SECESSION AND THE THEORY & PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Linda Suzanne Bishai A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations Summer 1999 London School of Economics & Political Science UMI Number: U123126 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Disscrrlation Publishing UMI U123126 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 yscit5 7'0S23 Abstract Secession has been noticeably absent from International Relations theory although its role in the creation and recognition of states is clearly relevant. Traditionally, the dominant perspectives in IR have not questioned state formation and this has effectively barred secession as a topic since it cannot be thoroughly treated without looking across the inside/outside divide of state sovereignty. Secession must be placed in its historical context — as a phenomenon only possible in the modem era and only perceived as a global threat in this century. Theorists from other disciphnes who have discussed secession have rehed on a problem­ solving theoretical perspective which has kept them from considering secession as an outcome of problematic assumptions about identity and territory in the international system. In contrast, a critical theoretical perspective, which aflSrms the constitutive processes of historical discourse allows an analysis of secession which exposes the contingency of its basic assumptions. Historicising the territorial state allows us to recognise the different structures of poUtical power through which we have already passed and thus to theorise about different forms for the future. The secessicmist imperative narrates the boundaries of a specific people who must be secured by a territorial state. Textual analysis of secessionist documents reveals that the narrative strategies they employ are exclusionist and historically short-sighted. Recognising identity as a continuous and relational process is a necessary step towards a post-territorialist order. If different forms of political space are practiced, democracy must also be re-theorised. There is no single model which can guarantee peacefijl democratic politics since ambiguity and conflict are inherent in the pohtical process itself arid must be encouraged. However, an understanding of the intersubjective processes through which we have generated our present day pohtics of territory and identity can open up the theoretical space required for alternative politics. for Mom and Dad who kept their doubts to themselves Contents Acknowledgements Introduction: Meta theory 1. Secession in International Relations Theory 11 2. Theories of Secession 40 3. Historicising Secession/Deconstructing Territory 68 4. Problematising Identity 99 5. Secessionist Performances 126 6. Possibilities: Theory & Practice 157 Bibliography 185 Acknowledgements It will be clear frcMn the references in this text what some of my many intellectual debts are, but there are always, of course, many personal debts formed during the long and tortuous dissertation path. I owe much to the tutelage and example of James May all, who, as my advisor, refused to allow me a moment’s complacency about any of my arguments. The many students and faculty at LSE, by collectively generating a stimulating atmosphere, have done much to encourage me along the way. Special thanks are due in particular to Bice Maiguashca, who, although she has probably forgotten it, sat down with me in the early stages of my project and painstakingly suggested ways of sorting out my thoughts and arguments about other secession writers. My understanding and appreciation of International Relations as a discipline were wonderfiiUy enhanced through the process of teaching the small but enthusiastic group of first- year students in my section of the course The Structure o f International Society. I am grateful for that opportunity. Much of this text was written in Stockholm, and while isolation from an affihated institution makes scholarship difficult, the burden was often hghtened by the comments and supervision of Pal Wrange — who disagrees in the best of ways, with a smile and a suggested reading. My first chapter was particularly improved by exposure to the SUPUIS seminar at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, and I am especially indebted to Walter Carlsnaes for his supportive and judicious suggestions. I have also been exceptionally lucky in the fiiendship and technical/editorial support of Johan Haggbom and GabrieUa Sebardt. They have made the final steps involved in producing this dissertation a much less finstrating process. Thanks to Ehzabeth Bishai for being the kind of mother who actually wanted to read the manuscript as it was written and whose editorial comments I could trust, and to Wilson Bishai who planted ideas in my head from earhest childhood by being “the other kind of doctor.” Finally, my hfe has been immeasurably richer for the love, laughter and scholarly commentary of my husband, Andreas Behnke. For that I thank — not Andreas who cannot help himself— but Fortuna, who, in a kind moment, brought us together. INTRODUCTION: METATHEORY Now, a persan who thinks should not try to persuade others o f his belief; that is what puts him on the road to a system; on the lamentable road o f the “man o f conviction" ; politicians like to call themselves that; but what is a conviction? It is a thought that has come to a stop, that has congealed, and the “man o f conviction" is a man restricted; experimental thought seeks not to persuade but to inspire; to inspire another thought, to set thought moving. M ian Kundera, Testaments Betrayed The nature of the social and pohtical organisation of people might be considered as the primary question of the social sciences. But the nature of this question itself^ whether it is put as a question or pondered as an issue, determines to a great extent the path of scholarship which deals with it. That is, if the question is asked “what is the nature of human social and pohtical organisation?” then the scholar proceeds with all empirical efforts required to muster a logically defensible answer. The asking of the question in itself contains the strong suggestion that the answer is determinable, is “out there”, if the scholar is brilhant or thorough enough to ascertain it. however, the issue is not put as a question but as a statement of a state of being, “humans are socially and pohtically organised”, the emphasis shifts from the discovery of a determinable nature to the semantics of “social”, “pohtical” and “organisation”. Ironically, the statement contains more indeterminacy and interpretive space than the does the question. When we ask questions, we presume the existence of an answer, rather than the possibihty that the answers are multiple and contextual. It is through the questioning of ontology, the nature of the real, and the imphcit assumption that the answers are not singular or final but relational and inconstant, that scholars can adapt to change and theorise alternatives. Because theory both reflects and shapes our knowledge of reahty, the ontological assumptions of the theorist have tangible imphcations for our collective experience. As Robert Cox puts it: Theory follows reality. It also precedes and shapes reahty. That is to say, there is a real historical world in which things happen; and theory is made through reflection upon what has happened. The separation of theory from historical happenings is, however, only a way of thinking, because theory feeds back into the making of history by virtue of the way those who make history (and I am thinking about human collectivities, not just about prominent individuals) think about what they are doing. Their understanding of what the historical context allows them to do, prohibits them from doing, or requires them to do and the way they formulate their purposes in acting, is the product of theory.^ Theory then, is not only intertwined with practice, but it is an inseparable part of the pohtical culture and thus of the making of pohtical decisions. For International Relations theory, concerned as it is with the nature of global pohtical organisation, the need to consider this indissoluble hnk between theory and practice is particularly decisive. The instabihty of formerly estabhshed patterns is becoming increasingly evident as the breadth and impact of globahzation become clearer and International Relations is uniquely positioned as a disciphne to offer appropriately multi-faceted perspectives on this flux in the spatial structures of the international. Secession is one of the richest veins yet to be mined in International Relations, and it is especially responsive to an approach which questions ontological certainties. Persistent prodding at the assumptions of secessionists and many scholars who have theorised secession yields a wealth of mythical historical narrative, anti-pohtical pohtics, ilhberal hberahsm and problematic problem-solving. An approach which is comfortable with ontological uncertainties readily exposes the contingency and ambiguity of conventional treatments of secession. The international (in the truest sense of the term) disruptions caused by secessionist movements are constant evidence of the impact of theory upon practice as they strive to perform the international legal norms of self-determination and sovereign territorial integrity. As in the quote above, their understanding of what the historical context allows them to do has been produced by theories of the nation and international order. Having been shaped by the expectations of the international legal and pohtical structures of their era, secessionists respond with the pre­ ordained logic of the territorial state.