Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect with me on Gab

US Congress Debated US Policy on National Self-Determination & Secessionist Movements

The US Congress’ Foreign Affairs House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats discussed the US policy on the recognition of self-determination movements.

Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the debate with a rather practical approach to the issue an inviting everyone to debate it with an open mind “Over time, it is natural for populations of people to move and change, just as the characteristics of governments change. We should, and must, expect this. Yet, U.S. foreign policy thinking too often acts as if the borders of a nation-state are set in stone. As circumstances change, the United States must be open to the possibility that peacefully changing borders makes sense and promotes stability. Around the world today, the existing borders have been set by empires and flukes of history just as much as by the will of the people. If self-determination movements seek to change their political situation, we should consider the possibility that addressing those grievances will improve, not harm, peace and stability.”

SecessionJason Sorens, author of several books on self-determination and with whom we have already had the pleasure to cooperate on several occasions, including conferences in Brussels and Barcelona organised jointly with Fundació Josep Irla, delivered a witness testimony.

He advocates for the constitutionalisation of the right to self-determination and the establishment of clear rules for independence referendums. He claims, “A legal path to independence can promote peace by constraining secessionists and central governments to pursue their aims through electoral and legislative means.”

On the question of whether the US should recognise newly independent states, he believes: “The U.S. government might wish to consider not only the interests of the host state, but also the interests of the seceding state and the effect of secession on regional stability. On average, replacing a state-to-nation relationship with a state-to-state relationship reduces violence.”

You can read his full testimony here.

Jason Sorens (SUNY) on the constitutionalisation of the right to self-determination from Centre Maurits Coppieters on Vimeo.

Professor Paul Williams also delivered a testimonial speech. He referred to the specific case of Scotland and Catalonia and its relationship with the EU. He argued that “Without a coherent and cohesive approach to these movements, the EU has placed itself in an impossible and precarious position. If the EU were to consider recognizing Catalonia, this action could encourage further referenda in Belgium, Cyprus, Slovakia, Romania, and possibly Italy, which are all grappling with their own self-determination movements, raising opposition from these members.

However, if the EU denies recognition to Catalonia, this may generate a frozen economic conflict in the core of Europe that would drain political capital and economic resources from an economically fragile Spain. This frozen economic conflict will also create a “state,” with the Euro as its currency and seven million Catalonians that could retain their EU citizenship while living outside the EU. Furthermore,in many European states, non-recognition would be perceived as anti-democratic. Such a move would be extremely difficult to justify, given that nearly three-dozen states have achieved recognition by EU member states in the past twenty-five years.”

You can read his full testimony here.

Finally, Ivan Vejvoda, from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, worries about the uncertainty linked to self-determination processes in Europe, questioning “If it does secede […] will the EU accept it as a new member and under what rules of the road. Many open questions.” You can read his full testimony here.

To conclude the debate, the Subcommittee Chairman showed an open view towards the creation of new states and acknowledged the need to tackle the debate, not to postpone it.

Bob Whitaker 2016

“Diverse” means formerly White… –Bob Whitaker

Bob Whitaker: A true American and former Reagan Administration appointee.

Political Power for European Americans!

European people should organize and advance their own interests just like every other group. Join our fight for Heritage and Identity!

The American Freedom Party needs your help! Send $10, $20, $50, $100, or any contribution you can via PayPal “Send Money” to or click here:

The American Freedom Party (AFP) supports the right to keep and bear arms. Emancipate yourself from the dinosaur Democrat and Republican parties. Join a National Party that puts America first, The American Freedom Party!

Support American Freedom Party growth and our heritage of Western civilization! The American Freedom Party is the only party that addresses issues concerning European-American communities and all Americans.

Nationalism! Not Globalism! — America First! Not America Last!
Freedom from Republicans. Freedom from Democrats. American Freedom Party! Political Power for European-Americans!

European-Americans should push back! European-Americans should abandon the Republicans and Democrats. Change your party allegiance to the American Freedom Party. A Nationalist party that shares the customs and heritage of the European American people. We need a Nationalist Party interested in defending our borders, preserving our language and promoting our culture. The American Freedom Party is not beholden to foreign governments, special interest groups, nor Wall Street. The American Freedom Party is for America First!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: American Voice, Establishment News

Comments are closed.