without hysteria, affirmative effects on the foundation of a new, morally unjust, but truly the only possible global order, a consequence of the bipolarization of global relations. As a consequence of the triumph over Fascism, 2 victorious poles emerged, around which the concentration of forces under their command began. Despite ideological hostility, strategies of common deterrence, based on the atomic pate, allowed this order to last effectively for nearly half a century.
After each side of the block division there was a hegemonic discipline. However, it is assessed by historians in an asymmetrical way. fewer people mention to the United States the evident interference in political and consolidation processes in Western Europe, for example in France, West Germany or Italy, while much of the critical attention is focused on the russian sphere of influence, the states of the alleged east Europe, where the strict dictatorship of Moscow was in force.
Surprisingly, east European states went through an effective postwar process of material and organization reconstruction, and after the dissolution of the USSR they succeeded in rapidly reorienting politics and joining Western structures. And with all the wealth of the Sialtan livestock, especially the form of borders and divisions of the population. So anyone who calls for the review of Yalta’s inheritance must realize that this threatens to negate the full normative order, based on the United Nations Charter. If the plan of the rules of the game, developed as a consequence of the cooperation of the “great three”, will be a time of chaos, but besides a hazard of “new hand” in shaping the planet map.
Yalta and Polish borders
Poles who question the Maltese provisions do not realize that their attitude threatens to undermine the sustainability of their borders. From the position of beneficiary Poland could become a victim of a fresh dictatorship, due to the fact that in the substance of territorial order nothing is always determined erstwhile and for all. Just look at the limology, or cognition of the borders of countries, to realize that the present state of affairs is only 1 of the transitional formats of a peculiar place and time.
There was no question about the existence of individual nations in the post-Salatan rule, and their right to self-determination was not denied. The designation of territorial sovereignty has provided average and tiny countries with legal equality and at the same time provided any form of protection against the open dominance of the large powers.
Although this explanation was simply a warrant of formal independence, it was inactive a immense step forward in relation to all global orders from the past. It is frequently forgotten that the imperialism of the colonial era meant a large injustice of history, and the full past of Western powers was based on the expansion and dependence of the weaker of the stronger. Their spheres of influence, interests and work were on the agenda. Only naive idealists can believe that these forms of hierarchical dependence will someday vanish from the face of the Earth and that there will be an egalitarian order based on equality of all participants.
The establishment of national borders in accordance with the requirements of systemic stableness and geopolitical constraints was always among the war winners. Border changes were besides a consequence of inheritance, looting or purchase-sale transactions (e.g. Louisiana, Florida or Alaska). Any form of takeover of territories and populations could be replaced by further regulations. Wars and diplomacy were basic instruments for restoring and stabilising the balance of power. The setting of borders was more of a dynastic and imperial interest than a national one. Only in the 19th century did the alleged regulation of nationality begin to spread, which gave emergence to the empowerment of nations who aspired to own statehood.
After planet War II, national self-determination became the main origin of legitimacy for sovereign states. Ideological binders of both values are cultural and civic nationalisms, underlying the belief that the most equitable territorial division of the planet should coincide with the borders of national communities. This is, of course, an idealistic assumption, due to the fact that in practice there are large differences between doctrine and reality. There are thousands of nations, but only about 200 sovereign states.
The essence of the global strategy
Modern mythology of the global system, that all states are sovereign to each another and equal to a immense misunderstanding. For the last 3 decades after the end of the “cold war” the apologists of America have been telling themselves and us that there is any liberal global order, when, in fact, no specified order always occurred. global relations are constantly governed by the dialectics of competition and cooperation, combat and compromise. It is the dynamics of the relation of forces between the top powers and groups of states that depends on systemic stability. The change in the advantage of power or the superiority of the law makes the forms of common influence of powers and groups of states different, but their essence remains unchanged. The fight for influence, dominance and primacy (hegemony) in regional and global dimensions continues.
Self-determination of nations and territorial sovereignty of states in the implementation dimension have always been and are a derivative of the political will of those on whom order is dependent. In another words, all acts of self-determination in the form of proclamation of independent geopolitical units were an expression of a certain agreement that existed at that minute between the top powers. As a consequence of Hitler's failure of war and his allies, it was the "maltian powers" that opened a fresh era in the doctrine and practice of self-determination. And the fact that they themselves co-created fresh geopolitical units, even against the will of the interested, resulted from their position of winners.
First of all, after planet War II, without the will of the victorious powers, decolonization would not take place, meaning the overthrow of the rule of racial superiority. It was 1 of the most crucial sovereign processes in past in which the rule of self-determination of nations triumphed (limited by uti possidetis iuris, or the preservation of post-colonial boundaries). Its perfect was expressed in the Declaration of independency to the Colonial Countries and Peoples (UN General Assembly Resolution of 14 December 1960), and the extension of the rule of self-determination took place in the Declaration of Principles of UN global Law of 24 October 1970, which states, inter alia, that "the creation of a sovereign and independent state, association or merger with an independent state, or the taking of any another political position which the nation freely decided upon is the means of self-determination by that nation."
Realizing the complexity of matter, account must be taken of the fact that all sovereign states already existing treat as the overarching rule of territorial integrity. That means countering the rule of self-determination. The defence of territorial position quo according to a certain logic of inertia means preventing the exercise of the right to self-determination by the colonized and conquered nations. In fact, we are dealing with an unsuccessful hypocrisy of states and their governments in terms of real support for the independency of circumstantial national groups. This is best illustrated by false support for the Palestinians. Many governments support the "two state" concept of solving the Palestinian problem, but are subject to moral blackmail by Israel and the force of subsequent United States administrations to prevent the emergence of independent Palestine.
Trump flips the table?
The self-determination of nations, regardless of the normative dimension, so constitutes a questionable moral imperative in the modern global system, not a hard regulation of law. Donald Trump's proposals on the redefinition of the position of independent geopolitical units and non-reliant territories show that, contrary to expectations, America is seeking to dismantle existing institutions whose sources date back to the cooperation of planet War II powers. It is besides evident that the future of the UN is at stake, and many countries, as the United States has done, show disregard for it.
On self-determination, the paradox is that, for a long time, various national freedom and independency organisations, even more so, separatist movements are considered terrorist. They scope for force against their oppressors. Meanwhile, global law permits the usage of force by oppressed nations, subjected to colonial dependence, business or racial discrimination, and the national wars of freedom are not without reason akin to the "wars of righteousness" from the distant past, erstwhile the Christian planet struggled with the " Gentiles and heretics."
However, the US president's enunciation shows that the US does not intend to respect the right to self-determination of nations in its own statehood investigation. It is more about creating fresh forms of affiliation of existing units – associations or condominiums. However, in any case (from symbolic Greenland beginning) the proposed affiliation would require the will of the majority (presumably qualified) of the inhabitants of the area.
Cases of the creation of an independent Kosovo in 2008 with the participation of Western powers and the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 can be classified as the results of long-standing irredents, i.e. the efforts of the local population to separate from the erstwhile state and become associated with the home state (with Albania and Russia respectively). A akin justification could unfortunately not be applied to the separatist "republic" in Donbasa, which, in all another circumstances, caused the tragic Russian-Ukrainian war to erupt.
In these examples, it is clear that states respond much more powerfully to the violation of someone's sovereignty and territorial integrity by an aggressor than in defending the right to self-determination. The cases of Kosovo and Crimea show that, regardless of outrage, the global community is ready to accept forced territorial change, in line with the interests of the population in the disputed areas. On the another hand, erstwhile it comes to taking over territorial assets through armed ownership, the collective consequence is much more determined.
State sovereignty is its attribute and forms the basis for the constitutional standard of formal equality of states. Territorial sovereignty is simply a warrant of the existence of a state. Without territory, the state remains a fiction. National same - determination, on the another hand, is based on the moral desire of justice. It is the basis of aprescriptive standard (i.e. indicating desirable and accepted actions by the majority), which recommends basing territorial division on legitimate claims of national affiliation. However, the problem is that the assessment of the merits of these claims is most frequently the work of the large powers, which, in the course of selfish interests, do not necessarily support legitimate efforts to make fresh states or centrifugal tendencies in existing countries.
Territorial sovereignty is simply a preserving position quo, although the processes of expanding interdependencies, internationalisation and integration give it an illusional value in many cases. However, self-determination of nations is dynamic due to the fact that it inactive carries surprises of the emergence of fresh geopolitical units and the request to respond to them. In this context, unthought-out position quo changes in the Gaza Strip are peculiarly dangerous. Donald Trump's absurd thought of taking over this territory and making it a "riviera of the mediate East" for the price of cultural cleansing and mass displacement of the population would mean undermining the moral and legal concept that the territory belongs to a peculiar nation. The full structure would be ruined in a logical way, shaped within respective centuries of the post-Western order.
Any decision on the destiny of another nations without asking their opinion means first and foremost to undermine the fundamental principles of global law. Thus, Donald Trump's disinvolvement expressed in the thought of taking over the Gaza Strip by the US demonstrates not only the instrumental treatment of Palestinians' right to self-determination, but is besides an expression of contempt for the full legal and political acquis in the area of peaceful coexistence. It is an expression of geopolitical Darwinism which resembles the views of 19th-century German geopoliticists with Friedrich Ratzel at the head.
Case of Ukraine
In the context of Trump's declaration, there is even greater concern about the peace plan for Ukraine. It is not known whether he will treat the right to self-determination in the territories occupied by Russia with equal disregard. If it recognizes Russia's rights to annex part of east Ukraine, it means that it will let territorial changes to be made through war. This will be a return to practices long abandoned and morally condemned. After all, if he advocates Ukraine's recovery of areas lost during the war, it means that he will stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, but in conflict with the right to self-determination of the Russian-speaking national population, seeking to join Russia in the example of Crimea.
All these unknowns are nothing to the extremist change of the full doctrine of geopolitics. Trump, with his acolytes, opens the way to the return of power politics, straight referring to the regulation of social relations on the basis of “who?” The ruler of the Americanum Empire puts himself above all decision-making entities, ignoring the interests of another participants in global relations, reasoning that everything in the planet can be bought and sold, conquered or fought. Yet, the U.S., and even more so, Trump himself does not have the right to freely own another people's property or impose on others without their will their absurd designs for changes in the foundations of global order.
On the issue of peace in Ukraine, a compromise is required taking into account not only the interests of Ukraine itself, but above all Russia. All the more so, that in the Russian-Ukrainian war there is no and there will be no unequivocal winner. In addition to territorial sovereignty and national self-determination, it will so be crucial to recognise the indivisibility of both sides of the conflict. This means that no of the militant parties after the end of the armed action may feel threatened by their resumption by their opponent.
For now, the American president is betting on a commercial dictatorship towards Ukraine. safety guarantees granted to this country would should be well-paid to be effective. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian president does not presently have the authority to give effective American protection to the Ukrainian state for years. The willingness to give into the hands of the Americans immense natural resources of Ukraine (including those under Russian control) demonstrates that the current Ukrainian authorities are unprecedentedly protecting territorial sovereignty, which has no legitimacy in the form of collective will. specified decisions shall always require the approval expressed in the general votes.
In light of the crazy ideas of American diplomacy, then, we must definitely defend the position expressed in global law that territorial sovereignty is closely linked to the moral right of nations to decide their own fate. The time erstwhile rulers could sale territorial resources on a real property transaction basis ended.
Donald Trump's designs so include a dangerous trap set against the Ukrainian president. If he succumbs to American pressure, he can face the refusal of his society to approve in the future of planned transactions. It is to be hoped that Trump's cynical play by the addressees of his revisionist pretensions will sooner or later consequence in a failure to return to the popular rules of the game.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 7-8 (16-23.02.2024)
