Perceptions of Human Rights and Justice Determine Success of Independence Movements.

Our support hinges on which outcome we deem most likely to protect and advance human rights. Thus, the real battlefield of Independence movements is global public opinion in the age of Social Media

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” — U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Women’s march for Indian Independence.

Until recently, raw military and economic power have been the primary determinants of success for independence movements, but, increasingly, global public opinion constrains how much military and economic power can be abused in the service of maintaining an oppressive status quo. Thus, the decisive battlefront is now social media, since legacy media function as mere extensions of economic power today.

There is widespread agreement that democracy with judicial protection of minority rights is the best form of government— even despots try to appear to have free elections— but when it comes to the question of whether any given group of people who don’t happen to fit neatly into the borders of recognized sovereign states should be able to decide their own fate democratically, there is not yet an established consensus.

"What is the proper context of democracy?" is an interesting question! Should those in power allow every group asking for "self-determination" to opt out of their power structure? It depends. What is the nature of the power structure? What can we say about the solidarity and cohesion of those who are seeking independence?

Should regions seeking independence in civil wars be allowed to take control if a majority of the people there vote to secede?

Should the American South have been allowed to leave the U.S. in the 1860's?

What about Scotland and the U.K.?

Britain and the E.U.?

Occupied Palestine and Israel?

Texas and the USA? California?

Basques and Spain?

These are all very different situations, and yet, all involve a smaller or less powerful “nation” of people seeking to get free from the control of a larger, more powerful nation.

Perhaps more to the point right now, should four regions of Eastern Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia) be allowed to vote, as they apparently have, overwhelmingly, to leave Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation? Who is better suited to decide what's in the best interests of these people than they themselves?

But it all depends, right? It depends, firstly, on whether there is an oppressive dynamic within the proposed independent state that is kept in check by the larger system. Ending slavery justified the U.S. preventing the South from seceding in the 1860's. To allow the South to secede and escape from the northern abolitionist movement just as it was about to succeed in winning freedom for slaves was morally unacceptable.

In India's independence movement, the British wanted to justify continued colonial status by pointing to the Muslim minority that might be (more) oppressed if the new state of India were dominated by Hindus. Ultimately that question was settled by splitting India into two independent states, India and Pakistan. If the British had wielded more power in the unfolding of that situation, perhaps their argument for preserving minority rights with colonialism would have prevailed.

In the Ukraine, there is certainly a lot of friction between a western (Kiev) faction and eastern, ethnically Russian faction. It is alleged that since 2014, Kiev has regularly brutalized ethnically Russian Ukrainians in the east. It seems there is good reason to keep Ukraine answerable to a stronger authority if that authority helps to enforce peace between the factions. But is that enforcement role being performed by the powers who helped Ukraine break free from Russian control in 2014? It seems not. Were the Russians more or less successful keeping the peace prior to 2014? Perhaps. One can certainly make a case that life would be, arguably, easier for Eastern Ukrainians if they’re allowed to rejoin the Russian Federation¹.

But support for autonomy also depends, secondly, on whether the larger state is oppressive, aka "not a democracy". The U.S. justified its claim to independence from Britain because Britain was a monarchy at the time and they ("we" Americans) sought to create a democracy-- a rather new thing at the time.

And there’s the rub. Russia does not present as a robust democracy. There’s not a healthy diversity of political parties that fall in and out of favor with the voters or have to form coalition governments to rule. The head of state hasn’t changed in decades (This once happened in the U.S. too, by the way, during the FDR administration). Russia doesn’t meet our commonly-accepted standards for what a democratic government should be. But Russia is good enough, apparently, according to the voters of the four eastern regions of Ukraine. What to do?

These two questions regarding internal and external oppression (aka justice, aka human rights) with regard to the proposed independent state (or allegiance-changing state) -- are the battleground where the most ruthless, truthless and deceptive propaganda wars are prosecuted.

Our perceptions of how fair and just the current controlling authority is, of how well justice would be served within the region seeking independence and how fair and just the new controlling authority would be (if the region is seeking to join another federation) essentially determines whether or not we support the independence movement.

We have to understand that we WILL be told whatever the competing parties think will sway our opinion without any regard for whether or not it’s true. Determining the truth of various narratives is, therefore, one of our most important jobs as citizens of the so-called free world. We cannot afford to shirk that responsibility.

And we must never leave that job to people who are biased-- and everyone should be presumed to be biased. You have to hear not only "both" but MANY sides of the story.

You have to pay attention to who gets suppressed and jailed for what they say.

Pay attention to who is willing to debate and who refuses.

Pay attention to who is reporting from direct experience and who is just repeating something they've been told.

Pay attention to who is lifted up by the wealthy and who, on the hand, gets crushed and cancelled by the wealthy and powerful.

Also pay attention to who is doing the lifting up and the crushing.

Follow the money; follow the influence. And, yes, "It's complicated". Too bad.

How much work would you want and expect others to do for you if you were being held in isolation for speaking truth against power? Do that much work (or more) for prisoners of conscience today. Do your homework. While you still can. First, they came for the… I’m going to say journalists under our present conditions. Ask Khashoggi. Ask Assange. How hard should we work to determine the truths about human rights in various independence struggles?

Perhaps, even more importantly, we need to develop philosophy and theory related to when such movements are justified so that a consistent approach to evaluating demands for autonomy can be applied and, hopefully, reduce the “fighting”.

There is a popular book these days about “conscious uncoupling” that is said to help reduce the stress, antagonism and fighting when couples seek to divorce or break up but want to remain amicable out of respect for each other, their families and friends. It can be difficult work to do right— to avoid giving in to temptations to blame, accuse, shame, make oneself the winner, make the other the loser, etc., etc. but, in the long run, doing that work is usually worth it. Perhaps it’s time we develop a pattern language or practices for “conscious secession” to help when people within a nation have irreconcilable differences and need to part ways amicably.

The lines on our maps should make us happier by supporting allegiances that are healthy and natural for us. They should not harm us by separating us from those we want to be in society with or forcing us to associate with people who harm us.

Blessed are the peacemakers who can help humanity navigate the negotiations it will take to create the better lines we can live with.

1. The history of Ukraine is rich, enduring and complicated. One should at least, however, understand the dynamics there as they’ve played out during and since WWII, especially in the lead up to and execution of the 2014 Maidan revolution/coup. Oliver Stone et al produced an excellent overview of that period of Ukraine’s history in the documentary “Ukraine on Fire” (IMdB) (temporary Facebook watch link)