Irredentism is a word that is going to crop up alot in this blog and so it is best that I define it for the reader as a reference to refer back to.
So what on earth is Irredentism? Very few people in the world save for international political theorists have encountered it, and less than double digit numbers of books have even remotely addressed this concept, which is surprising because once defined in real situations today it becomes very easy to understand, and very significant given that it governs the relationship of many states with each other in , sometimes in a violent fashion.
1. Historic and basic definition:
Irredentism is Italian in origin and is drawn from the Italian word Irredenta which translates as; To Redeem,this definition in turn was the name taken by a group of 19th century Italian Nationalist's, the Italia Irredenta. The purpose and nature of this group? Quite simply the redeeming of Italian speaking areas from the rule of various foreign powers, namely Austria.
Put very simply, irredentism is a Nationalist or political process, by which states or non state nationalist groups call for the annexation of territory that is part of another state, owned by another state, and in some cases the annexation of a state in its entirety for a variety of reasons such as ethnicity, history or a component in a constitution.
2. Motivation of claims:
Irredentist claims are motivated by a variety of reasons, this can include but are not limited too the below reasons, and certainly in some cases can exist in conjunction with each other:
2.1 Ethnic/co-national Irredentism: This form of irredentism advocates the annexation of a territory based upon the presence of co-nationals, a current example is the Serbian irredentist claims to large areas of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, a historical example would be Nazi irredentism prior to world war two.
2.2 Historical irredentism: An Irredentist claim in this case is motivated by past possession of a territory whether it be actual or perceived, many sadly tend to fall in the perceived or at least exaggerated category, either bringing ridicule to the irredentist advocate (as was the case with the more nuttier elements of the SNP claiming Berwick Upon Tweed) or leading to unfortunate conflicts and pointless deterioration in relations between states, Nazi irredentism proving to be the most prominent example of the dangers associated with Historical irredentism.
2.3 Constitutional Irredentism: In most cases Irredentist states usually to try and add credibility to their claims and make sure that it never falls of the agenda; will formalize their claims to territories, by including the claim in question within their constitutions, the most prominent example today is the Argentine claim to the Falklands and other British South Atlantic territories which it recently in 1994 included within Part 3 section I of its constitution......history does not recall if the inhabitants of the Falklands gave democratic approval to this amendment.
2.4 Economic/Strategic Irredentism: Although no irredentist claims as such are advocated under such pretensions, it has become common knowledge that many claims advocated for other reasons are a smoke screen to hide true intentions....annexation of another countries rich mineral resources, strategic economic placement or purely for its strategic value. several examples spring to mind, the Venezuelan claim to well over 3/4 of Guyana, these 3/4 coincidentally just happen to straddle one of the richest mineral regions in Norther South America, other economic claims would include Iraq's claim to Oil rich Kuwait and also its strategic access to the sea, and last but not least, Spain's claim to Gibraltar, no coincidence to do with the fact Gibraltar controls all passage in and out of the Mediterranean and thus to and from the Suez.
2.5 Political Irredentism: This form of irredentist could probably be done in conjunction with most forms of irredentist, but in this specific context it is used as a means to garner nationalist support for a political gain in the short or long term, usually by exploiting an already established but very low level irredentist dispute, the most prominent example to date is undoubtedly the Falklands, which tends to fluctuate in sync with the popularity and electoral prospects of the incumbent Argentine Administration, other examples include Irish irredentism to Northern Ireland during the poverty stricken period after independence, where it was claimed that the British North was leaching the republics wealth and talent, nothing of course to do with the fact that post independence Ireland was ruled rather incompetent under a traditionalist conservative government.
"We wantss it! It belongs to usses!"
3. The great evil of irredentism.
Although in the 19th and 20th century, the claiming of territory as ones own, was in itself the norm of the day, as we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it seems increasingly anachronistic that states should still embark on a policy which demands the annexation of other states or territory, and even more so when, like in the majority of irredentism claims: involve the annexation of territory not inhabited by peoples of the same nationality or ethnicity of the claimant state, what is even more disturbing, that despite democratic objections irredentist states still continue to claim these territories, an example close to home would be Gibraltar. Despite 2 referendums (1967 and 2002) rejecting (with well over 90% of the vote) any change of sovereignty to Spain, however Spain still continually, despite these overwhelming democratic objections, claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
It is quite clear that irredentism is and has been a plague upon world politics for centuries. International relations, peace, prosperity, democracy, self-determination, human rights and much much more are under threat or have been violated in the name of a states irredentist claim.
Time and time again it has been inherently obvious that irredentism serves no benign purpose except to benefit the irredentist state at the expense of somebody else, it is an inherently extremist nationalist trait, as in most cases of irredentism the concerns of third parties even if they are in the majority of the claimed territory are wholeheartedly ignored in the pursuit of that territory or country, their voices drowned out in a frenzy of nationalist fanaticism. The late Myron Weiner was acutely aware of the danger of irredentist claims and noted in his writing The Macedonian Syndrome (New Balkan Journal of Politics, 2, March, 2000) that most irredentist states are driven by nationalist sentiment and obsession with the past. This obsession he tells us more often than not, leads to a manipulation of history in order to justify the irredentist states claims.
4. Benefits of Irredentism?
But it is not all to say gloom and doom, not all aspects of irredentism are vile nationalist reactions, some such as uniting a dispersed peoples can be inevitably beneficial to both the irredentist and the claimed territory. The Indian annexation of Goa stands as one of these few examples, as does the Unification of East and West Germany, who both had an irredentist claim on each other, but these rare examples share one trait, they were claiming territories with co-nationals and in the case of Goa where India's co-nationals lived under the rule of the a Portuguese Junta, thus in some cases irredentism can be a humanitarian response.
Even in cases where the irredentist is claiming a territory which contains natioanlities different from its own, a positive outcome can be achieved. The Aland islands dispute in the 20's is one such example.
The Majority Swedish speaking islands; (historically a part of the Swedish kingdom prior to their annexation by Russia in 1809) yet ruled by Finland, demanded at the close of world war 1, self-determination and a desire to be reunified with Sweden, a call reiterated by Sweden. The League of Nations, in what was that bodies first successful test in international arbitration, eventually decided that Finland should retain sovereignty of the islands, effectively ignoring the islanders self-determination, however Finland had placed various guarantees on the islands, granting them a very generous degree of autonomy, and exempting the population from Finlands longstanding practice of conscription.
Overall it has been agreed that Finnish rule has been benevolent, the islanders rights have been respected and their population and well being has grown and expanded greatly under Finnish rule, and the Islanders now see a common future with Finland, as a Swedish province within the republic of Finland.
5. Conclusions.
Overall though it seems that the Aland Islands are the exception to the rule, and generally, the claiming of territory by other states where the population share no common ethnicity nationality or allegiance to the claimant, tends to result in negative outcomes and circumstances.
Although there is possibly a moral case for claiming territory on which co-nationals reside on that basis. To claim territory where no co-nationals reside is a fundamentally immoral act, made more so by a refusal to abide by that groups desired and stated wishes, whether it is to be an identified state or remain as the territory of another state, an argument may be allowed in this respect, to support ignoring the population, but only within the confines of an occupied territory for instance with clear evidenced of a displaced population by violent means and ethnic cleansing, a prime example would be the current situation in Palestine and the Golan heights.
However far too many states have used the above reason to justify irredentist claims, many of them on false pretensions, especially when they appeal to distant history.
It is these historical claims which should be regarded as the most dangerous, because history can be and is re-interpreted and falsified by an irredentist state, the fluid nature of history means that any quote or action can be abused or made up to the suite the stance of any irredentist state. What is more, it is used as a mean to justify overriding human rights, take the respective claims of both Argentina and Spain to the Falklands and Gibraltar, both are based primarily on perceived historical possession dating back several centuries, is thus just that human rights and democracy should be ignored just to go and correct changes in the borders hundreds of years ago? I say not borders have changed dozens of times to donate in international law would be to legitimize wholesale violations of peoples self-determination and democracy the world over.
In my opinion irredentism claims can be summed up with a phrase from the film Inception (2010) "An Idea is like a Virus, resilient highly contagious and the seed of an idea can grow, it can grow to define you....or destroy you".
Like in Inception, irredentism is like a virus, the smallest idea of territorial ownership is planted and it grows over time into a contagion within a nations psyche, a malicious contagion which demands the overriding of democracy and human rights to satisfy the populist nationalist call of the day.
And like all viruses it needs to be fought tooth and nail to stop it gaining its wicked little way.......
2. Motivation of claims:
Irredentist claims are motivated by a variety of reasons, this can include but are not limited too the below reasons, and certainly in some cases can exist in conjunction with each other:
2.1 Ethnic/co-national Irredentism: This form of irredentism advocates the annexation of a territory based upon the presence of co-nationals, a current example is the Serbian irredentist claims to large areas of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Montenegro, a historical example would be Nazi irredentism prior to world war two.
2.2 Historical irredentism: An Irredentist claim in this case is motivated by past possession of a territory whether it be actual or perceived, many sadly tend to fall in the perceived or at least exaggerated category, either bringing ridicule to the irredentist advocate (as was the case with the more nuttier elements of the SNP claiming Berwick Upon Tweed) or leading to unfortunate conflicts and pointless deterioration in relations between states, Nazi irredentism proving to be the most prominent example of the dangers associated with Historical irredentism.
2.3 Constitutional Irredentism: In most cases Irredentist states usually to try and add credibility to their claims and make sure that it never falls of the agenda; will formalize their claims to territories, by including the claim in question within their constitutions, the most prominent example today is the Argentine claim to the Falklands and other British South Atlantic territories which it recently in 1994 included within Part 3 section I of its constitution......history does not recall if the inhabitants of the Falklands gave democratic approval to this amendment.
2.4 Economic/Strategic Irredentism: Although no irredentist claims as such are advocated under such pretensions, it has become common knowledge that many claims advocated for other reasons are a smoke screen to hide true intentions....annexation of another countries rich mineral resources, strategic economic placement or purely for its strategic value. several examples spring to mind, the Venezuelan claim to well over 3/4 of Guyana, these 3/4 coincidentally just happen to straddle one of the richest mineral regions in Norther South America, other economic claims would include Iraq's claim to Oil rich Kuwait and also its strategic access to the sea, and last but not least, Spain's claim to Gibraltar, no coincidence to do with the fact Gibraltar controls all passage in and out of the Mediterranean and thus to and from the Suez.
2.5 Political Irredentism: This form of irredentist could probably be done in conjunction with most forms of irredentist, but in this specific context it is used as a means to garner nationalist support for a political gain in the short or long term, usually by exploiting an already established but very low level irredentist dispute, the most prominent example to date is undoubtedly the Falklands, which tends to fluctuate in sync with the popularity and electoral prospects of the incumbent Argentine Administration, other examples include Irish irredentism to Northern Ireland during the poverty stricken period after independence, where it was claimed that the British North was leaching the republics wealth and talent, nothing of course to do with the fact that post independence Ireland was ruled rather incompetent under a traditionalist conservative government.
"We wantss it! It belongs to usses!"3. The great evil of irredentism.
Although in the 19th and 20th century, the claiming of territory as ones own, was in itself the norm of the day, as we reach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it seems increasingly anachronistic that states should still embark on a policy which demands the annexation of other states or territory, and even more so when, like in the majority of irredentism claims: involve the annexation of territory not inhabited by peoples of the same nationality or ethnicity of the claimant state, what is even more disturbing, that despite democratic objections irredentist states still continue to claim these territories, an example close to home would be Gibraltar. Despite 2 referendums (1967 and 2002) rejecting (with well over 90% of the vote) any change of sovereignty to Spain, however Spain still continually, despite these overwhelming democratic objections, claims sovereignty over Gibraltar.
It is quite clear that irredentism is and has been a plague upon world politics for centuries. International relations, peace, prosperity, democracy, self-determination, human rights and much much more are under threat or have been violated in the name of a states irredentist claim.
Time and time again it has been inherently obvious that irredentism serves no benign purpose except to benefit the irredentist state at the expense of somebody else, it is an inherently extremist nationalist trait, as in most cases of irredentism the concerns of third parties even if they are in the majority of the claimed territory are wholeheartedly ignored in the pursuit of that territory or country, their voices drowned out in a frenzy of nationalist fanaticism. The late Myron Weiner was acutely aware of the danger of irredentist claims and noted in his writing The Macedonian Syndrome (New Balkan Journal of Politics, 2, March, 2000) that most irredentist states are driven by nationalist sentiment and obsession with the past. This obsession he tells us more often than not, leads to a manipulation of history in order to justify the irredentist states claims.
4. Benefits of Irredentism?
But it is not all to say gloom and doom, not all aspects of irredentism are vile nationalist reactions, some such as uniting a dispersed peoples can be inevitably beneficial to both the irredentist and the claimed territory. The Indian annexation of Goa stands as one of these few examples, as does the Unification of East and West Germany, who both had an irredentist claim on each other, but these rare examples share one trait, they were claiming territories with co-nationals and in the case of Goa where India's co-nationals lived under the rule of the a Portuguese Junta, thus in some cases irredentism can be a humanitarian response.
Even in cases where the irredentist is claiming a territory which contains natioanlities different from its own, a positive outcome can be achieved. The Aland islands dispute in the 20's is one such example.
The Majority Swedish speaking islands; (historically a part of the Swedish kingdom prior to their annexation by Russia in 1809) yet ruled by Finland, demanded at the close of world war 1, self-determination and a desire to be reunified with Sweden, a call reiterated by Sweden. The League of Nations, in what was that bodies first successful test in international arbitration, eventually decided that Finland should retain sovereignty of the islands, effectively ignoring the islanders self-determination, however Finland had placed various guarantees on the islands, granting them a very generous degree of autonomy, and exempting the population from Finlands longstanding practice of conscription.
Overall it has been agreed that Finnish rule has been benevolent, the islanders rights have been respected and their population and well being has grown and expanded greatly under Finnish rule, and the Islanders now see a common future with Finland, as a Swedish province within the republic of Finland.
5. Conclusions.
Overall though it seems that the Aland Islands are the exception to the rule, and generally, the claiming of territory by other states where the population share no common ethnicity nationality or allegiance to the claimant, tends to result in negative outcomes and circumstances.
Although there is possibly a moral case for claiming territory on which co-nationals reside on that basis. To claim territory where no co-nationals reside is a fundamentally immoral act, made more so by a refusal to abide by that groups desired and stated wishes, whether it is to be an identified state or remain as the territory of another state, an argument may be allowed in this respect, to support ignoring the population, but only within the confines of an occupied territory for instance with clear evidenced of a displaced population by violent means and ethnic cleansing, a prime example would be the current situation in Palestine and the Golan heights.
However far too many states have used the above reason to justify irredentist claims, many of them on false pretensions, especially when they appeal to distant history.
It is these historical claims which should be regarded as the most dangerous, because history can be and is re-interpreted and falsified by an irredentist state, the fluid nature of history means that any quote or action can be abused or made up to the suite the stance of any irredentist state. What is more, it is used as a mean to justify overriding human rights, take the respective claims of both Argentina and Spain to the Falklands and Gibraltar, both are based primarily on perceived historical possession dating back several centuries, is thus just that human rights and democracy should be ignored just to go and correct changes in the borders hundreds of years ago? I say not borders have changed dozens of times to donate in international law would be to legitimize wholesale violations of peoples self-determination and democracy the world over.
In my opinion irredentism claims can be summed up with a phrase from the film Inception (2010) "An Idea is like a Virus, resilient highly contagious and the seed of an idea can grow, it can grow to define you....or destroy you".
Like in Inception, irredentism is like a virus, the smallest idea of territorial ownership is planted and it grows over time into a contagion within a nations psyche, a malicious contagion which demands the overriding of democracy and human rights to satisfy the populist nationalist call of the day.
And like all viruses it needs to be fought tooth and nail to stop it gaining its wicked little way.......
