Secession and the Sovereignty Game

Strategy and Tactics for Aspiring Nations

Ryan D. Griffiths

• Publisher: Cornell University Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781501754753
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Secession and the Sovereignty Game offers a comprehensive strategic theory for how secessionist movements attempt to win independence. Combining original data analysis, fieldwork, interviews with secessionist leaders, and case studies on Catalonia, the Murrawarri Republic, West Papua, Bougainville, New Caledonia, and Northern Cyprus, Ryan D. Griffiths shows how the rules and informal practices of sovereign recognition create a strategic playing field between existing states and aspiring nations that he terms "the sovereignty game."

To win sovereign statehood, all secessionist movements have to maneuver on the same strategic playing field while varying their tactics according to local conditions. To obtain recognition, secessionist movements use tactics of electoral capture, nonviolent civil resistance, and violence. To persuade the home state and the international community, they appeal to normative arguments regarding earned sovereignty, decolonization, the right to choose, inherent sovereignty, and human rights.

The pursuit of independence can be enormously disruptive and is quite often violent. By advancing a theory that explains how sovereign recognition has succeeded in the past and is working in the present, and by anticipating the practices of future secessionist movements, Secession and the Sovereignty Game also prescribes solutions that could make the sovereignty game less conflictual.

1

MANY SECESSIONIST MOVEMENTS, ONE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM

Secession lies squarely at the juncture of internal and international politics.

—Horowitz 1985, 230

Secession is a common spectacle in world affairs. The high-flying secessionist movement in Catalonia, for example, has disrupted Spanish politics and created a constitutional crisis. On September 25, 2017, the Iraqi Kurds held a referendum on independence that was condemned by the Iraqi government and key regional actors. Bougainville held a referendum in late 2019, and may become the next independent sovereign state. Meanwhile, the breakaway region of Northern Cyprus is locked in a frozen state of division with the Republic of Cyprus, and there is no end in sight. In October 2018, the Morning Star flag of West Papua was brilliantly superimposed upon the Sydney Opera House, reminding the world that there are indigenous peoples who strive for independence in places where such flags are illegal.

One striking aspect of secession is its diversity. Indeed, the settings are often so different that it can seem like we are discussing different phenomena. The parades and public debates on the streets of Edinburgh look different from the Tuareg rebellion of the short-lived Republic of Azawad. The apparent freedom of the people of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) contrasts with the reports of the oppression of the Uighur. The Flemish independence movement consists of political parties that operate in a setting that is a world away, figuratively and literally, from the secessionist-prone regions of peripheral Myanmar or Mindanao. Commensurate with the diversity of settings is a multiplicity of methods. Some independence movements like the Catalan use combinations of electoral capture and civil demonstrations. In contrast, regions that lack the same geographic and political connectivity with their legal home state—regions like Abkhazia—are relegated to a de facto but unrecognized status where defense, deterrence, and diplomacy are critical. Other regions, from West Papua to Western Sahara, are faced with the hard choice between civil resistance and the use of violence.

Is there a strategy to all of this secessionist activity and can we make sense of the tactics we observe? For example, why do some independence movements form political parties that compete in elections when others choose to use extrainstitutional methods like sit-ins, strikes, or even armed insurgency? Put differently, why do some follow the precepts of Mahatma Gandhi as opposed to Che Guevara? Are violence and nonviolent civil resistance both useful tactics, and why do some groups choose one rather than the other? What role does normative persuasion play, and why do some movements appeal to principles regarding human rights when others are keen to showcase their ability to govern effectively? Whom are these arguments intended to persuade? Indeed, what are the obstacles to obtaining sovereign statehood, and what is the process by which it can be obtained? We need a theoretical framework to explain the purpose behind secessionist behavior.

There is considerable value in understanding the strategy and tactics of secession because they have far-reaching consequences. Secession has been the motivating force behind roughly half of the civil wars since 1945.¹ I estimated that there has been an average of fifteen secessionist conflicts per year since the end of World War II,² and Barbara Walter has argued that secessionism is the “chief source of violence in the world today.”³ Bougainville won a peace agreement in 2001, after more than ten years of civil war that destroyed most of the infrastructure on the main island and killed as many as 20,000 people (10 percent of the population). In 2013, a teacher in Buka told me that the Bougainville government faced a daunting challenge in training and educating the lost generation that came of age during the war. There were over sixty secessionist movements as of 2017, and these groups were surprisingly networked and aware of the various ways that sovereignty can be obtained. Several scholars have conjectured that the practices surrounding recognition may create unfair outcomes and perverse incentives, convincing some that violence is the surest way to gain independence.⁴ If the strategy of secession promotes violence, it would be useful to understand not only why, but also when and where, so that proper policies can be established to save lives.

However, violence is not the only concern because, in one way or another, secession is always disruptive. As the Catalans know, it is a phenomenon that is felt from the parliament to the playground. In recent years, the issue of independence has been the master cleavage in the Catalan parliament and the cause of the constitutional crisis and imposition of direct rule in 2017. The divisiveness that follows can affect children. A friend of mine shared an experience he had when his five-year-old enrolled in a public, Catalan-speaking school in Gràcia, a neighborhood of Barcelona. His son was accustomed to saying his name using the Spanish pronunciation and was somewhat resistant to being addressed by the Catalan form. This led to some teasing by fellow students who eventually nicknamed him la facha (colloquial for “the fascist”) because of his association with Spain. The children were probably unaware of the historical significance of the term and had merely imbibed this terminology in the context of the independence movement. But the significance was not lost on the boy’s mother and father, who could each point to parents and grandparents who had suffered the persecution of fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal. After failing to have the issue properly addressed by the teachers and administration, the parents moved their son to a different school. The father, a Portuguese immigrant, identified that incident as the moment when his wife, a Catalan who was proud of her language and culture, turned away from Catalan nationalism.

Sometimes the social sorting that attends secessionist activity is hardened into militarized boundaries. The island of Cyprus was once composed of a majority Greek-speaking population that lived side by side with the Turkish minority. The ethnic conflict of the 1960s and 1970s led to a tragic and often violent unmixing of the two populations as the Turks moved north and the Greeks moved south, and the boundary between them became hardened as the UN-sponsored demilitarized zone known as the Green Line. To this day there are built structures, old neighborhoods, and the former international airport inside the buffer zone, derelict and crumbling. They are frozen in time, like the conflict itself, and the breakaway region of Northern Cyprus is stuck in a perpetual liminal state between reintegration and full sovereign statehood.

In the end, secession is a challenge to the state, a form of rebellion. Even at its most constructive, the activity that follows is disruptive. The debate around Scottish independence has divided families and polarized society. What would the social costs have been had the nationalists won the referendum in 2014? Secessionism is transformative, it is a fact of international life, and it is a phenomenon of great importance that we do not fully understand.

The Argument

This book is about the strategy and tactics of secessionist movements, and the game they play with states and the international community to win their sovereignty. I argue that the strategy of secession is shaped by the international recognition regime, and further contextualized by the setting in which any given secessionist movement operates. Let me define two key terms. First, a secessionist movement is a “self-identified nation inside a sovereign state that seeks to separate and form a new [recognized] sovereign state,” signified in the post-1945 era by joining the United Nations (UN) as a full member.⁵ Second, the international recognition regime is the evolving body of international legal norms, rules, and principles that determine when an applicant nation has the right to withdraw from an existing state and become a recognized independent sovereign state. I contend that at the strategic level, all contemporary secessionist movements are alike. Their settings may look different, but the strategic playing field is the same. All of them need to compel and persuade their home state and/or the international community to recognize them. The single biggest obstacle to any secessionist movement is its home state, because the international recognition regime assigns a great deal of weight to the interests of that state. Where the home state is reluctant to negotiate or is repressive, secessionists can go around it and attempt to enlist the support of the international community. This is the sovereignty game, and it applies to the entire diversity of movements from Abkhazia to Artsakh, Scotland to Catalonia, and West Papua to Bougainville.⁶

To secure their strategic goal, secessionist movements engage in two categories of tactics: compellence and normative appeal. Compellence is the use of assets to compel the home state and/or international community to make a change.⁷ It is direct action designed to increase the costs of not complying with secessionist demands. In this book I model three specific tactics of compellence: electoral capture, nonviolent civil resistance, and violence. Normative appeal includes a different set of tactics that are designed to showcase the grievances and demands of the aspiring nation and either change preferences on the issue or bring into the game previously uninvolved parties. I identify and examine a set of specific normative appeals: earned sovereignty, decolonization, the right to choose, inherent sovereignty, and human rights. Overall, compellence and normative appeal are analytically distinct because compellence is about incurring costs while normative appeal is about changing preferences.

Although all movements use compellence and normative appeal in pursuit of independence, they do so in different combinations that are shaped by local factors such as regime type, the strength of the state, and the degree to which the secessionist region is integrated with the home state. These factors coalesce around six identifiable kinds of movements: democratized, indigenous legal, weak combative, strong combative, decolonial, and de facto. These six kinds are not ideal-types but rather clusters of characteristics, not unlike peaks on a topographical map, that I have observed through an analysis of all contemporary movements. Secessionists are generally pragmatic and choose tactics that are made available by their setting.

The quote by Donald Horowitz at the beginning of the chapter underscores the fact that secession sits at the intersection of international and domestic politics.⁸ Presently, there is only one international system, one UN that secessionists aim to join, and one sovereignty game. To win sovereign statehood an aspiring nation has to conform to the rules given by the international recognition regime. That regime creates the perception of pathways to independence, and there is thus an outside-in character to secessionist strategy that changes over time as the international system changes.⁹ However, it is the internal, domestic environment that conditions the tactical choices for any given movement. In sum, all secessionist movements maneuver on the same strategic playing field, but their tactics vary according to local conditions.

Framing the Study

This book makes a number of important contributions to our understanding of secession. First, it brings together three research areas that are usually treated separately: the work on de facto states,¹⁰ the scholarship on secessionist political parties in advanced democracies,¹¹ and the study of secessionist conflict.¹² These three research areas constitute a kind of compartmentalization in the field because the relevant scholars are normally dialoguing within and not across groups. The work on de facto states looks at how unrecognized but empirical states endure in the international system, and the work is typically conducted by international relations scholars, sociologists, and geographers. The research on secessionist political parties merges with the study of electoral politics and federalism. The work on secessionist conflict blends with the civil-war literature. Yet many movements are discussed in more than one literature or move back and forth between them over time—the boundaries between them are hardly impermeable—and all of these movements are united by the fact that they are playing the same strategic game.

My theoretical framework clarifies the behavior of diverse secessionist movements and accurately predicts the tactics they adopt. Whereas much of the generalist secession literature centers on whether the movement becomes independent,¹³ I focus on what they do to achieve independence.¹⁴ This is a neglected area of research, and a vital one given that secessionist behavior is destabilizing and sometimes violent. Furthermore, my theory integrates the work on secession with the research on social movements,¹⁵ civil war,¹⁶ rebel diplomacy,¹⁷ and international law.¹⁸ I then test the implications from the theory through case studies and using original data on the tactics used by 136 secessionist movements between 1946 and 2011. Surprisingly, no one to my knowledge has put forth a strategic theory that cuts across these different literatures for how secessionist movements seek full sovereign recognition and has generated the necessary data to test that theory.

My theory is meant to explain the strategy and tactical behavior of all independence movements, and it encompasses the literatures on secessionist democratic parties, de facto states, and secessionist conflict. Nevertheless, there are elements of the larger picture that receive less attention. Although I do discuss the countersecession strategy of states in chapter 3, and in the case studies, the primary focus is on the movements themselves.¹⁹ Similarly, I treat my independence movements as unitary actors. But as I discuss in chapter 11, these movements are often divided and/or subject to fragmentation, and there is a marvelous literature on this topic.²⁰ For example, as Phil Roeder notes in a recent book,²¹ secessionist leaders are not only interacting strategically with the home state, they are also playing a more internal game as they attempt to win over the hearts and minds of their platform population. These are important parts of the larger picture, and I do address them at select points throughout the book, but they are not central elements of my analysis for reasons of parsimony.

The payoff that comes from controlling the scope of the study is that I can examine other crucial dynamics. For example, I bring in the “international” and show not only how it shapes the strategic playing field but also the very process by which a secessionist movement joins the club of...