Secession also seeks to develop

Nov 20, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The formation of the United Nations following the Second World War was intended to bring, promote and secure peace, stability, and amicable relationships among and within, and yes, within nation-states.

For the people of the so-called Third World, it meant a golden opportunity to dismantle colonial domination and determine independent paths.

Many, if not a majority of colonies in the Third World, have achieved self-determination mainly because of the ideals ensconced in the United Nations Charter and the agreement of former colonial powers to follow these ideals.

For example, France allows the secession of its Overseas Departments such as Guadeloupe, Martinique and French Guiana but disallows internal secession.

The rights of people in the Third World towards self-determination are documented in Articles 1 and 55 of the United Nations Charter. The General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December, 1960 states:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 55 of the United Nations Charter, again, makes reference for the right of self-determination.
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

1. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

2. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and

3. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

In 1966, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted. Part One, Article One mentions the right of self-determination.

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also made reference for the rights of self-determination. The General Assembly Resolution 2625 states:

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.

…and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.

The right of self-determination has helped the people from the Third World to decolonize, to free themselves from imperial domination.

These very rights are also important to peoples within the nations to dictate their own course if they believe that they are subjected to internal colonialism. Internal colonialism means exploitation, marginalisation, mal-distributive justice, manipulation, underdevelopment, and a myriad of other negative “isms”, “ions”, and “ments”.

Within this context that we argue that Berbice has a fundamental right as a region to secede because independence from Britain has not given Berbice equal or fundamental rights and attention as mentioned in the United Nations Charter.

Actually, the constitutionalists hurriedly placed a constitution on the Guyanese people under the duress that Britain might not grant independence given the political marriage and then dogmatic divorce between the PPP and the PNC, among other things.

The main questions were whether Guyana was capable of ruling itself and what position would the country take in the ideological Cold War. The rest is now history.

Chief among the problems in the dismantled Third World has been that some nations have achieved independence but have also turned around and suppressed or even ignored minorities and regions within their own states.

The important question is would an independent Berbice follow the same pattern. For now, the answer is no but that has to be justified in another letter. What is certain is that history will absolve Berbice secession movement.

One unfortunate consequence of internal colonialism is that many well-minded citizens have become disgusted with the state and have simply migrated, and indirectly, have engaged in a reversed form of secession.

They have simply refused to accept the state to govern them. They have become secessionist refugees. More comments on this concept in another letter.

The provisions of international law, in particular the right of self-determination as detailed in the United Nations Charter, give Berbice the unlimited right and protection to secede.

The caveat that international law does not supersede state’s territorial integrity cannot be determined by the Guyanese government but by the Supreme Court only if that Court has a reputation for practicing fair justice.
It has not in the past, especially with regard to the ombudsman factor.

I am really recalling the Quebec secession case whereby the Canadian Supreme Court, not the Canadian government, instituted that Quebec should have the right to hold a referendum.

Quebec subsequently failed to reach the necessary votes needed to secede because the Supreme Court implemented a choking mechanism, that is, Quebec needed at least two-thirds of the votes in order to secede.

The same thing happened more or less in Nevis where 61.7% favoured secession, barely missing the 66.7% of votes needed to secede. Vance Amory, the leader, was obviously disappointed.

The point or rather the message here is that Guyana should constitutionalise secession and become a leading example of a true democratic state. Guyana has more to gain than to lose from this universal right.

Certainly, the right of secession would draw Guyana out of the current homeless status the country occupies in the modern international state system.

I understand that this letter is getting to be too long but one more point should be stressed. Secession does not seek to compete but to cooperate.

Secession does seek to sever ties with the former nation-state but to share and to secure relations. Secession does not seek to divide, but to develop, especially human development.

Secession does not seek to fight but to foster ties. However, if the right of secession is denied for the sake of denial, then secession has the potential to be a marauding monster leading to civil unrest and instability. We sincerely hope that this would not be the case in Guyana.
Lomarsh Roopnarine

---

---