Venezuela

Nationalization of industries can be a way to limit predatory acts of multinational corporations. It also is a way to limit foreign investment in your country and concomitantly foreign influence. Insofar as foreign investment is good for a country’s economy, nationalization has its definite negative effects. But insofar as it protects low to middle income people against the whims of the big business, it is good. Of course, it is a socialistic endeavor. It is also local protectionism glossing over nationalism. Putin did that in Russia with mixed results—it did not raise the standard of living for most Russians. It also did not really curb influence of big business. It basically only gave more control over the country’s economy to the government. Sometimes it is good. But so far it has not brought any tangible results.

Since January 2007 Hugo Chavez of Venezuela also began in that direction. Targeting the telecommunications and energy sectors, he moved towards the oil industry. The US oil companies there were the target. Exxon Mobil was possibly going to lose all its investments. The comments by the U.S. ambassador in Venezuela about ‘fair compensation’ prompted Chavez to accuse him of meddling in Venezuela’s inner affairs. To moderate the situation the U.S. Department of State spokesman said:

Question: Do you have anything on President Chavez of Venezuela’s announcement… that he was moving forward with plans to create collective property, seizing a lot of landowners’ land to further his socialist policies.

Mr. Casey:… It’s going to be up to the Venezuelan Government and the Venezuelan people to determine how they want to manage their economy and how they wish to move their process forward. I think we certainly believe that free markets, fair markets, fair trade and the opportunity presented through those mechanisms in the long run does far better for the people of the region than any statist solutions…

But ultimately, just as with any country, it’s going to be up to the Venezuelans to determine how they wish to proceed… As you know, we’ve spoken in the past in terms of the expropriation or nationalization of private entities. And the one thing that we have held clear is that we would expect Venezuela, just like any other country in the process of nationalization, to provide fair and appropriate compensation to any private owners in accordance with international standards.

With the recent failure of referendum pushed by Chavez, it is clear that not all of his policies have garnered full support of the people. First, because nationalization generally leads to absolute control of the country by the government. It seems, creating institutions that regulate free markets from abuses and whims would be better. But it is really a spectrum. The more regulation of the market, the more control given to the government. Finding the perfect balance seems to be the solution. It is not by a formula, but about a clever government who can really temper its desire for control and do something for the general welfare of a country. Of course, definition of ‘general welfare’ is subject to dispute…

(see the latest publication of American Journal of International Law)

Venezuela

What has just happened in Venezuela is very characteristic of the world trends. Nationalistic fervor in support of Hugo Chavez, while not enough to pass his proposed referendum, is the galvanizing force behind all this. The referendum failed only by a couple of percents (49 to 51%), which illustrates how much influence he has got in his country. His proposals were almost revolutionary and Napoleonic. He was basically going to make himself the president of his country until his death. He was also going to get vast powers under the new Constitution. Some say, he lost the battle but won the war (full story here and here>). Others say, there is still hope for democracy in Venezuela. Cult of personality is always antithetical to true democracy. His attempts to become the 'father' of his nation, very reminiscent of Stalin, are alarming.

But there is also a geopolitical problem here. He is capitalizing on the dissatisfaction with the US influence in Venezuela. People who have financially benefitted from his 'localistic' economic policies are his most ardent supporters. Localism means selling oil that Venezuela possesses at a price it chooses, not pushed by the US. Or maybe refusing to sell to the US altogether... Of course, this is not only about localism, but protecting national interests. Thus, Chavez may in fact gather enough support under this design. Saddam Hussein did that for many years. Using the anti-American sentiments to his personal benefit he built his empire and dictatorship. ...

Examining the right to self-determination...

It is very important for those interested in this subject to delve more deeply into it and perhaps conclude that some claims for self-determination may not be valid, at least under current international law. An illuminating article on this was written not long ago by Jonathan Charney, Self-Determination: Chechnya, Kosovo, and East Timor, 34 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 455 (2001). He took up to analyze this very issue: the color spectrum of claims by groups for self-determination and how some may really not be valid.

'Validity' is an interesting concept. Who decides the validity of a claim? Isn't self-determination an inherent right of a group seeking it? How can the international community dictate whether one claim is valid over the other? Which actors in the international community would prevail? Aren't the minority groups in need of protection against the elites that dominate the international arena?

But as discussed on this blog earlier, the right to self-determination is proscribed by certain limitations, one of which is territorial integrity of a UN member. Thus, there is an opposing force, also recognized under international law. So, there are two forces clashing, and depending on the strength of each, one prevails over the other. For example, the Kosovo claim prevailed for various reasons, one of which was the geopolitical and global disillusionment with Communism. Yugoslavia, a former Communist state was no longer capable of containing the centrigufal forces within its territory. These forces had been fomenting even before Communism took hold in Europe. These were long-standing historic frozen volcanoes that erupted only now, at the end of the 20th century.

Chechnya's claim for self-determination did not meet the same success level for various historic reasons. But it is by no means a settled case. Chechnya will continue to be a problem for Russia for a long time... But Chechnya's location was different and thus affected its destiny. Every region in the world has its unique characteristics and historical balance sheet. People often ignore this but much too often geographic location dictates the fate of a group. Don't forget to look at the map of the world functionally...

Thus, the right to self-determination and its status in international law is far from clear and far from settled... Perhaps, the same can be said of all legal concepts (with some exceptions) in international law, because making and application of international law is not by a recipe, but trial and error...

It would be useful to begin from examining the origins of the right to self-determination: concepts of nationhood and decolonization and then follow the application of international politics and law in understanding its exercise.

(For more on this topic visit here for forthcoming publication by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).

Self-Determination, Secession and Nationalism

Article 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly on December 16, 1966 states:
All peoples have the right of self-determination...

Subsection 3 adds:
The States Parties to the present Covenant shall promote the realization of the right to self-determination and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the UN.

Article 4 (1) furthermore states:
In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed...
derogation from Article 1 is allowed.
(click here)

The right to self-determination is recognized in conformity with the Charter of the UN. Let us look at the Charter (here)

Article 2(4):
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.

Article 1 (2) where the purposes are stated:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

In short, the right to self-determination is recognized with a caveat-- that its enforcement is in conformity with the Charter of the UN. Use of force and aggression against the territorial integiry of a UN member is prohibited. Looking back at history, almost every movement for self-determination and secession was accompanied with use of force fueled by nationalism, religious fervor or ethnic antagonism. Therefore, it is also well-known that throughout its existence the UN also sought to promote the status quo and in fact had a difficulty of recognizing secessionist newly-formed states. The case of Somalia is vivid. The break-up of that country into pieces has not even been updated on the map.
It makes me think, if we encourage the right of self-determination of peoples, which leads to use of force most of the time, aren't we also then encouraging use of force. Chechnya and the Western criticism of the way Russia has been handling it is an example. While it is indubitable that Russia has crossed many boundaries of human rights in that area, Chechen extremists and nationalists were not devoid of fault. They sought secession not by peaceful means but by use of force that invited cyclical reaction from Russia. While the right to self-determination is an important political right, in the real world it has become a source of much devastation. It is enough to examine the case of Yugoslavia.
It is also true, that the basis for the right of self-determination is freedom and independence of a nation. How could India not fight for its independence from the British? How could the US not do the same? Often, the oppression of the minority ethnic group by the majority is the precursor of the secessionist movement. But non-violent resistance stressed by Gandhi is the aspiration. This is the dilemma for the gatekeepers of international security: how to recognize the right to self-determination of peoples and not encourage use of force. Moreover, if we acknowledge the dangerous effects of nationalism for peace in the world, we must also acknowledge that often calls for self-determination veil precisely that-- nationalism.

Nationalism and Patriotism

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) said once, "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of the mind." I would add, it is a dangerous disease. The rise of nationalism in the post-Communist world and the war on terror is fearful and perhaps, fatal. Patriotism and natural love of one's country have transformed into feelings of superiority and xenophobia. Indeed, it is a fine line separating patriotism from nationalism. It is a spectrum that changes its colors due to the rules of physics and chemistry-- often undetected by the human eye until it is too late. Patriotism is healthy and is necessary for human flourishing. John F. Kennedy's words calling people to do something for their country are the beginning-point of building a humane society. A person who does not love her country cannot cherish it and cannot contribute to it positively. People who drink the blood of their country without caring for it are parasites and vampires. But every human being must be cognizant of the fine line separating patriotism from nationalism and when they approach that line in the fray of the moment, should sober up and stop. Patriotism should not turn into a blind form of obsession over one's superiority or fear/distrust of others-- nationalism. That is the worst and most fatal mistake that humans can make because all other problems follow from that. Today the rise of nationalism has translated into virulent fundamentalism of all shapes and all forms and everywhere in the world. Discrimination of minorities-- racial, ethnic, national has become sharper even in Western liberal societies. And there is no end to the 'war on terror' because it is really shaped and inflamed by nationalism.