COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and 13
May 2003
Protection
of Human Rights
Fifty-fifth
Session
Working
Group on Minorities
Ninth
Session
Geneva,
12-16 May 2003
AGENDA
ITEM 3(b): EXAMINING POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS INVOLVING MINORITIES, INCLUDING THE PROMOTION OF MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN AND AMONG MINORITIES AND
GOVERNMENTS
Statement
by Ms. Elisabeth Nauclér, Head of Administration
The
Government of the Åland Islands
Mr.
Chairman,
First of
all I would like to congratulate Mr Tom Hadden for his excellent contribution to
this years session. His paper is a very valuable starting point for the future
practice of the Working Group.
I am here
as an observer in the Finnish delegation, but as I do have my daily work in the
administration of the Åland Government I am continually encountering problems as
well as challenges in connexion with discussions about autonomy, and thereby a
need for a concept of autonomy as well as the need for further actions on
autonomy by the Working Group. To be cautious I would therefore like to say that
my ideas may not necessarily coincide with those of the Finnish delegation, but
in fact I do believe that we have quite a common ground for our thoughts on this
work.
The
decision that determined the statehood of the Åland Islands was made here in
Geneva by the League of Nations in 1921 and it was decided that the solution
should be seen as a case of minority protection. The history of the Åland
autonomy is therefore long and cumbersome, but nevertheless one of the best
examples of autonomy as a conflict
solving mechanism in an international framework with a sustainable outcome. The
interest in the autonomy of the Åland Islands is therefore always on the agenda
and attracting the interest of other minority groups. Since I addressed this
audience last year we have arranged a seminar in Oslo ( December 2002) with the
chairman Mr Asbjörn Eide as one of the speakers. The title of the seminar was
"Autonomy a useful tool for peace mediators?" It ended with a question mark, but
I think one could conclude by saying yes, and even yes, definitely in some cases. One of the speakers was
Ambassador Erik Solheim from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry engaged in the peace
talks in Sri Lanka. As a result of this seminar representatives of the
Liberation Army of the Tamil Tigers from Sri Lanka came to visit the Åland
Islands this year to see for them selves how an autonomy works in practice, with
its shortcomings as well as its successes.
Among other
groups having expressed great interest in the Åland autonomy during, and also
sent a delegation to the islands during this past year is the autonomous region
of Vojvodina in Serbia. An autonomy that was abolished along with the autonomy
of Kosovo, but is now being reinstalled. The work on the question of
Tansniestria and Gagauzia in Modova that was initiated by the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly has also been followed up. Just to give you a short overview of the
most recent developments.
One could
argue that if a society is democratic and all citizens have equal rights there
is no need for any special rights or affirmative actions. We all know that this
is the optimal solution, and what we all struggle for, but it is unfortunately
not the reality. Autonomy is in no way the only way of solving minority
conflicts, on the contrary, but it is too important and useful to be left out of
a future strategy.
Why are
these groups coming to the Åland Islands? Is our autonomy a model for others?
The answer is NO. There are no models. The Åland question was and is unique,
even if not as unique as some would claim, and the same applies to most autonomy
solutions. They all have their own background which is based on historical
events, military actions, etc. They have different needs, resources and
possibilities. It is not the fact that the conflict was settled by an
international organization, but the mechanisms we have worked out over the eight
decades that our autonomy has existed that is of interest to others, and that we
are ready to share with other minority groups. Ways of negotiating, compromising
and solving conflicts, and I can assure you there is a need for it. We do
disagree on several issues. A majority always believe that the minority asks for
more than what they deserve, and the minority always demands for more than they
can get, and they should, because no one else is demanding on there behalf.
Mr Hadden
is in his paper stating that there has been a lack of focus on the failure of
European practice in respect of the continuing violent conflicts over autonomy
and self-determination for some established national minorities in Spain,
Corsica and Balkans. This is of
course true. Especially all the failures in the Balkans, starting with the Z-4
plan in Croatia and we have not yet seen the end, as there is not yet a the final solution to the future of
Kosovo. No doubt, this has left us all with some mixed feelings to the autonomy
approach. In some parts of the world autonomy is due to recent developments
viewed only as a mean to reach independence. In a few cases this is maybe the
only, and best outcome of a conflict, but these few cases should not make us
believe that autonomy solutions should be out ruled as a conflict solving
mechanism in other regions. Autonomy should be looked upon as an alternative to
secession, and not as a way to independence. An autonomy can exist and flourish
if it is allowed to expand and improve according to some given
limits.
I am not
here to advocate for autonomy as a general concept for protection of minority
rights, but I do strongly believe in the mechanisms for power-sharing that has
worked out within the framework of autonomy solutions as a conflict-solving
mechanism. I get more and more convinced about this as I in my daily work in the
Åland Government encounter an increasing interest for autonomy solutions from
the international arena.
Further
details on the Åland Islands' autonomy can be read, for instance, in the working
paper (E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2001/WP.5) which is a study prepared by an independent
minority rights expert, Dr. Lauri Hannikainen. This working paper was before the
Working Group on Minorities at its seventh session in May 2001, and Mr Hadden
has made reference to it. There are
many cases where the only solution to a conflict is autonomy in one or another
version, hence initiatives should be taken to develop an international
concept.
As already
stated by the member of the Expert Group, Mr Kartashkin there is a need for
different approaches to the question of autonomy in different regions, and
during different periods. Some of the elements of the autonomy of the Åland
autonomy would probably not have been acceptable today, but did fly in the 1920th.
The
autonomy granted to the Ålanders was intended to be a permanent solution to
guarantee the Swedish language and culture of the population, and did never aim
at assimilation or integration. In other cases autonomy may be created as a way
to integrate. The autonomy solutions are all different, but not as unique as
some minorities tend to believe. They do have many common elements, and there is
therefore a need for further work on a concept. It is useful to look into the
mechanisms already in place and working elsewhere when creating new models.
Mr Hadden
is in his recommendations for the form and content of the proposed regional
declaring the need for consultations with representatives and experts from the
regions concerned when preparing Guidelines or Codes of Practice. He is
furthermore stating that there is a need for discussion and guidance on the
potentially controversial issues of self-determination or autonomy and their
relationship to territorial integrity. I would like to strongly support the idea
of further discussions and guidance. We should not avoid the difficult political
questions nor let the failure and short comings of the international society in
concerning possible autonomy solutions in other regions. The question of the
right of self-determination should be tackled instead of avoided. An unclear or
false notion of self-determination has raised many expectations in vain, and
such further mistakes should be avoided through clearer clarifications.
To conclude
with I would like to urge the Working Group to continue their efforts to find a
way ahead for elaborating useful autonomy solutions to be applied in different
circumstances, to answer the difficult questions instead of avoiding them, and
to think of useful mechanisms to make them function in practise and last over a
longer period of time.
Mr
Chairman,
I wish to
thank you for your work and encourage you to continue your efforts on the issue
of autonomy as well as minority rights within the framework of human
rights.
Thank
you.
Elisabeth
Nauclér