International Law and Peoples’ Self-Determination (XIV)

EUSKAL HERRIA AND THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, OR THE BASQUE PEOPLE AND ITS STATE, AGAINST FRENCH-SPANISH IMPERIALISM

XIV – International Law and Peoples’ Self-Determination

Iñaki Aginaga and Felipe Campo

The international, fundamental and inherent rights of independence, free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples, and of their legitimate self-defence:an essential part of International Law, were formulated, voted, formally recognized – not constituted – and registered in the Charter of the United Nations’ Organization (UNO) by “We, the Peoples of the United Nations”; an Organization created by the victorious Allies faced with the “States enemies”. From the Charter, there follow the rules constantly formulated – and not implemented – by the UNO.

All this was developed from 1945 on the initiative of the USSR; without forgetting that this State had been expelled from the League of Nations, on 1939 December the 14^th, because of its war of aggression against Finland in the ‘Winter War’. This was the result of its previous pact – Stalin-Hitler – with Nazi Germany, at the end of August 1939, for their joint partition of Poland and the rest of the “Zones of influence” in Europe; with the Soviet annexation of all the Baltic States, which was followed by its ultimatum to the Kingdom of Romania and its subsequent annexation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and other territories in June 1940. Meanwhile, Western Europe had enough to deal with Nazi Germany in response to the aggression that, apparently alone and on its own, the latter had carried out against Poland in agreement with its ally the Bolshevik USSR.

In reality, the development of the new international law was carried out under the pressure of the States and Peoples of the Third World, in the conditions of the Second post-World War, and  after that aborted test of the First One that had been the League of Nations: officially dissolved in April-1946. The “States enemies” were not fit enough to oppose the law of the winners and create problems; the occupied and colonized Countries would not take a long time to create them; and the minor Powers accepted the political order of the two emerging super-Powers.

The International Law according the UNO does firstly concern “the fundamental right of peoples to peace and security”, “the maintenance of international peace and security”, the measures proper to collective security, and what is to be the use – whether legal or illegal – of force in international relations, according to the Charter and its subsequent developments. Peoples have the right to peace. It was precisely the defence of peace, after two disastrous world wars, the main argument that was produced for the progressive recognition of the right of self-determination of all Peoples (RSD) by the Western Powers. The United Nations (UN), whose first task according to the Charter is the defence of peace, have repeated constantly the same reasoning:

“The General Assembly, Recalling that in the Charter the peoples of the United Nations proclaimed their determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and that one of the fundamental purposes of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security,” etc. [UNGAR 33/73 (1978); 39/11 (1984) etc.]

The international right of Peoples: formally recognized by the Charter and the Resolutions of the UNO and successive Declarations and Conventions of Human Rights, condemned as timeless and imprescriptible international crimes against the laws of war, against peace and security of States, and against humanity, among others: the aggression and the threat of aggression, the “right of conquest”, the annexation in all its forms and the genocide in all its forms, the violation of the RSD, the alien subjugation, domination and exploitation, the demographic policy of implantation of colonies of population and the deportation of natives, the denial of the specific identity of the oppressed Peoples, the State Terrorism, and the imperialism and colonialism in all their forms. It also defined the difference between aggression and self-defence, between terrorism – individual or of State – and the struggles of liberation of Peoples.

In that ideological-political context: emerged after the Second World War, there had been enunciated the principles and rules of a new world order in the bosom of the United Nations. But the infra-strategic and liquidationist line maintained by the Pnv-Anv Basque bureaucratic opposition, as well as the absence of a genuine political class, determined that the new situation were ignored and fatally squandered: the first great wave of decolonization, self-determination and independence of the subjugated Peoples went past our Country, the same as it happened with the second one half a century later; waves that have not left for us any consequence except the undertow: the joint reinforcement of the imperialistic status quo under the instigation of Spain and of France.

And yet those principles could not be more explicit. “Once and again the General Assembly has proclaimed loudly what has become an axiom in the UN: that Self-Determination is the mandatory basis for all human rights.” Only by way of example we are going to indicate next some of these texts, collected from the own Declarations and Resolutions of the Organs of the UN, from among overwhelming literature that would be tedious to summarize even in its most important milestones.

“The General Assembly, [...], Considering it essential that the [International] Covenant [on Human Rights] should include provisions rendering it obligatory for States to promote the implementation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Covenant, and to take the necessary steps, including legislation, to guarantee to everyone the real opportunity of enjoying those rights and freedoms, [...]; D 6. Calls upon the Economic and Social Council to request the Commission on Human Rights to study ways and means which would ensure the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, and to prepare recommendations for consideration by the General Assembly at its sixth session; E [...], Whereas, when deprived of economic, social and cultural rights, man does not represent the human person whom the Universal Declaration regards as the ideal of the free man, 7. (a) Decides to include in the Covenant on Human Rights economic, social and cultural rights and an explicit recognition of equality of men and women in related rights, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations;” etc. [UNGAR 421 D (1950); Draft of International Covenant on Human Rights and measures of implementation.]

“Inclusion in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights of an article relating to the right of peoples to self-determination.

“Whereas the General Assembly at its fifth session recognized the right of peoples and nations to self-determination as a fundamental human right [Resolution 421 D (V) of 4 December 1950], [...], Whereas the violation of this right has resulted in bloodshed and war in the past and is considered a continuous threat to peace,

The General Assembly,

(i)          To save the present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war,

(ii)          To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, and

(iii)          To take due account of the political aspirations of all peoples and thus to further international peace and security, and to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,

1. Decides to include in the International Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights an article on the right of all peoples and nations to self-determination in reaffirmation of the principle enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations. This article shall be drafted in the following terms: ‘All peoples shall have the right of self-determination’, and shall stipulate that all States, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories should promote the realization of that right, in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, and that States having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories should promote the realization of that right in relation to the peoples of such Territories;

2. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to prepare recommendations concerning international respect for the self-determination of peoples and to submit these recommendations to the General Assembly at its seventh session. 375th plenary meeting, 5 February 1952.” [UNGAR 545 (VI-1951)]

According to an insistent formula of contemporary UN International Law, the fundamental human right of free disposition or self-determination of all Peoples is the first of human rights and the indispensable prior condition of them all. There is no place in this issue for any valid distortion, manipulation, or postponement:

“The right of peoples and nations to self-determination. - “A – Whereas the right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights, [...], Whereas every Member of the United Nations, in conformity with the Charter, should respect the maintenance of the right of self-determination in other States, The General Assembly recommends that: 1. The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations;” etc. [UNGAR 637 A (1952)]

In the International Law declared – not constituted – by the UN, the fundamental and inherent right of self-determination of all Peoples excludes any form of imperialistic domination, so that the independence from that domination does not follow but implies or precedes any eventual free decision on a following association or integration, and all democratic choice on the subsequent modifications, forms or variants of political constitution. This is not a question of moralityor law since, what cannot be otherwise, is not a matter subject to regulations, nor leaves place for speaking of what “must be, or should be, or should have been”.

In the Resolution “Factors which should be taken into account in deciding whether a Territory is or is not a Territory whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government”,

“The General Assembly, [...] 6. Considers that the manner in which the Territories referred to in chapter XI of the Charter [those ‘whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government’] can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another State or group of States if this is done freely and on the basis of absolute equality; 7. Reaffirms that the factors [referred to in the title of the Resolution, which are listed in the Annex and that are mentioned below], while serving as a guide in determining whether the obligations as set forth in Chapter XI of the Charter shall exist, should in no way be interpreted as a hindrance to the attainment of a full measure of self-government by a Non-Self-Governing Territory;” etc. [UNGAR 742 (1953)]

In the “List of Factors Indicative of the Attainment of Independence [indicated in its First Part, which obviously precludes any ambiguity in this regard] or of Other Separate Systems of Self-Government [in its Second part]”: a List that is annexed to this Resolution, are set forth these factors in the Second Part:

“[...] 2. Freedom of choice. Freedom of choosing, on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities, including independence. [Which shows that the right of self-determination is not the “right to decide”, nor the right of deciding, nor the freedom to decide.] [...] 5. Ethnic and cultural considerations. Extent to which the populations are of different race, language or religion or have a distinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishing them from the peoples of the country with which they freely associate themselves. 6. Political advancement. Political advancement of the population sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the Territory with due knowledge.” Etc.

All of which shows the relevance of ethnic and cultural considerations for the affirmation of differentiated Peoples and States.

Redounding in those “Other Separate Systems of Self-Government”,

“The General Assembly, Considering the objectives set forth in Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations, Bearing in mind the list of factors annexed to General Assembly resolution 742 (VIII) of 27 November 1953, [...] 2. Approves the principles set out in section V, part B, of the report of the Committee, as amended and as they appear in the annex to the present resolution; 3. Decides that these principles should be applied” etc. [UNGAR 1541 (1960)]

There follows then the mentioned Annex of Principles:

“[...] Principle VI: A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by: a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State; b) Free association with an independent State; or c) Integration with an independent State. Principle VII: (a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the culture characteristic of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes. [...] Principle VIII: Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government. Principle IX: Integration should have come about in the following circumstances: (a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes; (b) The integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the territory’s peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes.” Etc. [UNGAR 1541 (1960)]

And, confirming the above mentioned, in “The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples it is stated that:

[...] The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State, or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people, constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.” [UNGAR 2625 (1970)]

It is on this seemingly ambiguous exposition of the form to implement the Peoples’ Self-Determination: which affirms and legitimizes the free association and even the integration with an already constituted independent State as an alternative to the independence, the way as there has been basically built the argumentation used by the imperialism so as to deny the essential content of the RSD as original independence. Yet, there isn’t the slightest chance of confusion, since – as it is evident – those “Other Separate Systems of Self-Government”: set forth as an alternativeto the “attainment of independence” and to the “emergence as a sovereign independent State”, do always involve the observance of fundamental human rights and therefore of the RSD, whose essential content is the independence of/from imperialism.

And moreover, that exposition makes it perfectly clear that the other options are only recognized “if this is done freely and on the basis of absolute equality”: conditions totally incompatible with imperialism. On the other hand, such options/decisions of free association, integration, confederation, or federation: freely adopted in the use of the original independence against the alien power, do not suppress or disrupt the inherent and permanentRSD, whose sole necessary content is the fundamental independence from/against imperialism; nor do they impede subsequent different options/choices either.

So, the “Freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities, including independence”, is one of the “factors indicative of the attainment of independence or other separate systems of self-government”; which excludes all reductive identity of the RSD, of which such “freedom of choice” is a part, and identifies self-determination with independence from imperialism.

That’s to say: the eventual and secondary optionsof getting either associated, integrated, confederated or federated with an independent State (insofar as they constitute “freely determined [...] modes of implementing the right of self-determination”), chosen by a People on the basis of the “Principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”; as well as the decision about any “freely determined” political status by which “the self-government can also be achieved”, do necessarily require the previous attainment of the independence from the imperialism: a primary, original and fundamental independence without which it is not possible to “freely determine” any association, confederation or federation.

Obviously, there is no place for independence from imperialism – other than hypostatic – unless it is done in a concrete and effective political form: whether it be temporary or permanent. In any case, and as it is clear, to present such possible secondary optionsas a reduction or limitation of what is the sole object and necessary content of the RSD, namely: the abolition of imperialism by the primary and immediate independence of the Peoples, is merely another ideological trick intended for the perpetuation of imperialism.

In their attempt to limit the application of such obvious precepts, the dominant Nations had always put the “preparation” of the Peoples as a condition for independence, and the faulty existence of that “preparation” – according to party’s appreciation – was a continuous pretext for their rejecting of the latter. The UN did initially confirm the need of a

“Political advancement of the population, sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the Territory with due knowledge.” [UNGAR 742 (1953)]

However, in the subsequent development of the International Law, any kind of limitation to justify the delay in the access to independence there was eliminated:

“The General Assembly [...] Declares that [...] 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.” Etc. [UNGAR 1514 (1960)]

Similarly,

“The General Assembly [...] Emphasizing that inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as pretext for delaying independence, 1. Solemnly reiterates and reaffirms the objectives and principles enshrined in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960; 2. Calls upon States concerned to take action without further delay with a view to the faithful application and implementation of the Declaration;” etc. [UNGAR 1654 (1961)]

“The General Assembly, Recalling the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, [...] 1. Invites the Administering Members to take immediate steps [...] for the widest possible circulation and dissemination in those Territories of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples; [...] 5. Requests that the Declaration be circulated and disseminated in the principal local languages as well as in the languages of the Administering Members;” etc. [UNGAR 1695 (1961)]

“The General Assembly, [...] Considering that, in the light of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples contained in its resolution 1514 [etc.], immediate steps shall be taken to transfer all powers to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories without any conditions or reservations,” etc. [UNGAR 1697 (1961)]

It is sufficiently clear, therefore, that “no pretext, condition or reservation of any kind” should delay the implementation of the Declaration 1514 (XV). Moreover, the action undertaken by the UNO was not intended to be applied only in the limited regions allegedly affected:

“The General Assembly, [...] Concerned about the policy of colonial Powers to circumvent the rights of colonial peoples through the promotion of the systematic influx of foreign immigrants and the dislocation, deportation and transfer of the indigenous inhabitants, [...]; 5. Calls upon the colonial Powers to discontinue their policy of violating the rights of colonial peoples through the systematic influx of foreign immigrants and the dislocation, deportation and transfer of the indigenous inhabitants; [...]; 10.Recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination and independence and invites all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial Territories; [...]; 12. Requests the colonial Powers to dismantle the military bases installed in colonial Territories and to refrain from establishing new ones; [...]; 14. Requests the Secretary-General to take all necessary measures to promote large-scale dissemination of the Declaration and of the work of the Special Committee, in order that world opinion may be sufficiently informed of the serious threat to peace posed by colonialism and apartheid, and calls upon all administering Powers to co-operate with the Secretary-General in his efforts;” etc. [UNGAR 2105 (1965)]

“The General Assembly, [...] Convinced that further delay in the complete and universal implementation of the Declaration [on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples] remains a source of international conflicts and differences, which are seriously impeding international co-operation and endangering world peace and security, [...] 18. Requests the Secretary-General to promote, through the various organs and agencies or the United Nations, the continuous and large-scale publicizing of the Declaration and of the work of the Special Committee, in order that world opinion may be sufficiently aware of the situation in the colonial Territories and of the continuing struggle for liberation waged by the colonial peoples;” etc. UNGAR 2189 (1966)]

“The General Assembly, [...] Recognizing the need for objective dissemination of information about developments in the political, social, economic, cultural and other fields of all countries and the role and responsibility of the mass media in this respect, thus contributing to the growth of trust and friendly relations among States,” [UNGAR 32/154 (1977)]

The General Assembly is thus condemning the politics that disorientate the world’s public opinion. Summing up: even though the aforementioned condition of a proper “preparation” continues to be maintained, it’s now clear that in any case it is destined for the eventual association or integration with an independent State, but not to justify the delay in the effectiveness of the independence, so overwhelmingly demanded “without any conditions or reservations”. Let’s remember it: “Principle IX: Integration should have come about in the following circumstances: (a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;” etc. Similarly, the “differences” between Western and Oriental – continental and overseas etc. – Peoples are not taken into consideration, as regards the RSD of all Peoples.

Neither can imply any limitation for the independence such factors as territorial size, geographical location etc. Let’s see:

“The General Assembly, [...], Having examined the relevant chapters of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Grating of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,Recallingits resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, [...]; 3. Reaffirms its conviction that questions of territorial size, geographical location and limited resources should in no way delay the implementation of the Declaration with respect to American Samoa; [...]; 5. Urges the administering Power to continue its efforts to ensure that the culture and identity of the people of the Territory continue to be reflected in the Government and administration of the Territory and preserved to the fullest extent; [...]; 9. Urges the administering Power [...] to safeguard the inalienable right of the people of the Territory to the enjoyment of their natural resources by taking effective measures which guarantee the right of the people to own and dispose of those natural resources and to establish and maintain control of their future development;” etc. [UNGAR 32/24 (1977)]

In numerous resolutions, the UN themselves have expressed- their “shocked consternation” and their growing reserves and mistrust in the cases in which Peoples “democratically opt” for an association or integration with an independent State without a previous “full independence and sovereignty”. Therefore, in various processes of self-determination, the involved Peoples have argued that free association and integration imply also previous independence. The independence from imperialism has to be attained beforeany other decision, in States “conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. [UNGAR 2625 (1970)] In short, any subsequent modification or developmentof the Act that constitutes the abolition of imperialism by the getting of the independence from it: which is the essential object of Self-Determination, must come after thatindependence, and cannot replace it.

Indeed, the “direct passage”: from the subjugation under imperialism to the association or integration with it, does put into question, doubt or under suspect the authenticity of the primary independence, which is the condition of the free association and integration, as forms that they are of secondary independence. Obviously, without the primary independence such direct passage to the “association or integration” would hide the continuity of the previous status of imperialistic and colonial domination and the fact of “continuing as before”.

The RSD of all Peoples is a fundamental, inherent, customary, common, constituent, unilateral, unconditional, immediate, inalienable and unwaivable right; but the imperialistic – national-fascist or national-socialist/communist – ideology turns it into a subordinate, subsidiary, exceptional, constituted, granted, accessory, bi- or multi-laterally agreed, conditioned and deferred right.

A conditioned or deferred RSD is a contradiction in terms. The RSD of all Peoples is the fundamental right of immediate nationalfreedom or liberation against imperialism. It has as the sole content the political and national independence without conditions or procrastination: “regardless of the time in which the imperialistic incorporation was carried out; also regardless of the degree of development or backwardness of the nation forcibly incorporated or maintained by force within the borders of an occupying State; regardless, in short, of the fact that this nation be in Europe or in distant overseas countries”. As regards the imperialism, the unique voice of order that corresponds to the RSD is “Away from the occupied and colonized territories!”

As we’ve already seen, for Lenin “the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. Later on, we shall see still other reasons why it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to exist as a separate state”, clearly materialized all this in what he calls “the right to secession”:

“Let us state first of all that however meagre the Russian Social-Democratic literature on the ‘right of nations to self-determination’ may be, it nevertheless shows clearly that this right has always been understood to mean the right to secession. [...] As far back as 1902, Plekhanov [here Lenin leaves a note on ‘his infamous drift to opportunism and, subsequently, to chauvinism’], in Zarya, defended ‘the right to self-determination’ in the draft programme [of the Russian Social-Democratic Party], and wrote that this demand, while not obligatory upon bourgeois democrats, was ‘obligatory upon Social-Democrats’. ‘If we were to forget it, or hesitate to advance it’, Plekhanov wrote, ‘for fear of offending the national prejudices of our fellow-countrymen of Great-Russian nationality, the call... «Workers of all countries, unite!» would be a shameful lie on our lips...’

“[...] The abandonment of this point, no matter for what motives, is actually a ‘shameful’ concession to Great-Russian nationalism. But why Great-Russian, when it is a question of the right of all nations to self-determination? Because it refers to secession from the Great Russians. The interests of the unity of the proletarians, the interests of their class solidarity call for recognition of the right of nations to secede — that is what Plekhanov admitted twelve years ago in the words quoted above. Had our opportunists given thought to this, they would probably not have talked so much nonsense about self-determination. [...] The reader will see that at the Second Congress of the Party [1903], which adopted the programme, it was unanimously understood that self-determination meant “only” the right to secession. [...]

“To sum up: As far as the theory of Marxism in general is concerned, the question of the right of self-determination presents no difficulty. No one can seriously question the London [International Congress] resolution of 1896 (1), or the fact that self-determination implies only the right to secede,” etc. (V. Lenin; The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914.)

1.      “This resolution reads: ‘This Congress declares that it stands for the full right of all nations to self-determination [Selbstbestimmungsrecht], and expresses its sympathy for the workers of every country now suffering under the yoke of military, national or other absolutism.’ Etc.”

These statements leave undoubtedly in evidence the social-imperialistic and chauvinist character of those who also nowadays, claiming themselves in words as “Socialist or Marxist”, do in reality reject and fight the RSDof Nations, and in particular its precondition: the abolition of military occupation and the demand for the UNCONDITIONAL AND IMMEDIATE EVACUATION of all the forces of military occupation and of the entire imperialistic colonization apparatus, out of the criminally occupied/annexed Country.

“[...] and meanwhile, the nationalism of the oppressor nation is lost sight of. [...]. Their ideas predominate, and their persecution of non-Russians for ‘separatism’, for thinking about secession, is being preached, and practiced in the Duma, in the schools, in the churches, in the barracks, and in hundreds and thousands of newspapers. It is this Great-Russian nationalist poison that is polluting the entire all-Russia political atmosphere. This is the misfortune of one nation; which, by subjugating other nations, is strengthening reaction throughout Russia.” (V. Lenin; ibid.)

Currently, there is no interest in our insisting on this, since the function of those groups as agents of political recuperation in favour of the imperialism has been already unmasked, and their identification with the ultra-nationalist chauvinism of the imperialistic financial and landowner oligarchy, great bourgeoisie, Army and Church, in our case Spanish and French, is constantly revealed by their own and enthusiastic confession in the out-and-out maintenance of what they call “the national unity and integrity”, applied to their imperialistic States.

Instead, it does certainly have a great interest for us to analyze the important evolution and changes that, starting from the end of World War II, have experienced the concepts of self-determination and of secession in the International Law of the UN; which, from being equivalent in the texts that we’ve just quoted, have passed to differ in a fundamental form. And this up to the point that ignoring nowadays that fact and raising the issue of independence from imperialism as the realization of the “right to secession” constitutes a great error and a fatal trap, which the ideological agents of imperialism promote and use in order to override the RSD, to the detriment of the subjugated Peoples and States. This is because the extension and comprehensionof the concept of “secession” have become much more restricted in the current International Law; in such a way that, even though Lenin’s positions did undoubtedly mark an honest and clear democratic anti-imperialistic stance that continues being correct, insofar as he claimed the equivalence of self-determination of Nations with “the formation of an independent national state” and “the right to exist as a separate state”, nevertheless it cannot be accepted any longer that this is so as a result of the realization of “their right to secession/separation”, as he affirmed. We are going to analyze next these issues.

Aware of these changes, the adaptation developed by the imperialism to this new situation has consisted, on the one hand, in distorting, in general, the content of the RSD(by reinforcing in particular its already improper identification with secession and other diverse legal figures). And, on the other, in reaffirming the purported untouchable and irreversible character of States arising from imperialistic “Incorporations” and “Unions” based on Bulls or on the “right of conquest”, established on previous or simultaneous military occupation: “Cortes of Incorporation” of 1515 and “Edict of Union” of 1620 for the Kingdom of Nabarre; “Nueva Planta Decrees” of 1707 for the Kingdoms of Aragon and of Valencia, of 1715 for the Kingdom of Majorca, and of 1716 for the Principado of Catalonia; “Acts of Union” of 1536, 1707 and 1800 for Wales, Scotland and Ireland; “Law of Modification of the Charters” of 1839, confirming the transformation “of the [Basque] Provinces and the rest of the [Kingdom of] Nabarre” into Spanish provinces etc. It’s upon such bases that it is claimed the protection that the International Law of the UN guarantees to the States, hiding that such protection refers to States “conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of Peoples”, and not to imperialistic States.

The imperialistic ideology has always tried to reduce, confuse and replace the original RSD or Independence of the subjugated Peoples, with purported rights – limited and derived – to the autonomy, federation, or free association; however, the RSD is not such things, and cannot, therefore, be reduced to or replaced by such legal forms. Of course, it was not so for Lenin, and it is even less so since the International Law declared by the UN has established that the RSD is not the right to autonomy nor the right to federation or confederation; nor is “the right to decide” either or the right to secession/separation either.

“On leaving the 1903 Congress, Rosa Luxemburg’s friends [the Polish Marxists Warszawski and Hanecki] submitted the following statement: ‘We propose that Clause 7 [now Clause 9] of the draft programme read as follows: § 7. Institutions guaranteeing full freedom of cultural development to all nations incorporated in the State.’ (P. 390 of the Minutes.) Thus, the Polish Marxists at that time put forward views on the national question that were so vague that instead ofself-determination they practically proposed the notorious ‘cultural-national autonomy’, only under another name! This sounds almost incredible, but unfortunately it is a fact.” Etc. (V. Lenin; ibid.)

As regards self-determination and secession: in a decisive form and as opposed to the concept of Lenin that identified them tout court, the new doctrine of the UN deepens in these concepts and is much more specific in their meaning. This one is built on this fundamental idea: the occupied/annexed/incorporated and colonized Peoples, States and Territories are not part of the occupying State but “have, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering them”. [UNGAR 2625 (1970). Emphasis added] Thence follows the fact that in such cases the secession is not either licit or illicit but becomes impossible.

Let’s see: according to the International Law of the UN, the imperialistic conquest/annexation/incorporation/union do not constitute an “integration with anindependent State”, since in that case, it is about an imperialistic State that has previously resorted to armed aggression and occupation; which has nothing to do with the free and voluntary integration described in the above-mentioned Resolution 1541 (1960). As that integration was formulated in Principles VI point c), VIII and IX of the Annex to that Resolution, which define it as one of the forms of having “attained/reached a full measure of self-government”, in no way can it be reconciled with the afore-mentioned imperialistic procedures. And moreover, we’ve seen that an annexed State or Territory constitutes a colony which has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the State administering it; consequently, when regaining their independence through Self-Determination, those conquered etc. Peoples, States and Territories do not secede or separate,since it’s not possible to be separated from a body which one has never been integrated into.

In other words: the integration in an imperialistic Statedoes not and cannot exist, and therefore what does not exist cannot be attacked, dismembered or divided. Therefore, the democratic integration: the only possible integration, is by no means reducible to the imperialistic incorporation/union, whose legal-political validity is from its origin denied and declared null and void. (As already said, this fundamental idea is expounded in more detail in the next chapter on “The Imperialism confronted with the International Law”.)

Therefore, according to the International Law of the UN, there only occurs secession if the separation affects a democratic State, built on the validity and respect for the fundamental human rights and especially for the RSD; and that’s why, consequently, its application is established with much more restrictive conditions, so as to give security for the legitimate rights of all the parties involved in the separation of a State whose constitution was a legitimate one. By contrast,there occurs not secession if the separation affects a subjugated body of an imperialistic State, built on the denial and violation of the fundamental human rights and especially of the RSD, whose restoration is necessarily achieved with the act of unconditional and immediate independence of that subject: the People, State or Territory unlawfully occupied and annexed or incorporated, which never formed part of such a State. All this cannot be clearer.

As regards invoking the “right to federation”, as an alternative to self-determination, this makes no sense, and it is as worth as invoking one’s right to marry a person who does not want to accept that spouse. All this is expressed by Lenin thus:

“By the way, it is not difficult to see why, from a Social-Democratic point of view, the right to ‘self-determination’ means neither federation nor autonomy (although, speaking in the abstract, both come under the category of ‘self-determination’). The right to federation is simply meaningless, since federation implies a bilateral contract. It goes without saying that Marxists cannot include the defence of federalism in general in their programme. As far as autonomy is concerned, Marxists defend not the ‘right’ to autonomy but autonomy itself, as a general universal principle of a democratic state with a mixed national composition, and a great variety of geographical and other conditions. Consequently, the recognition of the ‘right of nations to autonomy’ is as absurd as that of the ‘right of nations to federation’.” (V. Lenin; ibid.)

In any case, it’s evident that the eventual free association, confederation, or federation with an independent State implies the previous independence required to be able to freely stipulate the association, confederation, or federation. (The irrationality characteristic of the imperialistic and fascist propaganda forces to make of the truism a forcible and recurrent form of ideological criticism.)

The independence that constitutes the fundamental and inherent RSD of all Peoples does exclude all forms of imperialistic domination. That right of independence subsists as long as there is a simple defect in the association or integration, or any other alternative form of failure in the accorded free relationship; defects whose eventual establishment/continuation imply also the continuity of the preceding, persistent and permanent basis for the assertion of independence against imperialism. The independence from imperialism does not follow but precedes the modifications, forms, or further and eventual democratic variants of political statute or constitution, which do always imply the permanent observance of fundamental human rights and especially the RSD.

Nothing can be decided on anything but starting from independence. The RSD of Peoples demands the evacuation of the imperialistic apparatus of occupation, and the immediate and unconditional independence and restoration of the occupied State. The right of independence is not the “right to demand” independence: effective independence does logically and necessarily precede all rightand all decision involved in the RSD. (Just in the same way as the right of property does logically and necessarily precede all subsequent right and decision about selling or leasing the owned property, as well as about not doing so.)

The right of freedom, free disposition or self-determination of the Peoples is the right of unconditional and immediate independence from imperialism, not an absurd and contradictory “right to vote to decide between all the options, all legitimate and respectable, in the absence of any violence”, and other usual reactionary nonsense in order to deceive the Peoples and perpetuate the subjugation that they suffer. Imperialism and Fascism have nothing of legitimate or of respectable and non-violent, and their agents are common criminals, no matter the way they may present themselves. As such, they have no rights.

Peoples’ independence does not come from a free election; quite to the contrary, National Independence is the prior condition of any free election to decide on whatever question: there is no free choice without democracy, and there is no democracy without Peoples’ Self-Determination or National Independence. The so-called referenda of self-determination have rarely occurred in the freedom of Nations, and are, in any case, a secondary, eventual and belated accessory of the fundamental and inherent original RSD of all Peoples, which does previously determine the immediate abolition of imperialism, starting with the total evacuation of its occupation forces.

Those who see a violation of freedom in the rejection against imperialism, but not in conquest and occupation carried out by it; or those who do set conditions for freedom, but not for the conquest and maintenance of military occupation, are apologists and ideological and political agents of imperialism and fascism against the RSD of all Peoples. Those who speak of “imposition”, unilateralism and fascism when it comes to immediately reinstate the independence from imperialism; or those who speak of “separation/separatism”, referring to a People and State subjected to alien domination, do not see the unilateral imposition of fascism in the imperialistic permanent aggression and occupation of eight centuries. All fundamental and inherent right is unilateral, and does precede any multilateral arrangement. All right implies imposition – if necessary through legitimate violence – against those who seek to violate it through criminal violence; but the RSD of all Peoples does only “impose” freedom against imperialism, the immediate and unconditional national independence, without which there is no democracy.

The RSD is not nor does it imply the right of the Peoples to be questioned or consulted, nor the obligation of anyone to ask or consult anything. The Peoples, dominant or dominated, have nohing to say, nothing to decide, nothing to choose and nothing to vote for when it comes to the force, validity and contents of a fundamental, inherent, immediate, unconditional and indefeasible right, such as it is their national independence.

On the national independence of the Peoples subjugated under imperialism there is nothing to decide, the only thing to be done is its immediate (re)establishment; and without prior national independence of these Peoples in the face of imperialism: which implies the prior unconditional and immediate evacuation of their forces of military occupation, there cann be no freedom to decide on anything. On its side, imperialism has nothing to organize, nothing to condition and nothing to recognize when it comes to the right of independence of the Peoples. The independence from imperialism precedes any eventual free and democratic will on other issues. And the continuity and validity of the imperialistic régime: before, during, and “eventually” after such a hypothetical and “democratic” consultation, is contradictory to the democratic rights and to the RSD itself, which does precede and condition them all.

Between Nations and independent States there is no power or law over them. Each People does impose its national freedom and its rights against other Peoples. The forms of “alternative independence” that are implied in “the free association or integration with an independent State” do not constitute a different right but a form of the same RSD itself, established on the previous and permanent basis of independence against imperialism. Therefore, there are no specific “rights” of free association or integration with an independent State but derivative forms of the same inherent and original RSD. As already indicated, beyond this one there is no free association or integration but totalitarian integration, subjugation and annexation.

The RSD is not compatible or incompatible with democracy, with the democratic Laws and Constitution: it does precede and constitute them. The democratic States are established/constituted, built and preserved by the free association of Peoples; which means the independence of Peoples against imperialism, it is: the full respect for the RSD of all Peoples, first of human rights and prior condition of them all. Nothing is to be feared from this right by the democratic States but quite on the contrary, because the RSD does constitute, legitimize and reinforce them. When the States do declare to be opposed to it, they also declare thereto the anti-democratic reality of their power, and their clumsy and shameless falsification presenting subjugation and annexation as free and democratic adherence.

“I never called in question that you were against the right of self-determination, which on the other hand does not exist in any Constitution of any country in the world.” (M. Rajoy: reply, in “parliamentary session”, of the President of the Spanish Government – leader of the traditional Francoist Party – to the head of the puppet “opposition”, leader of its National-socialist creature Falange-PsoE, P. Sánchez; Madrid, 18.XII.2013.) This is the level of the first official representatives of imperialism, who feel free to take the liberty of exhibiting in a shameless way their contempt for the slightest concession or feigning towards the demands of International Law.

Setting aside their hypocritical or real functional ignorance, the French and Spanish imperialists try to establish – as it is natural – that the fictions and constructivist wiles asserted in their “Constitutions” do consecrate their impeccable legitimacy; but neither the falsifications nor the “consensus” held around them by the terrorists and imperialistic Parties (traditional fascists and national-socialists), which have proclaimed and do support them, can legitimize the underlying crimes and imperialism which those “Constitutions” lean upon. The offence against the RSD is an international crime implicated in imprescriptible crimes of war, against peace, and against humanity. According to International Law, there is no right to imperialism: there is the crime of imperialism, and it is imprescriptible.

(From the text: ‘Euskal Herria and the Kingdom of Nabarre, or the Basque People and its State, against French-Spanish imperialism’.)