I think that all drew attention to the fact that Ramzan Kadyrov, head of Chechnya, fully supports the independence of Catalonia. Ramzan Kadyrov insists on the need to seriously treat the Catalan conflict. And it’s not just that he represents the people with a complex fate. As government thinking in this matter the leader and he sees the depth and complexity of the problem of national separatism in the twenty-first century.
photo: Alex geldings
For many years now, Europe is watching the developments in Catalonia. Of course, you can refer to history and to the fact that when something struck me: the civil war in Spain in the thirties was essentially a war of Catalonia and Madrid with the rest of Spain. But today, the slogan of the independence of Catalonia is mainly caused by new reasons.
In the XXI century in the middle of Europe in broad daylight, shamelessly ignoring the will of nearly two million people. And not just two million, a clear majority of the Catalan people. And silent the media and the public, which at the same time tearing their shirts for democracy in Iran. The actions of the government of Spain and its monarch obviously approves, and those who defend the rights of Muslims in the Burmese. And those who applauded the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who carried out the partition of Yugoslavia. Who took the Czech Republic and Slovenia, Kosovo and Montenegro. And the Russian authorities actively protect the right of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Can we understand and Spain, for which a considerable rent from Catalonia. And the UK, fear for Scotland. And Belgium, inhabited by three peoples.
But somewhere in the bushes left and supporters of Scottish independence. Representatives of the Basque people. Even Serbia, strongly priemlemaya Kosovo, Catalonia somehow remembers. Although it is easy to see that “the bell tolls for thee.”
Of course, there are and support. And from the Flemings. And from the Corsicans. But their attempts drowns out the chorus of opponents of Catalan separatists. Why?
It seems to me that all the main and determining factor is one reason.
Catalan separatism is a real threat to the model of a unipolar world that now impose humanity of the United States, the world oligarchy and the global bureaucracy.
A serious threat to the American model of globalization and integration separatism of Catalonia was because the unipolar model was not able to overcome the problems that emerged in the early XXI century is inevitable and necessary, but highly controversial process of internationalization.
The American model did not take into account the past experience of the twentieth century. When the result of the two global “hot” and one “cold” war it turned out that neither the national socialist model of integration and globalization of the world in the form of a “thousand-year Third Reich”, or the Leninist-Stalinist model in the form of world Union of socialist republics could not stand the test of time and gone from the scene.
Another motive: if “to kill” national separatism on the planet, you will be able to significantly reduce, and sometimes even isolate the main opponents of the unipolar — Russia and China. The more that these powers are faced with national separatism within their own countries.
Other opponents of the unipolar model have their reasons to “escape” from the Catalan crisis. Here is a typical Turkey. It is, of course, against unilateralism, but it has the problem of the Kurds.
What is the Catalan problem don’t want to see supporters of model of the world in the XXI century on the concept of unipolarity — it is logical. The fact that this problem don’t want to see opponents of the unipolar world, is short-sighted.
Kadyrov’s approach to the problem of Catalonia is more correct, because he considers it not as a historical zigzag, relating to the purely internal Affairs of Spain, and as a large-scale international problem.
What are the rights of Kadyrov?
For the Catalan conflict are, in my opinion, at least five of the twenty-first century.
Initial. Borders inherited from the era of imperialism and state-bureaucratic socialism.
Of course, these boundaries were taken into account and the actual moving of the people, geographical and economic factors, history. But the main thing was the power factor. All the borders are primarily the result of the endless wars, colonial conquest, predatory contracts.
Borders within the Union, too, considered the resettlement of peoples. But the main thing was the dictatorial model command, the desire of the ruling forces to create areas of potential conflict, to neutralize the threat for the government regions. During one of the shows on TV talking to me, Fazil Iskander more than pinpointed the line of these boundaries: the leader of the mined country. And mainly Russian-speaking Kharkov became the capital of Ukraine. The Ural (Yaik) Cossacks came to Kazakhstan. In Azerbaijan left the Armenian regions of Karabagh. Etc.
Neither the UN nor formed instead of the USSR the Commonwealth of independent States, nor the European Union challenges the boundaries were set.
The unipolar model gave the role of arbiter in disputes around the borders especially the US. But they ain’t did it, caring primarily about their own interests.
And blaze a bloody conflict almost all African countries. And The Middle East. And inhabited by four peoples of Afghanistan. And demanding the independence of those Nations whose interests are the current borders do not take into account, the Catalans, the Kurds and many others.
Second problem. Population migration. In the late XX and early XXI century have developed a new variant of what in history is called the epoch of the great migrations of peoples.
Migration brings many years of large-scale potential conflicts. And those who move. And those who have to accept migrants.
Third problem. Monopolism. Globalization and integration on our planet unfold in the twenty-first century in two inherited from the past monopolies. The monopoly of certain countries on natural resources trapped within the borders of these countries. And the monopoly of certain countries on nuclear weapons.
Both monopolies have a deep and serious study. But both can not be — and become — the basis of deep conflicts.
It is clear the desire of the inhabitants of the desert, for centuries, roamed by its open spaces become masters discovered in the depths of oil. But not less clear that the world’s need for oil, the owners of the desert have nothing to do.
Contradictory situation with nuclear weapons. On the one hand, there is a club of nuclear powers guaranteeing peace. On the other hand more countries feel like second-class of non-participation in the nuclear club.
Fourth. Centralization in General and especially bureaucratic.
Almost all of the modern great powers have formed because they won centralism. Center all suppressed, all commanded and directed.
USA demonstrated the features and benefits of the other path — ways as independent States. But for others, for humanity, US has not proposed such a model. Apparently, it is more consistent with the interests of their leadership in the world.
In the end, the globalization and internationalization are accompanied by grandiose bureaucratic centralization.
Than just not bossy or trying to command top! From Brussels to European Union countries there is a stream of instructions, rules and regulations.
If you perform a press-conferences the President of Russia, it is easy to find that 90% of what to call him — rightly. But it is also true that almost all of these questions should be decided not in Moscow. Once this happens — so there is a massive restriction of the rights of “bottom”. And the President has done the sensible thing: he opened a green folder and passes the received requests to those who should solve them.
And finally, the fifth. Perhaps the most important thing. The current stage of development of civilization is inextricably linked with the scientific and technological revolution.
And for science, for art an active, independently thinking Personality. To the traditional age-old factors of human liberation has now need of prosperity of the Individual as the Foundation of scientific and technical progress.
But the modern post-industrialism is freed from the heavy legacy of the twentieth century — from the suppression of “I” the Almighty “We.” The tendency of machine production to the transformation of man into an element of the conveyor. And therefore the tendency of modern social systems to the transformation of man into an object command and tutelage of the bureaucracy, which itself consists of screws, but different design.
The future of humanity depends on the formation of the new Person. This Person have something closer to the Identity of anarchism, Nietzsche’s Superman, the Identity of existentialism.
It is found that the diversity of national Personality created more conditions for creativity. And creativity — the basis of Progress, the only way for salvation of the Mind in the world of dead matter.
I could go on, but already noted explains why the problem of ethnic separatism in the twenty-first century not only smoothed out, but, on the contrary, will become more acute and more actual.
Therefore, the human civilization in the XXI century are faced with two opposing processes: globalization, internationalization and integration, on the one hand, and national separatism on the other.
The national question in the twenty-first century
When you interact the two irreconcilable sides of the contradictions of a whole, the approach suggested even the great Hegel: it is necessary to find the forms that would ensure the movement of opposites.
The clash between two fundamental tendencies of civilization is not due to the fact that they do not “get along” at all. Clash laid only in the model of a unipolar world. Is this model correct as the situation changes.
What should I do in the XXI century to combine globalism and nationalism? This is a subject for future years of diverse discussions. One of the main themes for intellectuals of this century. Three topics I would like to make some comments.
Initial. The formation of the system of national-cultural autonomy as the main way of development of nationalism in the era of globalism.
The very idea of national-cultural autonomy advanced by the social-Democrats of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the early twentieth century. She is an opponent of national-territorial concept by which a nation must achieve for itself the territory.
Of course, both historically and now most Nations are focused on creating regional structures.
But first, each seems to be “his” territory, the proportion of citizens of other nationalities increases. Second, it increases the part of the nation, which spread over the territories of other States.
And — ultimately — of growing importance for the development of many Nations is not so much territorial, how many national-cultural autonomy.
Options it very much. Will explain how I see the national-cultural autonomy for our country.
Every citizen of the taxes to the state (conditionally tithing) allocates for the nation. Naturally, he will have to declare their belonging to a certain nation.
In the budget of the nation and will also include subsidies from the budget of the entire state, and additional voluntary donations of citizens.
The means of their budgets National councils organize clubs, libraries, publication of books and Newspapers, broadcasters, Internet sites, theatres, museums, sports centres, workshops for the production of national clothes, shops and restaurants. They also solve problems of national religious organizations.
The representatives of the nation together in a national community (communities) at different levels — from the village to the entire country. These communities elect Councils nationalities. And these National councils everywhere become “partners” of representative government. Of their delegates formed the Chamber of nationalities at all levels of government, from top to bottom, to the Chamber of nationalities as the third in the Federal Assembly.
Another pillar of the national-cultural autonomy — the organization of education. Due to the state in all schools entered for two days per week — Friday and Saturday — to explore everyone the national language, national history, national literature and other arts, to engage in national sports, national cooking, fashion design, studying customs, etc. If the representatives of the nation in school only one or two distance learning is organized. All free. The main purpose is clearly expressed in one of his speeches, President Vladimir Putin — to anywhere a multinational state a person of any nationality could solve all their national problems.
A second set of measures, which can significantly affect the modern national separatism, is decentralization and de-bureaucratization.
The Essentials of modern civilization globalization and integration, centralization will be effective and reasonable if they implemented massive measures of decentralization and, consequently, the de-bureaucratization of the entire economic, political and social life. The detsentralizm is a transfer not only of rights but also the transfer of resources.
I think that two-thirds of the problems will be more effectively addressed if they are within the competence of the grassroots bodies, municipalities, communities, the Zemstvos, local councils, etc. Is convincingly proved and the ideologists of anarchism. Lenin in his works, especially in “State and revolution” in the summer of 1917. And Solzhenitsyn in their designs on how to build a new Russia, paid great importance to the issue of Zemstvos.
Indeed, such a huge country as Russia, can effectively live (and lived for centuries in the past), if nearly all questions of daily life will be addressed.
But the Constitution of Russia generally tried not to do the Central problem of the rights of the grass-roots level. As an opponent, as an alternative to bureaucracy. And we see, for example, the struggle of local authorities in Moscow for their most elementary, the most original law.
In the US, even the local cops (and judges) to elect the population itself. Even the rules of divorce, even the question of the application of the death penalty, even permission for a public house — the competence of the States themselves. And I remember the story of his grandfather about how in Russia before the revolution, their village Assembly to decide whether to allow their land to carry out railway.
Large-scale decentralization in education, in medicine, in culture, in sports, housing and communal services is the main way the consideration of the will and interests of citizens. Unless, of course, to see the target state in the light of this will and these interests.
And the primary elections in the country will be local elections.
The center should remain only what is really effective and it makes more sense to solve at the national level.
It is clear that the deeper will be decentralization, the bigger will be de-bureaucratization, the “cannibalization” of the bureaucracy.
And the easier and easier it will be to implement national-cultural autonomy. The smaller Nations will seek to avoid the bureaucracy nachalstvovanija center of the country.
And finally, the third set of measures of opposition to national separatism in the twenty-first century. It the establishment of a democratic regime boundary changes.
No matter how successfully developed a national-cultural autonomy and decentralization, from the problems of the change of national borders, we will still not go away. So a shared, UN-approved, the regulation change borders. What it should include?
Initial. Who can pose and solve this question? For example, on the independence of Catalonia has been, is today living in it. But this problem in particular Catalans nationality. Therefore, a logical four referendums all the Catalans in Spain, all the Catalans in Catalonia, all citizens of Catalonia and of all Spanish citizens. Of course, of special importance is the opinion of Catalans in Catalonia.
Second. Solves only the vote of all citizens. But a number of referendums, starting in three years, after seven or eight years. Decided to vote not only for the present generation, but at least following it.
Third. Ensuring fairness.
Then the resettlement in the new state. And property valuation with the allocation of resources to the new arrangement. And law in the new state to citizens of other countries. And more — have emerged even if the U.K. leaves the European Union.
Necessary and strict international control to curb senior bureaucrats, offended by the attack on their position.
In decisions about the collapse of the USSR the prospect to take a seat in the new States so clouded the eyes of the participants and the Belavezha accords, and members of the republics in the adoption agreement that they forgot about the millions of Russians outside Russia, millions of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine, etc.
And we have created stretched for many years mocking the procedure of obtaining Russian citizenship by Russian whose only guilt was that they were forced to return to their historical homeland. But this system became the basis of bribes.
Still not the trial of politicians and MPs who could, but didn’t defend the automatic right of every citizen of the Union and double and triple citizenship.
And finally, the fourth set of problems. As with any divorce — marital property.
What was created in a common state was created at the expense of those who stands out. All citizens of the former big States have a right to some part of what was “abroad”. And then best suited joint form. Part of the shares of such enterprises and organizations is distributed among all citizens of the former country.
If at the first conflict in Africa the UN has started the revision of the boundaries of the colonialists, the real securing the border tribes, then there would be millions of dead and other victims. The same applies to Afghanistan, and the Middle East.
With the suggested approach to the problem of boundaries there are three very serious consequences.
First, the complexity of the procedures. It is inevitable, if not to follow the methods of the twentieth century and break through the knee of destiny of people and Nations. After all, even highly experienced UK from the least experienced of the EU, as we have seen, was very difficult. And the independence of the country — a task much more difficult.
Secondly, the procedure is stretched, and a decade a lot of people have to live in a situation with a considerable degree of instability.
And thirdly, there will be an increased number of States.
But these effects can be substantially smooth, if they are to develop and strengthen the unions of the States at regional, continental, planetary. And, say, the problem of the emergence of an independent Catalonia will be reduced if she is a member of the European Union.
New boundaries are inevitable in the new era, while in the course of globalization, the importance of borders will not drop (as happens within the European Union or as in the USSR).
■ ■ ■
I hope, in light of the foregoing will become more clear about my position in the discussions of the past decades, not once expressed in the press.
That in the year 1991 in the USSR situation, the collapse of the Soviet Union will be less painful in the preservation of the Soviet borders of the Union republics. But first, you have the collapse of the USSR immediately, be forewarned that the border can and must be refined for seven to ten years. And, secondly, that in all the former republics of the USSR, all citizens retain the right and the second and third citizenship, and that a second citizenship will not make them (as in Russia now) second-class citizens, deprived of even the rights granted by the Constitution (elected deputies, governors, etc.). No wonder the mayor was hiding everything related to Bialowieza.
About what I spoke to B. N. Yeltsin in late 1991: not with the creation of the Russian Federation to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union, the mistakes of the European Union on equal rights of all subjects. It is necessary to have at least that saves UN — entitled group of States, members of the Security Council a special role, veto. And the situation in the Russian Federation generally a special. Russia — not the result of a voluntary agreement hundreds of agents with each other. Not actors, gathered, created Russia as, say, the States formed the United States. Russia was created as a state great. And there is one option: treaties of Russia with those she is willing to accept in its membership. It establishes for each particular law. By the way, it was in the history of Russia: Finland, Bukhara, Poland. But we took the idea of a single “suit”. He appeared to many national actors are great too. For others (like the Tatars), sometimes narrow. Others (like Chechnya) in General began to reject it. And all because of the new Russia abandoned the age-old model of Russia, and went the way of the Soviet Union, and his idea of equality between the republics. No wonder the mayor is completely removed from the creation of the Russian Federation and invited in to sign the contract.
None of the electoral programmes, neither in Russia nor in foreign countries — not even of the problem of national separatism of the XXI century. Seems to be competent leaders, like the ostrich, bury their heads in the sand.
Meanwhile, the problem of national separatism in the deployment conditions of globalization, internationalization, integration, attempts to preserve the unipolar model of the civilization of XXI century is already now and even more will worsen in the future. Ostriches leaders, ostrich-policy, ostrich-bureaucrats can neither evade nor to sit or to wait.
You can try to ignore the national movement. But then you have to be prepared for the fact that some of them sooner or later there will be radical groups that are ready to intensify the competition. And in their groups, ready to use armed means of struggle. And in the end, a group that recognizes the use of weapons in all parts of the world and weapons of all kinds, including weapons of mass destruction.
Get short formal newsletter the best in the “MK” – subscribe to our Telegram.