Hard states - a global problem
by Göran Hansson
 

Published in two Scanian Newspapers:
Kristianstadsbladet - 13 October 1998
and Skånska Dagbladet - 26 October 1998

     A new major confrontation is imminent. Ethnic cleansing is taking place in the midst of Europe. Milosevic and the Serbs are driving out the Kosovo Albans to the mountains and their homes are burnt to the ground. The EU, Nato and the UN seem to be taken aback. A discord between the superpowers prevents a resolute intervention to end to the suffering.
     But isn't Milosevic only a symptom of a more fundamental problem? Namely that the state, as a political phenomenon has played out its role and has in itself become a threat to humanity. The history of the last one hundred years is clearly showing that the state, as a political, administrative and juridical entity, is conflict seeking and is apt to use confrontation as a political tool to solve social problems. The states are, with frightening regularity, producing despotic leaderships, creating misery within their own borders and are, in many cases, also holding the rest of the world at ransom.
     Up until the second world war, inter-state wars and conflicts were predominant. It was in that environment the so called international community emerged. It was under these premises the UN and other international organisations were established, the international juridical systems was built and the global economy was formed. During the last decades, however, the conditions have changed.
     Nowadays the conflicts are mainly taking place inside the states – breaches against human rights are made by state powers against its own citizens. It is also a fact that some states have failed totally and lack central governments, and others have lost control over part of their territories. But the international community chooses to ignore these facts. The state is still looked upon as the only accepted and sovereign global entity.
The UN has little means of interfere before it is too late, the internal affairs of the states fall outside of its jurisdiction. NATO is mainly a European club without global mandate. The mission of the IMF is to help government regardless of how the governments have wasted their money and without regard for the consequences for the general population within their respective state. The EU as an organisation is crippled by the fact that historically hostile member states have the ultimate influence over the decision making process. This leaves the field open for despotic state leaders to abuse their own population relatively undisturbed within their own borders.
     The present situation in Kosovo is only one example of a number of conflicts and wars, during the last decades, where deaths and suffering for their own citizens have become the result of the states' leaderships inability to behave in a civilised manner.
     Since the 1950s about 10 million people have been killed in intra-state armed conflicts in more that 22 states. According to UNICEF more than 2 million children have been killed during the 1980s alone, 4-5 million children have been seriously handicapped, 12 million have become homeless and another 10 million have been gravely traumatised. There were more than 26 intra-state conflicts globally during 1995 alone, where more than 1000 person were killed - Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bosnia, Burma, Burundi, Chechnya, Colombia, Georgia, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Kenya, Liberia, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan and Turkey, among others.
    Will the end result of a NATO attack on Serbia be that the basic treat to humanity will vanish and we all can relax? Hardly. The experience during the past decade tells us that it is only a matter of time until the next despot somewhere else in the world takes command of the state apparatus.
    The problem with Iraq is still unsolved. In Iran – as well as in Libya – are stored, according to the scientists , hundreds of tons of chemical weapons of mass-destruction, just to mention a few examples. The question is not if, but when fires in these states will be the target of the next Kofi Annan's fire brigade deployment. According to international experts, the next explosion - like the ones in Chechnya and Jughoslavia - could erupt in Dagestan in Russia. Because of fear of the reaction by Moscow, no attempts are presently being made by the international community to solve the conflicts there.
     Isn't it time to ask what fundamental mechanisms in the state system are producing these despotic and destructive leaderships? Why is it so hard to deal with the problems within a state until it has grown to such proportions that the humanity, time and time again, must be kept at ransom in the global game-playing they are causing?
     The state as a political and administrative institution is a relatively new phenomenon and is, at the most, a few hundred years old. More than 125 of the world's 197 states are 50 years old or less. This may explain the lack of legitimacy many state leaderships are possessing – both inward towards its own citizens and in their relations with other states. The ambitions of the states to ignore and eliminate the old cultural regions – nations and peoples – are often the basic reason for many of the conflicts we see today, a fact more and more difficult to ignore.
     Globally we see today, in organisations such as the UN and the Council of Europe, that the development within the field of human rights are moving away from a continued central state government and towards regional self- determination. The traditional human rights concerning rights for individuals in a state are now complemented by rights for groups of individuals with a common cultural, historical and linguistic background.
It is from this perspective – peace and cultural development – that the co- operation within the EU shall be viewed. In Europe will, if everything develop the way many hope, the influence of the state will be considerably diminished over the next couple of decades. The old cultural regions of Europe – there are at least 120 such regions – may in this process regain a considerable part of the self-governing properties that the states' have taken from them during the past years.
     The abuse of Milosevic on his own people is only one example of the flagrant breach of human rights, which many state leaderships are guilty of. Over many years the Kosovo Albans have tried to obtain self-determination, which has been denied by the Serbs.
     A softening up of the rigid pragmatism of the international state system is necessary in a changing world. The demands for self-determination must be accepted as a legitimate and realistic interest within the international system in order to avoid wars and conflicts with all the human suffering that it brings about. “I rather see 1000 small Luxembourg than one large Soviet Union”, once said the EU Parliamentarian Otto von Habsburg.

Marieholm, Sweden
Göran Hansson
Chairman SSF / Vice Chairman UNPO

© SSF