Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:43:33.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Secessionist minorities and external involvement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Alexis Heraclides
Alexis Heraclides
Affiliation:
Fellow of the International Relations Department at the University of Thrace, Greece, and Alternate Expert of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Minorities.
Get access

Abstract

Instances of external state involvement in seven postwar secessionist movements—those of Katanga, Biafra, the Southern Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraqi Kurdistan, Eritrea, and the Moro region of the Philippines—were analyzed to shed light on the patterns of interaction between the international system and secessionist minorities. Examined and tested were numerous assumptions of conventional wisdom on the subject, as well as a variety of other relevant questions concerning the constraints on, content of, and reasons for involvement. The results were contrary to many of the common assumptions. For example, given the international regime's norm against involvement with groups that threaten territorial integrity, external state support of these groups was more extensive than would be expected; and support was given for diverse reasons, rather than based solely on the prospects for tangible gain. Additional results of this study suggest a series of hypotheses for further examination.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , Summer 1990 , pp. 341 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article is based in part on material from a forthcoming book by the author. I thank Professor Krasner and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.

1. See, for example, Little, Richard, “Revisiting Intervention: A Survey of Recent Developments,” Review of International Studies 13 (01 1987), pp. 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. For reviews of the literature in nearby fields, see Young, Crawford, “The Temple of Ethnicity,” World Politics 35 (07 1983), pp. 652–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Anthony D., “Conflict and Collective Identity: Class, Ethnie and Nation,” in Azar, Edward E. and Burton, John W., eds., International Conflict Resolution (Brighton: Wheatseaf, 1986), pp. 64–73Google Scholar; and Groom, A. J. R. and Heraclides, Alexis, “Integration and Disintegration,” in Light, Margot and Groom, A. J. R., eds., International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London: Frances Pinter, 1985), pp. 53–58Google Scholar.

3. See Suhrke, Astri and Noble, Lela Garner, eds., Ethnic Conflict and International Relations (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; Bertelsen, Judy S., ed., Nonstate Nations in International Politics (New York: Praeger, 1977)Google Scholar; and Shiel, Frederick L., ed., Ethnic Separatism and World Politics (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984)Google Scholar.

4. See Kende, Istvan, “Twenty-Five Years of Local War,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 8, 1971, pp. 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kende, Istvan, “Wars of Ten Years (1967–1976),” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 15, 1978, pp. 27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kende, Istvan, Local Wars in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1945–1969 (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences Center for Afro-Asian Research, 1972)Google Scholar; Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982)Google Scholar; Little, Richard, Intervention: External Involvement in Civil Wars (London: Martin Robertson, 1975)Google Scholar; and Duner, Bertil, “The Many-Pronged Spear: External Military Intervention in Civil Wars in the 1970's,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 20, 1983, pp. 59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Suhrke, Astri and Noble, Lela Garner, “Introduction,” in Suhrke, and Noble, , Ethnic Conflict and International Relations, pp. 17–18Google Scholar.

6. Little, , Intervention, p. 9Google Scholar.

7. See Suhrke, and Noble, , “Introduction,” p. 14Google Scholar; Suhrke, and Noble, , “Spread or Containment? The Ethnic Factor,” in Suhrke, and Noble, , Ethnic Conflict and International Relations, p. 224Google Scholar; and Shiel, Frederick L., “Conclusion,” in Shiel, , Ethnic Separatism and World Politics, pp. 267–68Google Scholar.

8. Ibid..

9. Movements prior to the 1960s included those of the Kurdish Republic of Mahabad in Iran; the East Turkestan Republic in China; the Hyderabad in India; the Moluccans in Indonesia; the Nagas in India; and the Karens in Burma (the oldest secessionist movement that still persists, though little has been written about it).

10. This operationalization of involvement elaborates on the ideas of Wiseberg. See Wiseberg, Laurie S., “Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Nigerian Civil War,” Human Rights Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, 1974, pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

11. See Modelski, George, “The International Relations of Internal War,” in Rosenau, James N., ed., International Aspects of Civil Strife (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964), p. 31Google Scholar; Hassner, Pierre, “Civil Violence and the Patterns of International Power,” Adelphi Papers, no. 83, 12 1971, p. 19Google Scholar; and Suhrke, and Noble, , “Spread or Containment?” pp. 213–15Google Scholar.

12. Young, Oran R., The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Ikle, Fred Charles, How Nations Negotiate (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), pp. 43–58Google Scholar.

14. In most cases such as this, the ultimate stumbling block against a settlement is that neither party is prepared to respect the other's right to have a meaningful say about the future relationship.

15. See footnotes 18 through 24 (below).

16. See, for example, Davis, Morris, “The Structuring of International Communications About the Nigeria-Biafra War,” Peace Research Society Papers, no. 18, 1971, pp. 61–72Google Scholar; Wiseberg, , “Humanitarian Intervention,” pp. 61–97Google Scholar; Wiseberg, Laurie S., “Christian Churches and the Nigerian Civil War,” Journal of African Studies 2 (Fall 1972), pp. 297–331Google Scholar; and Pirouet, M. Louise, “The Achievement of Peace in Sudan,” Journal of Eastern African Research and Development 6 (01 1976), pp. 115–207Google Scholar.

17. See Mitchell, C. R., “Civil Strife and the Involvement of External Parties,” International Studies Quarterly 14 (06 1970), pp. 166–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Modelski, , “The International Relations of Internal War,” pp. 14–44Google Scholar; Modelski, George, “International Settlement of Internal War,” in Rosenau, , International Aspects of Civil Strife, pp. 122–53Google Scholar; and Suhrke and Noble, Ethnic Conflict and International Relations.

18. See in particular Hoskyns, Catherine, The Congo Since Independence (January 1960–December 1961) (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Libois, Jules Gerard, Katanga Secession (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Higgins, Rosalyn, “The United Nations Operation in the Congo,” in Higgins, Rosalyn, ed., United Nations Peacekeeping, 1946–1967: Documents and Commentary (London: Oxford University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; and Lefever, Ernest W., Uncertain Mandate: Politics in the UN Congo Operation (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967)Google Scholar. For further details and bibliographies on Katanga and the other cases, see Heraclides, Alexis, The Self-Determination of Minorities in International Politics (London: Frank Cass, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

19. See in particular Stremlau, John J., The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Cronje, Susan, The World and Nigeria (London: Sidwick & Jackson, 1972)Google Scholar; Davis, Morris, Interpreters for Nigeria: The Third World and International Public Relations (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Kirk-Greene, A. H. M., Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria: A Documentary Sourcebook, 1966–1970 (London: Oxford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; and Wiseberg, Laurie S., “The International Politics of Relief: A Case Study of the Relief Operations Mounted During the Nigerian Civil War,” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 1973Google Scholar.

20. See in particular Wai, Dunstan M., The Afro-Arab Conflict in the Sudan (New York: African Publishing Co., 1981)Google Scholar; Howell, John F., “Horn of Africa: Lessons from the Sudan Conflict,” International Affairs 54 (07 1978), pp. 421–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wol, Lawrence Wol, “Reflexions sur la conscience nationale au Sud-Soudan” (Reflections on the national consciousness in Southern Sudan), doctoral diss., University of Bordeaux-iii, 1971Google Scholar; Pirouet, , “The Achievement of Peace in Sudan”; and Heraclides, Alexis, “Janus or Sisyphus? The Southern Problem of the Sudan,” Journal of Modern African Studies 25 (06 1987), pp. 213–31Google Scholar.

21. See in particular Misra, K. P., The Role of the United Nations in the Indo-Pakistani Conflict, 1971 (Delhi: Vikas, 1973)Google Scholar; Pakistan Horizon, vol. 25, Spring 1972Google Scholar; Rashiduzzaman, M., “Leadership, Organization, Strategies and Tactics of the Bangla Desh Movement,” Asian Survey 12 (03 1972), pp. 185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Choudhury, G. W., “The Emergence of Bangla Desh and the South Asian Triangle,” Year Book of World Affairs, vol. 62 (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 62–89Google Scholar; Budhraj, Vijay S., “Moscow and the Birth of Bangladesh,” Asian Survey 13 (05 1973), pp. 482–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and LaPorte, Robert Jr, “Pakistan in 1971: The Disintegration of a Nation,” Asian Survey 12 (02 1972), pp. 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. See in particular Vanly, Ismet Sheriff, “Kurdistan in Iraq,” in Chaliand, Gerard, ed., People Without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan (London: Zed Press, 1980), pp. 153–210Google Scholar; Benjamin, Charles, “The Kurdish Nonstate Nation,” in Bertelsen, , Nonstate Nations in International Politics, pp. 69–79Google Scholar; Harris, George S., “The Kurdish Conflict in Iraq,” in Suhrke, and Noble, , Ethnic Conflict and International Relations, pp. 68–92Google Scholar; Sim, Richard, “Kurdistan: The Search for Recognition,” Conflict Studies 124 (07 1980), pp. 1–21Google Scholar; and MacDowall, David, “The Kurds,” in Minority Rights Group, Report no. 23, London, 1985Google Scholar.

23. See in particular Legum, Colin and Firebrace, James, “Eritrea and Tigray,” in Minority Rights Group, Report no. 5, London, 1983Google Scholar; Pool, David, Eritrea: Africa's Longest War (London: Anti-Slavery Society, 1982)Google Scholar; Selassie, Bereket Habte, Conflict and Intervention in the Horn of Africa (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Sherman, Richard, Eritrea: The Unfinished Revolution (New York: Praeger, 1980)Google Scholar; Ethiopiawi, , “The Eritrean-Ethiopian Conflict,” in Surhke, and Noble, , Ethnic Conflict in International Relations, pp. 127–45Google Scholar; and Bhardwaj, Raman G., “The Growing Externalization of the Eritrean Movement,” Horn of Africa 2 (01–03 1979), pp. 19–72Google Scholar.

24. See in particular Suhrke, Astri and Noble, Lela Garner, “Muslims in the Philippines and Thailand,” in Suhrke, and Noble, , Ethnic Conflict and International Relations, pp. 178–212Google Scholar; Noble, Lela Garner, “The Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines,” Pacific Affairs 49 (Fall 1976), pp. 405–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George, T. J. S., Revolt in Mindanao: The Rise of Islam in Philippine Politics (London: Oxford University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; and Molloy, Ivan, “The Decline of the Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 18 (01 1988), pp. 59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. For the concept of regime and its theory, see Krasner, Stephen D., “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982), pp. 1–5Google Scholar. For its use and adaptation in a context similar to that of the cases analyzed here, see Jackson, Robert H., “Quasi-States, Dual Regimes, and Neoclassical Theory: International Jurisprudence and the Third World,” International Organization 41 (Autumn 1987), pp. 519–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. See Rosenau, James N., “The Concept of Intervention,” Journal of International Affairs 22 (Summer 1968), pp. 165–76Google Scholar; and Young, Oran R., “Intervention and International Systems,” International Affairs 22 (Summer 1968), p. 178Google Scholar.

27. Jackson, Robert H. and Rosberg, Carl G., “Why Africa's Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood,” World Politics 35 (10 1982), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. See Higgins, Rosalyn, “Internal War and International Law,” in Black, C. E. and Falk, Richard A., eds., The Future of the International Legal Order, vol. 3 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 81–121Google Scholar; Moore, John Norton, ed., Law and Civil War in the Modern World (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Falk, Richard, “Janus Tormented: The International Law of Internal War,” in Rosenau, , International Aspects of Civil Strife, pp. 194–209Google Scholar; Farer, Tom J., “The Regulation of Foreign Intervention in Civil Armed Conflict,” Recueil des Cours (Hague Academy of International Law), vol. 142, 1974, pp. 367–402Google Scholar; and Vincent, R. J., Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 113–18Google Scholar.

29. See Emerson, Rupert, “Self-Determination,” American Journal of International Law 65 (04 1971), pp. 459–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dyke, Vernon Van, “Self-Determination and Minority Rights,” International Studies Quarterly 13 (09 1969), pp. 226–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sureda, A. Rigo, The Evolution of the Right to Self-Determination (Leiden: A. Sijthoff, 1973)Google Scholar; and Crawford, James, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar. For an important critique of this state of affairs, see Buchheit, Lee C., Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

30. See, for example, Jackson, and Rosberg, , “Why Africa's Weak States Persist,” p. 20Google Scholar. This is also implied by Kapil, Ravi L. in “On the Conflict Potential of Inherited Boundaries in Africa,” World Politics 18 (07 1966), pp. 656–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. See, for example, Modelski, “The International Relations of Internal War”; and Little, Intervention. With regard to the seven secessionist movements reported here, it is worth remembering two points: most of the involvement was at a low level, and the seven cases consist of “internationalized” secessionist movements rather than secessionist movements in general.

32. Modelski, , “The International Relations of Internal War,” p. 20Google Scholar.

33. See footnote 4 (above). See also Stohl, Michael, “The Nexus of Civil and International Conflict,” paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, Free University of Brussels, 1979Google Scholar.

34. This question is not examined in detail here, however, since it is difficult to pinpoint involvement of this nature which is “legal.” Although the number of states giving support to an incumbent government may have been small, the amount of aid (quantitatively as well as qualitatively) given to incumbent governments has tended to be much greater than that given to insurgents.

35. Mitchell, , “Civil Strife and the Involvement of External Parties,” p. 172Google Scholar.

36. See “Kogbara to Onyegbula: Secret Mission Report,” 013 Secret, 30 07 1969 (on microfilm at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London)Google Scholar.

37. For information on Uganda, see Uwechue, Raph, Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War (New York: African Publishing Co., 1971), pp. 142–43Google Scholar; and Obote, President, statements in Africa Research Bulletin, 07 1969, p. 1469AGoogle Scholar. For information on Leone, Sierra, see “Kogbara to Onyegbula”; West Africa, 20 12 1969, p. 1565Google Scholar; and West Africa, 10 January 1970, p. 54.

38. See footnotes 21 and 22 (above). Regarding the Tamil case, see also Rupersinghe, Kuman, “Ethnic Conflicts in East Asia: The Case of Sri Lanka and the Indian Peacekeeping Force,” Journal of Peace Research 25 (12 1988), pp. 337–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Anglin, Douglas G., “Zambia and the Recognition of Biafra,” The African Review 1 (09 1972), pp. 128 and 130–31Google Scholar.

40. See footnote 18 (above).

41. See Uwechue, , Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War, pp. 140–43Google Scholar; Africa Research Bulletin, November 1968, p. 1239B; West Africa, 31 August 1968, p. 1029; and West Africa, 26 August 1969, p. 485.

42. See “Kogbara to Onyegbula”.

43. See footnote 20 (above). See also Howell, John F. and Hamid, M. Beshir, “Sudan and the Outside World, 1964–1968,” African Affairs 68 (10 1969), pp. 132–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. Note that the examination of constraints applies to those states that did become involved to a discernible degree (even if only marginally) and includes states that may have later switched or limited their support.

45. The low rank of economic constraints is due, among other things, to the fact that economic constraints are usually difficult to verify in the first place and appear to complement or counteract considerations of “high politics,” rather than to stand alone.

46. See the following classic works: Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, A., eds., Group Dynamics (New York: Harper & Row, 1953)Google Scholar; Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority (London: Tavistock, 1974)Google Scholar; Tajfel, Henri, “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination,” Scientific American 223 (05 1970), pp. 96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Latane, Bibb and Darley, John, “Bystander Apathy,” in Hollander, E. P. and Hunt, R. G., eds., Current Perspectives in Social Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), pp. 140–52Google Scholar; Haney, Craig and Zimbardo, Philip G., “Social Roles and Role-Playing: Observations from the Stanford Prison Study,” in Hollander, and Hunt, , Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, pp. 406–11Google Scholar; and Janis, Irwing L., Victims of Groupthink (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972)Google Scholar.

47. Duner, , “The Many-Pronged Spear,” pp. 60–61Google Scholar.

48. For a similar categorization, see ibid..

49. See Little, , Intervention, pp. 9–10Google Scholar; and Duner, , “The Many-Pronged Spear,” p. 60Google Scholar.

50. Little, , Intervention, p. 9Google Scholar.

51. See, for example, Suhrke, and Noble, , “Spread or Containment?” pp. 226–30Google Scholar; and Rothschild, Joseph, Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Approach (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), p. 186Google Scholar.

52. See Rothschild, , Ethnopolitics, pp. 184–87Google Scholar; Edmonds, Martin, “Civil War and Arms Sales,” in Higham, Robin, ed., Civil Wars in the Twentieth Century (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1972), p. 208Google Scholar; and Ryan, Selwyn D., “Civil Conflict and External Involvement in East Africa,” International Journal 28 (Winter 1972–1973), pp. 489 and 496–98Google Scholar.

53. Howell, and Hamid, , “Sudan and the Outside World, 1964–1968,” p. 302Google Scholar.

54. See footnotes 20 and 22 (above).

55. See Howell, and Hamid, , “Sudan and the Outside World, 1964–1968,” pp. 132–33Google Scholar; and Heikal, Mohamed, The Return of the Ayattolah (London: Andre Deutsch, 1981), p. 108Google Scholar.

56. See Rothschild, , Ethnopolitics, pp. 185–86Google Scholar; Matthews, Robert O., “Domestic and Inter State Conflict in Africa,” International Journal 25 (Winter 1969–1970), p. 464Google Scholar; and Suhrke, and Noble, , “Spread or Containment?” pp. 226–30Google Scholar.

57. Kelman, Herbert, “Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 2, 1958, pp. 53–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. President Nyerere went to great lengths to justify recognition on the basis of the merits of the Biafran case, arguing succinctly that unity by military force was a perversion of the idea of unity. See Nyerere, Julius, “Why Tanzania Recognized Biafra,” Africa Report, 06 1968, p. 27Google Scholar.

59. President Houphouët-Boigny, who characterized the Biafran conflict as “a human tragedy,” had close personal links with Biafran leaders and supported their movement. See Félix, Houphouët-Boigny, “Biafra: A Human Problem and Human Tragedy,” African Scholar 1 (11 1968), pp. 10–13Google Scholar. See also Akpan, Ntiyong U., The Struggle for Secession, 1966–1970 (London: Frank Cass, 1971), pp. 177 and 179Google Scholar.

60. This is also noted by Duner, in “The Many-Pronged Spear,” p. 67Google Scholar.

61. The states within reasonable distance by sea were the two Yemens and Saudi Arabia (all close to Eritrea) and Indonesia and Malaysia (both close to the Moro region). Another was the Soviet Union, separated from Pakistan by only a narrow strip of Afghan territory. The four states that were neutral or unfavorable toward the secessionists were Turkey (toward the Iraqi Kurds), the Central African Republic (toward the Southern Sudanese), Burma (toward the Bengalis), and Cameroon (toward the Biafrans).

62. This was also the finding of Suhrke and Noble in “Introduction” and “Spread or Containment?” and of Shiel in “Conclusion”.

63. Note that, in principle at least, the Soviet Union is not against secessionist self-determination. Article 72 of the Soviet Constitution recognizes the right of each union republic to secede.